The moral standards of our MPs

Civitas, 23 April 2009

The US  magazine, Time, wrote in October 1951 that morality in public service was probably higher in Britain than anywhere else in the world. The way that the moralistic Labour Party in Attlee’s day regarded even the suspicion of a Labour MP personally milking public life for his or her own benefit was illustrated by the resignation of the Parliament of a junior minister to the Board of Trade, John Belcher. He had been accused of accepting a gold cigarette case, wine and spirits, a suit, a paid holiday at Margate, and hospitality at dog meetings and boxing matches. As soon as the issue came to his attention, Attlee set up the Lynskey Tribunal. Lynskey reported to Parliament in under 3 months. Belcher did not bluff and bluster. He resigned first as Parliamentary Secretary and later as M.P., “in the very depths of unhappiness and wretchedness” at his own deplorable conduct. (Now that was an apology!)  He ended his working life as an Assistant Goods Agent. When the report of the Lynskey Tribunal was debated in Parliament on 3 February 1949, Attlee as Prime Minister and Churchill as Leader of the Opposition agreed that exacting the severe penalty of resignation for even the show of impropriety was the only way of maintaining the integrity of public life. The rule of innocent until proven guilty was an invitation to bribery and corruption. The complete avoidance of even the suspicion of improper behaviour was their standard, not the avoidance of improper behaviour itself–much less the avoidance of proven violations of the written rules.