LAST WEEK, I wrote briefly on the subject of the accounts required from MPs by the Integrity Commission, but I am returning to the subject this week because there are aspects of it which seem obscure and need some clarification.

We all know that the declared purpose of the exercise is to get from MPs a statement of their assets and their liabilities, for the purpose, no doubt, of finding out whether they have been conducting their financial affairs in a regular and honest manner.

It will readily be seen, however, that this purpose cannot be achieved unless, first of all, their accounts are in considerable detail and secondly, these accounts are carefully inspected and analysed. It is very unlikely that the Integrity Commission has either the capacity or the will to make that kind of analysis. Apart from anything else, it would involve questioning each MP concerning any changes in their accounts from one year to the next. Knowing the extremely tender relations that politicians have for each other, I cannot conceive of the Integrity Commission indulging in any pressing of perhaps hostile enquires.

What it comes to is that the accounts that are rendered by the MPs are pure formalities, and the MPs know perfectly well that they can put down anything they like and be quite safe from any kind of investigation.

The only manner in which these accounts could turn out to be revealing is if they were fully published so that the public and the Press could undertake the kind of examination which is beyond the scope of the Integrity Commission.

Private lives

However, the law makes it plain that this kind of public examination is not permitted. Indeed any journalist who obtains any of these reports and publicises them is subject to greater penalties than are imposed upon the MPs for not submitting them. Without this publication, it should be apparent that the submission of these accounts is a total waste of time. In fact as the law now stands, it is simply a cosmetic exercise, which enables MPs to claim, without the slightest justification, that their financial affairs are clean and above-board.

Having said all that we must now consider whether any effective action concerning these accounts, including publication, would not be a gross offence against the MP's normal right to privacy. After all, if bankers and other business people were forced to submit for publication similar reports, there would be a terrible row and rightly so.

We may have differing views about the integrity of MPs, but I cannot see that we have any more right to infringe on their privacy than on the privacy of anyone else. As I have written before, I think this whole business known as the Integrity Commission is purely an exercise in cosmetic legislation and totally ineffective in achieving the objectives which are claimed. Indeed, were it not both cosmetic and ineffective it would be a grave infringement of the personal rights of MPs. The Integrity Commission is involved in an elaborate pretence which should be abandoned.

Nonetheless as the law stands, however absurd it may be, MPs are under a legal obligation to submit the accounts, and when they do not they are deliberately disobeying the law and thus setting a bad example to the country. So long as this absurd law is in force MPs should be made to obey it.

NDM and JLP

In view of the fact that we have no effective Opposition at the moment or any convincing alternative to the PNP, it is not surprising that people, including the writer of this column, had hoped that there could be some way for the JLP and the NDM to get together.

Perhaps this was always a vain hope, for, on one hand, it would have involved Eddie Seaga stepping down or, on the other hand, some possibility that the aims and objects of the NDM and the JLP could be reconciled.

Bruce Golding and the NDM, by their refusal to merge with the JLP, have made it clear that such a reconciliation is beyond the bounds of possibility. Alas, this leaves us all where we were before; with a lame JLP and with Mr. Golding and the NDM as a party and a leader with no existence in reality.

Like many other people, I am in great sympathy with the ideals pursued by the NDM, but neither the so-called party nor its so-called leader seem to understand that politics is the art of the possible and that however admirable their ideals may be these ideals are a waste of time without the possibility of turning them into a political reality.

One possibility could be the growth of the NDM into a real political party, but the formation and prosperity of an effective political party requires a good deal of money. As those who have that sort of money are not likely to put it up for a party which they feel has no prospect of winning, one wonders what sort of future the NDM can have.

On the other hand, the JLP still has considerable grass-roots support and a sound tradition but it is handicapped by having a leader who can only be described as an extinct volcano. So it seems that, between the impotent idealism of Mr. Golding and the permanent unpopularity of Mr. Seaga, we are now all condemned to the terrible prospect of misgovernment by the PNP. I can't help feeling that one way or the other we've got our knickers into a terrible tangle.

Champagne

As a relief from political woes it might be a good idea to turn our thoughts in the direction of fine wine.

A week or so ago, while writing about a party put on by Pulse, I mentioned the subject of champagne and quite a few people have disagreed with my opinions on the subject.

I should perhaps have mentioned Dom Perignon, the greatest champagne of all. Dom Perignon was the name of the cellar-master at the Abbey of Hautvillers in 1700 and an expert in the blending of wines. In due course, the Abbey of Hautvillers became the property of the great champagne house of Moet et Chandon, which selected its finest champagne to be sold under the name of Dom Perignon. This great champagne is terribly expensive and, these days, quite beyond my pocket. In any case most champagne gives me indigestion, so by choice and necessity I confine myself to vodka martinis.

This reminds me to question once again the accuracy of the Government's claims concerning inflation. The recent increases in the price of vodka and cigarettes have alone made the Government's claim to having controlled inflation a nonsense, at least as far as I am concerned. My cost of living has gone up by 25 per cent! I am told that the cost of dying has similarly risen. The damn thing gets you coming and going.