[Ssf] Blunkett and Fraud..

dave thompson mpower0 at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 10 11:22:12 GMT 2004


Hello

I just saw this on the benefits and work website, i
think it makes a lot of salient points


'I don't have any particular axe to grind when it
comes to political parties. But I do think that when
governments spend so much taxpayers' money on adverts
about benefits fraud, leaving claimants feeling like
criminals, they ought to be sure they're squeaky clean
themselves. And that includes cabinet ministers taking
the trouble to find out the meaning of the word
'spouse'.

Having read in the papers this morning that the
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner had received two
complaints from members of the public about Mr
Blunkett and was considering investigating, I thought
I'd make it three. I've sent the letter below by fax
and email. Anyone else feel like adding their voice?
If so, contact:

Sir Philip Mawer, Commissioner
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Tel : 020 7219 0311 / 3738
Fax : 020 7219 0490
E-mail: standardscommissioner at parliament.uk

By fax and email

Dear Sir Philip,

I wish to make a formal request that the circumstances
surrounding the use of £180 of public money by Mr
David Blunkett MP to purchase a first class train
ticket for Ms Kimberely Quinn be investigated.

The prima facie facts of the case have been widely
reported, as has Mr Blunkett's apology after discovery
and his reimbursement of the £180.

However, as a welfare rights worker I have spent many
years advising disabled claimants who are assumed to
understand and adhere to the extremely complex rules
relating to welfare benefits. If one of my clients had
been found to have claimed additional benefits
payments for a spouse, who was in fact someone else's
spouse, there would have been serious repercussions.
Under no circumstances would it have been sufficient
for my client simply to state that they had
misunderstood the rules and had now written a cheque
as reimbursement.

At the very least, my client would have been
interviewed by officials from the DWP, almost
certainly under caution, a report would have been
compiled and serious consideration would have been
given to prosecution for fraud. The fact that the
amount of money involved was less than £200 would not,
on its own, have been sufficient to prevent such a
course of action.

Mr Blunkett has many advantages in terms of the
resources available to him, compared to most of my
clients. In addition, given that he is responsible for
the introduction of much new legislation, he can be
assumed to be capable of consulting and fully
comprehending the rules relating to such matters as
travel warrants for spouses. An apology after
discovery and repayment of the monies erroneously
claimed should not, therefore, be the end of the
matter. Like any citizen who has wrongfully obtained
state funds, Mr Blunkett's actions should be subject
to independent scrutiny.

If, on the other hand, Mr Blunkett is permitted to be
judge and jury in relation to his own rule breaking,
it will be clear to ordinary citizens like myself that
much more lenient standards are applied to MPs than to
us. This can only damage the reputation of parliament
and the democratic process in the eyes of ordinary
citizens.

I therefore respectfully request that the issue of
whether Mr Blunkett was in breach of the Code of
Conduct for Members of Parliament in relation to this
matter be investigated by your office.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt
of this letter.

Yours sincerely,' 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 
 




More information about the ssf mailing list