7th. February 2011.
Old habits die hard.......................
It seems from recent press coverage that the Westminster Parliamentary constituency of Livingston has gone from one Honourable sic Member of Parliament guilty of expenses irregularities to another. On the day the former incumbent, Jim Devine, appeared in court answering charges of expenses fraud, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority published details of his successor’s claims.
It transpires that Graham Morrice MP for Livingston included 24 items of expenditure for travel between his Livingston home and his constituency office. The £1.60 claims were rejected by IPSA because they were not an allowable expense. True, in the context of what was highlighted at the height of the MP’s expenses scandal, these amounts pale into insignificance. But there is more to this than meets the eye.
That these claims were made only months after he took up his post as MP is bad enough. He may claim he was naive and didn’t know the rules (we’ve heard that before from a host of MPs) but that really doesn’t wash. He is an experienced Councillor of 20 years as he often reminds us, who knows about the requirements of accuracy in expenses claims. He should have acquainted himself with the rules, but clearly he didn’t bother. In view of his predecessor’s alleged wrong-doing in the field of expenses, you might have thought that Mr. Morrice would have made sure that his claims were accurate and admissible. Then again, perhaps he is suffering from the arrogance often associated with MPs, of the “early onset” variety.
Mr. Morrice has recently been heard bemoaning the fact that IPSA publish disallowed claims. Surely if you follow the rules and get it right in the first place, you’ve nothing to hide. If in doubt, you can always ask the Parliamentary Fees Office, rather than chance your arm. He has also been complaining that becoming an MP has cost him “thousands of pounds”. Was that the motivation for trying to claim even the most derisory of dis-allowable expenses? He gave up his Councillor’s allowance in recognition that he would be better off at Westminster, so is he now regretting being so charitable?
When he was Leader of the Labour Group on West Lothian Council in 2009 he reported members of the ruling administration to the Standards Commission, and singled one member out for failing to declare a £100 donation at a Council meeting. The Councillor involved had made a declaration on the public Register of Interests, and had withdrawn from the meeting as a result of another declared financial interest. But Councillor Morrice made the complaint anyway as the rules required a specific declaration for the £100.
By his own standards, Mr. Morrice has little to complain about. He knew, or should have known the rules, and if he was in doubt, he should have checked. He is on record as saying that the previous expenses regime was in need of change. Few would disagree with that. But surely a vocal opponent of the old system shouldn’t really be caught out so early in their new career? That smacks of the same complacency redolent in the operation of the old system.
In view of his lack of contribution at Westminster since his election, and admittedly he is not the worst, perhaps he should step down as MP and return to the more flexible expenses he-allegedly-enjoyed on the Council? Or perhaps he should step down from the Council, thus allowing him time to read the rules for the place where he claims his significantly increased salary and expenses.
Mr. Morrice will certainly reject any criticism of his conduct when he finds his voice, which he appeared to lose for many months following his move to Westminster.
He is a hard man to ignore, but it is well worth the effort!
