How do you solve a problem like Maria?

Dennis Skinner made the quip in the House of Commons the other day (referring to Maria Miller) “How do we solve a problem like Maria?” Today she solved it herself (in part anyway) by resigning from the cabinet.

I’m not going over the background to the story here. There has been enough coverage about it for the last week. I just wish to make some observations.

Who guards the guards?

I was the first boy in my school to fail “O” level Latin. (Not quite as dramatic as it seems. We were the first year to sit it and there were only two boys in the class.) So my grasp of Latin is limited. But I do remember the quotation Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Which is usually translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Also sometimes rendered as "Who watches the watchmen?"

In modern usage, it is frequently associated with the problem of political corruption. And the Maria Miller case is a case in point. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for standards found that she had over claimed her expenses by £45,000 and ordered her to repay it all. However, a committee of MPs rejected the independent findings and instead ordered her to repay a much smaller amount and issue and apology. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It’s no good MPs claiming that they are ultimately held to account every five years by the electorate. They need a body to see oversee standards all the time. MPs claim to be professionals but unlike lawyers, doctors and nurses (for example) they do not have an independent professional body to discipline them.

The press can claim some credit for holding MPs to account. So there is some risk that any changes to press freedom could stop the press' ability to challenge. That said, the press cannot criticise MPs policing themselves when that is what the press wants to do to itself.

Expenses

I don’t know of any other job that allows employees to claim expenses like MPs. Yes apparently things have tightened up since the days of Duck Houses and moat cleaning. But to be allowed to claim mortgage payments on a home beggars belief. Other people have to pay their mortgages out of their own pocket. Their employers don’t pay the mortgage for them!

Yes, MPs are in the odd position of needing to have a base in London and a base in (or near) their constituencies. But it would be easy enough to solve the London problem. Each MP would be offered a standard flat to stay in during the time they are in London. And they then buy – from their own pocket - a house in the constituency.

It’s not difficult.

Prosecution

In the job I had immediately before becoming a Methodist minister, I managed a benefit fraud investigation team. A frequent defence of those caught wrongly claiming benefit was “it was a mistake. I’ll pay it back and I won’t do it again”. This didn’t wash with us. We always prosecuted or, for smaller amounts (usually less than £750) they’d either be formally cautioned by the police or made to pay the money back under what was termed an Administrative Penalty. In other words all the money had to be repaid with interest.

Clearly, MPs were satisfied with the “It was a mistake and I’ll pay it back” defence of Maria Miller. None of us know whether there are enough grounds to prosecute Maria Miller. But if there is evidence then it should be tested in the courts. Why should an MP be held to a different standard to a benefit fraudster?

Greed

Like so many of the MPs expenses stories over the last few years, it appears to me that this episode boils down purely to greed. And it is greed and the love of money that is making our society become rotten to the core. Some may question my qualification “become”. I do not think all of society is rotten. But greed – whether the person fiddling their benefit claim, or their taxes or their expenses – seems to cause so much unrest.

We are just about to enter Holy Week. A time of year when Christians recall the last week of Jesus’ earthly life prior to the crucifixion.

I’ve just finished reading an excellent book by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan “The last week – what the Gospels really teach about Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem”. And one of the points they make is that Jesus enetered Jerusalem on a collision course with the Roman and Jewish Temple authorities. His whole ministry was based upon challenging injustice and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. (During the last week Jesus made an attack on the corrupt practices operating in the Temple via the money changers for example.)

The authorities did not like Jesus’ message and had Jesus executed. That is the theme of the book. (I would argue there is more to it than that. But nevertheless that is part of it.)

2,000 years on it is right that the message of justice is still preached and that those of us with a conscience (whether formed by Christian belief or other beliefs) should challenge injustice. From the top to the bottom of society.