The end of the line for a dedicated public servant whose only crime was being caught?

The end of the line for a dedicated public servant whose only crime was being caught?

By John Hicks, Station Director

 

If the Member of Parliament for Bracknell in Berkshire (UK), Andrew Mackay MP, was hoping to slip into the public meeting he had called to explain his resignation from the Opposition, Conservative, Leader’s Office as senior political adviser then he has misjudged the amount of media interest.

He turned up over an hour before the scheduled start to be met by a barrage of TV, radio and newspaper journalists and crews all scrambling for a few words of wisdom.

Within the hour, the public meeting of 400 residents was convened by a former Rector of Bracknell who has been called back to chair the meeting impartially.

It was an extraordinary sight. A sitting member of parliament having to get on stage to say “sorry” – sorry for taking money from the public purse to which he was not entitled, sorry for having let his leader down, sorry for losing office, sorry for letting the people of Bracknell down, sorry for his serious lack of judgement and sorry for dragging us out on a Friday evening of a holiday weekend.

He might have thought that his bravery in putting himself in the firing line of constituents’ anger and his immediate apology might have satisfied the majority of constituents present, especially when he reminded them of his dedicated public service to the town extending over 26 years, the fact that he had not been “fingered” by the newspapers and that he had volunteered his resignation as David Cameron’s adviser before his expenses were public knowledge. Above all, he claims that, before starting to submit his claims for a second home not in his constituency, he took advice from the officials at the Fees Office who suggested how he should claim.

Sadly for him, that did little to satisfy many, probably the majority, of people present.

There was little doubt that Andrew Mackay has worked hard for the constituency over many years and there was much praise.

But, several of those that sang his praises added that he should reflect on whether or not the best interests of the Conservative party would be served by putting himself up for re-selection at the next General Election.

Mr Mackay did explain that he did not need to stand for re-selection as that process had been gone through 18 months ago. He was volunteering to stand before the constituency party and asking them to confirm his selection. Another brave act or an attempt to head off a de-selection process, who knows? But he did not get universal approval even from Tory die-hards.

Inevitably, his political opponents seized the moment and hammered him with questions such as why was he not standing down immediately, why did he take the money in the first place, did he not agree that his accepted serious lack of judgement did not make him a suitable representative of the people and why claiming for food or re-glazing his conservatory was acceptable.

His argument that he claimed only what was allowed through the Fees Office held little sway. After all, they only operated a system the MP’s had themselves set down. The same Fees Office that pay Sinn Fein MP’s second home allowances even though they have never taken up their parliamentary seats!

There was no apology for not having a home at all in the constituency. This was a major topic for debate, as it has been in the area ever since it was revealed that he has never lived here. How could Mr Mackay think it was right to claim for a second home in London when his first home was in Bromsgrove, hundreds of miles away? In fact, many aggrieved citizens questioned whether or not he should claim anything as other local MP’s commute to London and do not claim any second home allowance.

He did answer one question robustly. He insisted that he had never ever said to anyone that he lived in the constituency. A member of the public asked why, during his term as Opposition Northern Ireland spokesperson, his staff said they could not say where he lived. Mr Mackay explained that, because he was on the IRA hit list, his address could not be divulged at the time. His representatives never said that he lived in the constituency, nor did they deny it, they were under instructions not to say anything.

There was much heckling. Calls for him to stand down as an MP and to repay the money were frequently heard. As far as repayment is concerned, Mr Mackay undertook to repay any money the independent enquiry requires him to. When asked why he didn’t pay it back now, he replied that he needed to be told how much to repay. This was greeted with many calls to “repay all of it”.

One constituent reminded Mr Mackay of e-mail correspondence they had exchanged early in May, when they had discussed how to clean up parliament of expenses excesses. Apparently, when the constituent had suggested that all those guilty of sharp practice in claiming should have the whip withdrawn, Mr Mackay had replied “Absolutely right!” This was met with much laughter.

There were equal measures of laughter when someone drew Mr Mackay’s attention to the announcement by Gosport MP, Sir Peter Viggers, that he was standing down. This was over the issue of a claim for a £1600 floating duck house for his pond. The resident asked why £1600 was a resigning issue when £140,000 in Mr Mackay’s case was not! Mr Mackay’s response that “Sir Peter was 70″ did not impress many.

A former Metropolitan Police Officer in the audience suggested that Mr Mackay was guilty of fraud not, as his local party chairman had declared, “a little bit naughty”.  He also drew Mr Mackay’s attention to the parliamentary rules book which laid down some guiding principles and questioned how many the MP had followed. Mr Mackay said that was for others to judge. When he denied having committed fraud he was greeted with shouts of “rubbish”.

So, just after an hour, the meeting drew to a close.

There were people in the audience who were supportive of Mr Mackay. There were others who felt that he had done an admirable job as an MP. The greater number felt that he should either resign now or at, the very least, stand down at the next election to save dragging the conservative party down with him and let extremists win elections.

This meeting may signal the beginning of a sad end of an illustrious career of public service.  There is little doubt that Mr Mackay has worked hard for the constituency. His agreed lack of judgement in claiming tens of thousands of pounds to which he was not entitled may or may not be fraud but it was clearly unacceptable and the majority at the public meeting were not persuaded that he should stay as our political representative.

The next step is for the local conservatives to decide if Mr Mackay should remain as the candidate for the next election. That is unless the Queen decides that Parliament has lost the moral authority to govern and she declines to give Royal Assent to any Bills or dissolves Parliament directly.