Image via Wikipedia
Yesterday the report into the expenses claims that cost David Laws his cabinet job was officially made public. He apologised to the House, and next week MPs will vote on on suspending him from Parliament for 7 days.
The punishment certainly seems severe, particularly as the report made clear that “if he had been more open, Mr Laws would have had substantial legitimate claims against his Somerset property.” It is generally accepted that had David Laws designated his constituency property in Somerset as his second home not his main one he could have charged the taxpayer around £30,000 more than he did. Furthermore, former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who committed a similar offence by renting a room in her sisters house and claiming for it (never mind her husband’s entertainment,) just got a slap on the wrists.
The commissioner, John Lyons, concluded in his report that “I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Laws’ primary motivation was to keep secret the sexuality that he had hidden”. Therein lies the problem with Laws case, and the real reason for my dislike of the punishment dished out. Laws’ broke the rules, and admits to doing so. However, anyone with any common sense can tell that this rule breaking was absolutely not about money. (For those making sarcastic comments about him being a millionaire, taking a 14k job in the Lib Dems and then being a fulltime candidate for 2 years rather eats away at funds over the years.) My main feeling in this case is one of sadness, that a man of Laws intelligence and desire for public service felt unable to be open about his sexuality.
Having seen some of the newspaper coverage on this, making smirky comments about his ‘gay lover’ as opposed to a long term partner, it’s all too apparent why Laws tried so desperately to keep his private life just that. (The Evening Standard in London is a particular offender on this front, they should be ashamed of yesterday’s front page.) It might be easier, but it still isn’t that pleasant to be in the heart of politics and the media and be gay. One the fuss over this case dies down, we really need to start asking ourselves why once again.
Laws’ friend and former colleague Olly Grender described the case as a” showcase trial” in the New Statesman and she is right. While Hazel Blears can wave a cheque at a tv camera and scuttle back to her work, and Jacqui Smith is now a pornography expert, Laws is very publicly being put through the wringer, (not least by whoever disgracefully leaked the report before even Laws himself knew what was going to happen to him.) Perhaps it is because he is a Lib Dem -the party who tried to be whiter than white on expenses – perhaps it is because being gay still has a pathetic whiff of scandal about it, perhaps it is because he was in the 2nd most senior economic position in government when the Telegraph finally decided to release the story, but Laws seems to have been the chosen fall guy for the next part of the expenses scandal.
It is to the detriment of the public and our politics that the committee has decided to flex its muscles on this not-for-profit case, and slow down David Laws’ return to government.
May 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm
I wish someone could explain to me why – if David Laws wasn’t motivated by the money – he claimed at a rate of £3000 a year above the market rate for his accommodation. In effect, by concealing their relationship and claiming above the market rate, he gave his partner a taxpayer-funded allowance of £3000 a year. It astonishes me that people defend this kind of behaviour on the part of an MP.
May 13, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Hello Chris, it is about rental levels and contractual agreements. David downloaded from the internet a “lodging agreement” which has a one month eviction period, confines you to one spare bedroom, and restricts sticking posters on the wall etc, had he downloaded the form for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (which gives you full use of a house, a much longer eviction period and the ability to stick posters anywhere) this would not have been an issue. The Commissioners independent assessors investigated rental levels on the basis of a lodging agreement, whilst the Commissioner in his report accepted that the figures were entirely accurate and the right level of rental for an AST they were not for a lodging agreement. Of course if you accept the first overall breach of the rules that he should have declared his home in the constituency as his second home then none of this would have been an issue. He would as a matter of course been able to claim 100% of the costs of the larger constituency home as oppose to 50% of the costs of the smaller London home which the Commissioner accepted totalled some £30,000. Which is why the Commissioner was very clear that this breach of rules was not for financial gain therefore not criminal.