Members of Parliament have a duty to demonstrate leadership in the observation of the ‘7 Nolan principles of public life’, as set out in the Parliamentary code of conduct. Ultimately, it will be the public, not the MPs’ or their leaders, that determine whether or not MPs’ involved in the expense scandal have observed those principals or simply paid lip service to them. I have reproduced the 7 Nolan principals below;

Selflessness : Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity : Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity : In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability : Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness : Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty : Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership : Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

MPs, would do well to consider the following principles; Selflessness and Accountability, whilst leaders need to take account of the principle behind Leadership. Party leaders should not need reminding that it is not acceptable for ‘wayward’ MPs to simply be moved from the front line. That is a fudge. Those MPs that cannot justify their expense claims as wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of their Parliamentary duties must be deselected and denied the opportunity of ever standing for the party again. It doesn’t matter if many of their colleagues were at it, each and every member of parliament has to be responsible for his or her own actions.  Anything less that deselection would not demonstrate leadership, but weakness, moreover, it would imply that the party itself condones such abuse.

Further, an MP that may be guilty of fraud or deception in relation to their expense claims must be referred to the Police, not by an outside body or a member of the public, but the party itself. If there is no intent to commit fraud or deception, then the MP will be offered the opportunity to clear his or her name, public indignation is not sufficient to presume innocence. Our MPs should have nothing to fear from a system that they, as ‘law makers’, have themselves introduced or amended.

I would remind all party leaders that this is public money not theirs, so the benefit of the doubt must not be given to any MP unless or until the public has been consulted and agreed. The public are the aggrieved party. For any party leader that is struggling with this concept, I would argue that the clue is contained within one of the 7 Nolan principles “Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest“, in other words, party interests cannot be placed first.

News that the Liberal Democrats have been ordered by the Information Commissioner’s Office to halt their automated phone calls and Nick Clegg’s subsequent reported response to this decision pretty much sums up the arrogance of relative youth, specifically in relation to politicians, who should know better.

Anyone that has ever received an automated call will know just how infuriating they are. The Liberal Democrats, seeking to be a party that embraces new technology, went ahead anyway. Of course there are rules, because companies are not allowed to use automated calls for direct marketing purposes, unless the recipient has specifically opted in. The Liberal Democrats tried to argue that it was not direct marketing, but the Information Commissioner’s Office did not agree. The LibDems said that because they were also asking people questions on what they thought about the party’s policies, it should not be considered direct marketing, this was evidently a way to circumvent the rules. We should all be asking ourselves if this can truly be a party for government, if they go ahead and do something that they know we all find irritating in the knowledge that it was likely to be against the rules. Surely they could have asked first, before they embarked on this programme, at least that may have been more responsible. 

Worse still was Nick Clegg’s response. He apparantly denied that the evening calls were likely to anger people or disturb them when they are trying to get children to sleep or are relaxing watching TV, he is reported to have said “I rather hope it won’t disturb. People don’t have to pick up the phone if they don’t like the time at which the call is made.” What an arrogant response, how are we to trust someone that has such little regard to the voters right to avoid unsolicited calls from a machine?

For anyone that may believe the Liberal Democrats just made an honest mistake, it is worth noting the comments made by Tricia Marwick, the MSP for the Scottish National Party who said: “The hypocrisy of the Lib Dems in making these calls knows no bounds. Having reported other parties for making similar calls and having run a campaign against unwanted telesales calls themselves the Lib Dems were well aware of their actions.”

I believe the statement from Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith, pretty much summed it up when he said: “The ICO has consistently made clear that the promotion of a political party counts as marketing.

“We have previously issued detailed guidance to all major political parties on this subject.

“Many people find unsolicited automated calls particularly intrusive and annoying so it is important that any organisation making such calls ensures that individuals have given their consent before they are targeted.”

Nick Clegg would do well to stop trying to embrace technology that satisfies only the instigator at the expense of the recipient, particularly when he will be relying on these same people to elect his members of parliament at the next election. The party may also do well to note, when challenged, Nick Clegg;s dismissive approach in relation to the people who may have been subjected to these unsolicited calls.