THE Daniel Kawzcynski incident rumbles on, and I’m not sure what to think about it. Iain Dale seems to think there’s something sinister going on; I tend to suspect cock-up over conspiracy on these occasions, and I’m not even sure which side the cock-up was on.
The first – and, so far, only – time I was asked to hand over a constituent’s correspondence as part of an investigation, I confess I found myself in a bit of a quandry.
This was quite early in my tenure as an MP. The constituent, I strongly suspected for various reasons, was guilty of benefit fraud. He had given me his bank account statements in support of his request that I back his appeal against a decision to stop his Incapacity Benefit payments. I refused to support such an appeal, since I believed he wasn’t entitled to any benefits at all.
Then Glasgow City Council Housing Benefit section called me at my constituency office to ask if I would hand over the bank statements to them. They felt they would provide the evidence they needed to prove my constituent was guilty of fraud.
I supported the council’s efforts to clamp down on benefit fraud. I knew my constituent was guilty of defrauding the taxpayer. I wanted him to be held to account. But…
I said no. If the council wanted to seek a court order demanding that I release the statements, then of course I would reconsider, I told them. But they were not my property and I wanted other constituents to know that if they entrusted me with sensitive documents, they would be safe with me.
Anticipating further requests, and possibly legal action, I returned the documents to the constituent.
That’s a mile away, of course, from having a police officer in your Commons office demanding (or perhaps politely asking for) a specific piece of correspondence. If any good has come out of the Damian Green affair, it’s that MPs have had to think more carefully about their obligations and rights when it comes to protecting constituents’ interests, something I suspect was taken for granted and not considered in too much detail previously.
























Saturday 24 January 2009 at 4:33 pm
Iain Dale always thinks there’s something sinister going on – he should get out less…
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 4:38 pm
I know i’m using a bit of legal knowledge here, but I find such threats of legal action etc.. to be quite laughable and pathetic on the part of the person making them. I mean, if they wanted your constituents bank statements they could have got an order very easily for the bank to turn them over without even breaking a sweat, yet they tried to bully an MP with threats of legal action that they wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually file? Perhaps they thought you’d be a push over and would save them the bother of the paperwork with the bank? The mind boggles.
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 4:50 pm
I have just seen “Nineteen Eighty-Four” being advertised on your Amazon ad.
Do you recommend it, then?
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 4:55 pm
All the products in the carousel are chosen by moi. And Stewart, you of all people know I thought it was a rollicking good yarn. i did it for my English Higher, in fact. I love sci-fi, me…
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 5:15 pm
“Tony’s Ten Years”?
You’re also not averse to a good horror story.
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 5:27 pm
This Kawzcynski person seems a bit of a dim bulb.
He is on some justice sub-committee I understand; yet doesn’t know to ask for a warrant, or even better “who let you lot into my office?”.
I do realise that the police can be intimidating at times, but an MP should know that his correspondance with constituants is private.
Glad to hear that you understand this, perhaps all MPs should have it printed in big letters atop their expenses claim forms.
An aside; 1984 isn’t truly SciFi, it doesn’t involve any scientific breakthroughs/novelty nor any major extrapolations of existing science from the writers period.
Just a prediction/warning from a writer who cared about what a socialist state was likely to become (he had seen the USSR) and who cared about the freedoms of the hoi polloi rather than the desires of the self styled socialist/progressive elites to regulate every part of peoples lives for their own good.
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 5:46 pm
Chris – Yeah, I know. I was winding Stuart up. No-one gets me…
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 6:30 pm
Sorry Tom, my bad
I’ll try to remember to consider your sense of humour in future:o)
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 7:23 pm
Good for you for saying no. But boo to you for creating an environment in which the Police feel able to try it on, to strong arm staffers or to arrest Opposition MPs. Imagine how much you’d have bleated if the police had turned over, for example, Jeremy Corbyn in the 80s for his presumed contacts with Irish Republican sympathisers. They didn’t, even under Thatcher, but now, under a Labour administration of which you are a member, the Police feel perfectly free to harrass and intimidate, nay demand, information and correspondence from Opposition MPs. Congratulations if you manage to convince yourself this is all a-ok.
That Kawzcynski was a neckless coward who caved in at the first sniff of a uniformed request is neither here nor there. The real issue is *why* the Police and the Commons authorities thought that such inquiries were allowed.
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 7:38 pm
I get you, Tom. It’s irony, isn’t it!
You need a warning triangle or something, to let folk know it’s coming.
Apparently this Kawzcynski person was in trouble some time ago for trying to bring a cow into Parliament. Well onto the lawns. I kid you not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7432814.stm
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 7:39 pm
Sorry! Meant to say it was Sadie who found the cow story.
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 8:03 pm
Given the stance you took with your constituent, Tom, and I think that it was the right thing to do, too, pity that the Government introduced the Money Laundering Act which requires me, on paid of prosecution, to breach client confidentiality if I suspect financial wrongdoing.
Saturday 24 January 2009 at 10:58 pm
Seems like some people find it harder to say no than
others…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581547.ece
Am I the only one finding the current situation reminiscent of the dying days of the Major admistration?
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 12:34 pm
I applaud your Whig conservatism, rather than the usual Catholic collectivism, Mr Harris.
Leave a comment