Conway escapes prosecution

The police have announced that they will not be mounting a prosecution against Derek Conway. They feel that they cannot obtain sufficient evidence.

This is probably fair, for at least two reasons.

1) The legislation is badly drafted and inadequately supervised. Sanctions available are too few to cover various possible offences. Conway would have been perhaps the first offender to face prosecution, and there could well have been an appeal, and possible other cases emerging. To allow significant expense claims without receipts, payment on second homes, and many others, enabled many to get their nose in the trough. It was assumed that "members" are honourable, which is not always true and they certainly give every sign of exploiting the rules to increase their own personal or family wealth.

2) There are other offenders. To judge from the fairly muted condemnation of Conway when his fault was exposed, there are several other MPs who are in danger of "living in greenhouses". Some of these, to judge from accounts and rumours, could be well established and senior. The reluctance of the Speaker, and others, to reveal details, suggests that they like their "nice little earners". It would have been an injustice to have persecuted the one, and left many others free.

Conway has had severe punishment. He is something of a pariah, his party has effectively disowned him, and his time as MP seems to be limited to just two more years at most. This does not include any shame he may feel.

What should be done to improve matters in the future is less clear.
i) Should all allowances be included as salary? Some MPs are suggesting that their salary should be increased by £40,000 to £100,000, which would have the virtue of all being potentially taxable.Would this, however, take account of differences between MPs, - some have their only residence in London?

ii) Why should MPs have to own their second(near London) residence, and so gain wealth at our expense? Why not refund them their rents up to a level, or build flats for their use?

iii) Why not make all claims absolutely visible? Why should some claim £180,000 a year in all expenses while others claim little more than £50,000, even if some have to travel from remote constituencies? If it is known that a sample of (very high) claims will be investigated in detail each year, with appropriate and clear penalties laid down, this would encourage most to avoid creative accounting and misuse of funds.

iii) Prices at John Lewis shops have been used to set maxima for prices of goods for second homes. This is generous, especially as MPs are free to transfer any goods to their other home. So an MP may have up to £750 for a television set, which he could take to his family home, and use the old battered family one, if at all, in London? Why should they be able to claim a cost of living allowance while they are away, and also enjoy subsidised wine and food in Westminister? It may be cumbersome and unpleasant for MPs to know that their purchases may be questioned, but everyone else knows that the Taxman roots round everyone else to know what benefits in kind we have enjoyed.