A moat too far - MPs expenses and financial management

Now, what can we possibly say that hasn't already been said about the MPs expenses debacle?

Well from our perspective it has a number of characteristics in common with other financial scandals whether in the public or private sector, which illustrate poor financial management and control.

1. An unclear policy
Much has been made by many MPs trying to mitigate their disgraceful behaviour by claiming that the expenses policy and regime was unclear. Certainly by what has been reported in the press, the fees office seemed to have a high degree of discretion in how much for example of a £2,300 plasma TV would be reimbursed. They also had policies which weren't communicated eg. that they would normally pay no more than £750 for a TV. But if that was the case why didn't they write it in and communicate it? Why did the John Lewis list only eke out into the public domain by chance last year? This can only have increased confusion and inconsistency in the application of the policy, such as it was.

2. A weak finance function
Most MPs are a pretty forthright lot. Perhaps they don't always smack you on the chin like John Prescott but I suspect many of them can be fairly intimidating to administrative staff in the fees office. It does seem that the sarcastic and patronising correspondence from MPs to fees office staff that has come to light may have placed pressure on the fees office to pay claims which they might not otherwise have done. Apparently, there was also a fair bit of bullying going on .

3. Management override
A powerful management team or CEO in any organisation can often get their own way (passim. Fred Goodwin etc.). In this case the fees office seem not to have been supported by anyone in the House of Commons. Indeed two of the three main political parties consistently voted against greater disclosure and even for their own exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000!

4. Unclear reporting lines
On top of all this the reporting lines for the fees office were somewhat unclear and incestuous as The Guardian has clearly shown . If there's no one at the "board" level with accountability then those at the board level have greater lee way to abuse the system. In the Commons, the most important person is the Speaker and it is his responsibility to safeguard the reputation of the House. His failure to do so and his mocking of those seeking it would be a dismissible offence in most organisations.

5. A misunderstanding of the ethos
Most people would understand clearly that expense claims are for costs incurred so that you aren't out of pocket in performing duties for your employer. Was it really beyond MPs to understand this? Or was it even stated anywhere? Or was it as a concept overridden by daily sloppy practice in the organisation? Who was the guardian of financial prudence in the House?

When you get one of these issues arising it's a cause for concern, but when you get all five it's a disaster waiting to happen.

So what next? Well, in most organisations an issue like this would be dealt with quickly to produce an effective solution which have broad support. The measure of the House, the Speaker and the party leaders will now be how quickly they can produce a solution which meets the publics expectation for common sense.

Steve Easterbrook, CEO of McDonalds UK was on Question Time last week and was the voice of common sense and good business practice and was puzzled why this could not be fixed within 48 hours.

We wait with bated breath to see how quickly the honourable members take to deal with the issue and when the moat will stop rocking this hitherto fine institution.

(Meanwhile, this is a classic- See Eric Pickles MP explaining why he needs two homes in the capital to do his job).

Ash Mehta