IS MSF A CORRUPT ORGANISATION?

This question has become current as a result of recent Employment Tribunal cases brought by Marcia Solomon and others against the union and of a spate of adverse press reports.

Solomon was formerly employed in the MSF Finance Department as PA to the Head of Finance Nelson Mendes. In early 1999, she passed on information gained in the course of her employment about the financial behaviour of the General Secretary Roger Lyons and Mendes to the then Assistant General Secretary John Chowcat. Chowcat, in turn, conveyed the information to the then President of the union, Dave Cooke. The outsome of the subsequent row was that Lyons and Mendes were exculpated, Chowcat received a large pay-off and Solomon got the sack for gross misconduct. A third official, Howell John, who made a separate set of allegations, has also left the union with a substantial pay-off

Solomon took a case for unfair dismissal and for a breach of public interest disclosure legislation, supported by her union, the GMB. In the course of the Tribunal hearing, a great deal of information about the original allegations and their treatment by the MSF leadership entered the public domain. Virtually all of this information was withheld by the union’s leadership from the members.

The purpose of this article is to examine this information and the means by which it was withheld to see what light it throws on the question in the title. The Chowcat/Solomon allegations and their aftermath are far from the first episode to raise concern in MSF in recent years. But they resulted in the most spectacular outcome, have had the most publicity in the mainstream media, and have yielded far and away the most documentary evidence. Therefore, they are by the most illuminating of the controversies about misconduct which have afflicted MSF.

It is useful at the start to adopt a working definition of “corruption” in regard to financial behaviour in trade unions. People join trade unions for one or more of three basic purposes: 1) they believe in them as vehicles for social and political change; 2) they wish to defend or improve their employment conditions; 3) they wish to obtain the benefits the union offers. The last of these is much the least significant in modern times. There may be other minor reasons. People then subscribe to the union in order to realise these purposes. The union tries to achieve these purposes through its procedures, policies and constitution and their application by its office-holders and employees. The remuneration of paid positions should be established by negotiation and embodied in employment contracts. The access to funds and property by both paid and unpaid office-holders and by employees should be specified and there should be clear means of tracking compliance. Any deliberate diversion of funds and property from the basic purposes is corruption, whether or not it is unlawful, criminal or formally in breach of the union's rules and procedures. Equally, any deliberate attempt to facilitate, condone or cover up such diversion is corruption. With this definition in mind, we can now look at what is going on in MSF.

Allegations and Investigations

Chowcat and Solomon alleged both petty and major fraud against Lyons and Mendes. It was alleged that the major fraud consisted of setting up false bank accounts in the name of non-existent union branches, known as shell accounts, paying union funds into these and then paying it out to Lyons’ and Mendes’ accounts. The petty fraud allegations involved unauthorised loans, bogus expenses claims, misuse of Lyons’ credit card and similar activities.

The major fraud allegation was based on observations reported by Solomon to Chowcat and on documents which she claims to have acquired. She recounts seeing a cheque for over £29 000 made out to Lyons in respect of an MSF Guildhall branch and one of £5000 made out to Mendes in respect of an MSF Daxo branch. No branches of these names have ever existed. She also claims to have seen evidence for the existence of accounts of Guildhall and Daxo branches in statements received from the Unity Trust Bank, the union’s bankers. The total amount in these accounts was £160 000. She says that she took these documents or a copy of them home with her.

Solomon recounts in a witness statement how at a critical moment after Chowcat had made his allegations and things began to warm up in MSF she got drunk one evening, packaged up her documents and posted them off to Chowcat. Chowcat says that the package never arrived. Solomon did not retain any copies of the material which is now irremediably lost. One can only speculate what might have become of it. One can also speculate, of course, that it never existed in the first place. It all depends on what view you take of Solomon’s credibility, of which more later.

There were a total of three investigations mounted by the MSF leadership into the allegations. One was a purely internal affair to try and discover who “leaked” the information on which they were based. The other two were by HW Fisher & Co, the union’s accountants, and by the Unity Trust Bank at the behest of the accountants. These two organisations used personnel who had no previous connection with the union. Both the investigations were unable to uncover any evidence of the existence of shell bank accounts or of fraud based upon them. The Fisher report was endorsed by the Certification Officer, the state official responsible for regulating trade unions, who became involved at the request of some ordinary members of the union.

At the time of the investigation, it was objected that Fisher & Co were not independent of MSF. More recently, at the Employment Tribunal, doubt was cast on the thoroughness of the two investigations. The GMB hired a fraud investigator of their own who gave evidence on the inadequacies in the Fisher approach. For example, the Fisher investigator had decided not to seek access to Lyons’ and Mendes’ personal financial records to see if any unexplained payments had been made into them. It emerged that a second MSF employee, Ms Joan Francis, had reported seeing a document referring to the MSF Guildhall account though this was not mentioned in either the interim or final Fisher report. It was established at the Tribunal that there were discrepancies between the Unity Trust Bank and MSF records such that it was possible to conduct some transactions without the bank finding out. It was also established that Lyons and Mendes could each sign cheques on their own and had the authority to remove money from branch funds.

This brings us back to Solomon’s credibility. The MSF case at the Tribunal was that she had lied in making the allegations and had been mischievous and malicious. Actually, a lot more vicious things were said about her from behind the hand. However, the union’s representatives were unable to establish any believable motive for her behaviour. Moreover, whenever her allegations could be checked against documentary evidence, they turned out to be true. Finally, what reason could she have had for taking an unfair dismissal case when she had moved on to a job with the GMB and had been threatened with an action for perjury by MSF, if she had not been telling the truth in the first place? The evidence is in favour of Solomon being a reliable witness.

.Nevertheless, at this juncture, Lyons and Mendes have to be cleared of the allegation of major fraud, not just on grounds of reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities. The absence of documentary evidence goes strongly in their favour. But there are grounds for calling for a new and properly independent investigation and the MSF leadership has now been obliged to move in part in this direction.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that there was petty fiddling and quite a lot of it too. Lyons received unauthorised loans arranged by Mendes of £4000 in April 1997, paid back in April 1998, and of £2000 in June 1998, finally paid back on 15 January 1999. It is noteworthy that the question of loans to fulltime officers was raised at a General Purposes and Finance Committee (the union's main administration committee) on 6 February. The minutes record that Lyons and Mendes confirmed that there were no outstanding loans to employees. Solomon records in her witness statement that Mendes requested her to destroy some documentation relating to these loans. This is hardly the sort of behaviour to be expected from people who thought they were behaving in an appropriate manner.

Lyons has claimed in respect of one of these loans that he wanted to buy furniture for his daughter who was moving into a new flat. It is unlikely that many members subscribe to the union to enable its employees to buy presents for their relatives in such normal circumstances. It is even less likely that they would be prepared to do it for someone with a salary of almost £100 000 per year.

Chowcat recorded in his submission to Cooke that over an 18 month period in 1997-98, Lyons claimed expenses for attending 45 routine meetings at the union’s headquarters, 21 media interviews, 10 meetings with Government ministers and 6 meetings of the MSF parliamentary committee.

Lyons is alone among MSF officials in possessing an AMEX credit card. Chowcat recorded a number of occasions when expenditure took place on this card in shops, restaurants and off-licences near Lyons’ home.

Another Lyons’ habit was to buy consumer goods on the union for his own use. A famous example is the radio he bought to listen to the Today programme on Radio 4 when getting himself together in the morning. He claimed he needed to do that as part of his job. This is plainly ridiculous. MSF would be a pretty funny organisation if it employed its General Secretary on nearly £100 000 per year to monitor the media. There are other people to do that kind of thing. It turns out that the union even paid for Lyons' briefcase and for his morning paper.

More to the point, all the consumer purchases took place outside the union’s central purchasing arrangements, set up to ensure that work equipment of an appropriate standard was acquired as cheaply as possible. Why should any employee go outside these procedures if the purchases could be justified?

As a matter of fact, MSF officials frequently attempt to acquire equipment they think they need outside of the central purchasing arrangements. This has resulted in funds and property sloshing round the union in an unaccountable manner. This obviously creates the pre-conditions for corruption and is an abuse that has long needed to be eliminated. Thus it is unacceptable to find that the top man is one of the worst offenders, even if it were possible to justify some of the particular purchases.

Chowcat details a series of expenditure by Lyons which appears to have nothing to do with the performance of his union duties. For example, there are examples of the purchase of meals and petrol when abroad on holidays. This further included the purchase of travel insurance and gifts from duty-free shops. Chowcat alleged that claims were made for train tickets for journeys which did not take place or for meals in restaurants which hadn't been visited.

Further evidence has been provided by Bryan Keegan who worked as Lyons' chauffeur from August 1998 to May 2000. Keegan obviously conceived a loathing for Lyons during his employment, e.g. he described him as a "complete and utter disgrace" and commented that "the man's a liar" during the Solomon Tribunal while Lyons was present. This should be borne in mind when evaluating what Keegan has to say. Nevertheless his testimony is revealing. Keegan, who has worked for nearly 30 years as a professional chauffeur, says that Lyons "made much use of me for running personal errands and for attending to the personal driving needs of him and his family. This was very unusual – I had never done anything like this for any other employer, nor did I know of any other professional corporate chauffeur who did...In all the time I worked as a chauffeur, I never drove for a person who made as many demands to be driven for personal reasons as Mr. Lyons."

Keegan then goes on to provide some details. He says that he drove Lyons' children to school most mornings in term time. He records that he drove Lyons and his sons from London to Sheffield to watch a football match. In connection with this he mentions that he obtained MSF rail warrants which Lyons' sons used to return from Sheffield while Lyons went on elsewhere. Lyons has subsequently claimed that the cost of the warrants was reimbursed but there is no doubt that union resources were expended in acquiring them in the first place. He drove Lyons and his family to and from airports for private holidays. He made arrangements for Lyons' friends to use his season ticket to get into football matches. He records that for one NEC reception, for which Lyons bought the alcohol, he subsequently carried four cases of drinks into Lyons' home. He records instances where he drove Lyons to meetings where Lyons subsequently claimed unreceipted taxi fares.

Let us now look at how Stuart Burns, who conducted the investigation on behalf of HW Fisher & Co, dealt with these matters. Burns is the principal partner in the Forensic Accounting Department and a Certified Fraud Examiner. He attempted to find evidence on Solomon's allegation about skimming the branch funds and did not uncover any. He also attempted to evaluate all Chowcat's claims about Lyons' expenditure.

The first point here is that all this expenditure did actually take place. This is agreed by everyone concerned, including Lyons. It then becomes a matter of judgement as to what view ought to be taken. Burns gives Lyons a clean bill of health with only minor reservations. He advances the argument in respect of all the allegations on loans and expenses that they did "not contravene any union rules or expenses."

This is surely being naive if not disingenuous. The remuneration to which officers are entitled is laid down in their contracts and in negotiated agreements. No-one is entitled to any payments not covered in the contracts and agreements. No-one is entitled to fiddle their expenses just because MSF does not have a rule which says you must not fiddle your expenses. Unless you argue that MSF employees have a special dispensation from their contractual obligations not enjoyed by other workers, Burn is engaging in sophistry. Or, to be more charitable, he was simply at sea when having to deal with the minutiae of trade union activity.

He actually goes a bit further in respect of the unauthorised loans. He discovered that a number of other officers enjoyed loans or advances in salary at about the same time as Lyons: Jerry Shanahan, Brian Gallagher, John Tierney and Sarah Howard. On the basis of this, Burns claims that this was an accepted practice of the union. The claim is without foundation. Just because a number of people were taking advantage did not make the practice acceptable. Burns makes a further point that Lyons should have sought the permission of the chair of the Finance and General Purposes Committee before arranging his loans. He omits to add that the chair would have been obliged to refuse the request.

The rationalisation offered for many of the items of expenditure is inadequate. Consider the NEC party mentioned above:

Chowcat said: "Lyons personally used the same credit card to purchase alcohol for the '1998 NEC Christmas reception', at Majestic Warehouse and Oddbins, spending a total of £831.74 – a figure considerably higher than that required for alcohol consumption at the actual party."

According to Burns, Lyons said: "With regard to the expenditure of £831.74 incurred in respect of the 1998 NEC Christmas reception, Lyons explained that about 75 guests attended this same event and, with this in mind, the sum expended was not considered excessive. Furthermore, some of the alcohol that was left over was handed to Ms Watson-Blake (Lyons' PA) who locked away the excess alcohol for use on other occasions."

Burns said: "With regard to the 1998 Christmas reception expenditure, we have been informed that there were two further Christmas receptions at the MSF offices which drew from the same supply of alcohol, Ms Watson-Blake confirming that the excess alcohol was put into the cupboard we had inspected, for future consumption. She also confirmed the number of guests at the NEC Christmas reception."

Keegan said (admittedly, Burns did not have access to this testimony when he compiled his report): "On 10th October 1998, Lyons purchased a large amount of wine from the Majestic Wine warehouse for the annual 'booze-up' of MSF's National Executive Committee. I am informed that Lyons has said that all the wine purchased was used for entertainment on that occasion. That is not correct. Following that evening, I carried about four boxes of alcohol to his home, where I stacked them in his hallway."

I can offer a view on this, having catered a large number of events at Head Office for similar numbers of people. I could provide enough alcohol for events of this size, with water and soft drinks thrown in, for £250.

However, this does illustrate Burns' investigative method. That is, he uncritically accepted whatever was said by Lyons and his friends and discounted any other versions.

There is another event mentioned in Burns' report on which I can cast some personal light. It goes:

"Balti Tandoori - £20.25 – transaction date 7 April 1998

Lyons explained that there had been a meeting of the London Regional Council Executive at 7pm at the MSF offices, which lasted for approximately 2.5 hours. Following this, on his way home, Lyons stopped at the Balti Tandoori for a curry. When it was pointed out to Lyons that £20.25 was a considerable sum for such an item, he explained that the Balti Tandoori was not a cheap restaurant. Lyons went on to explain that the meeting at 7pm at the MSF offices, was also attended by Hugh McGrillan (sic) and NEC members Dave Eastham and Sue Sharpe (sic). Eastham has confirmed that the meeting did take place."

If I had been asked, I would have pointed out that sandwiches and fruit were provided for those attending this meeting and that Lyons had gatecrashed the meeting without a prior invitation. I would have gone on to comment that I occasionally went for curries after meetings of this kind but never dreamt that I was entitled to claim back off the union.

Lyons is certainly keen on spending the union's money in restaurants. At least Burns some effort to qualify his no restraint on expenses opinion, saying, "We consider that a view has to be taken by the Union as to whether the level of certain expenses, such as food sustenance, are reasonable." Burns sought the opinion of some other MSF fulltime officials who may not be considered the most objective of observers. They considered it reasonable to claim for sustenance if working beyond normal working hours and, particularly, if travelling back from a location situated at a considerable distance from home. The level indicated was for individual sustenance expenses in the amount of £10-12. This is likely to be the most favourable view you can get of this type of expenditure. Yet Lyons' credit card records show that he regularly spent £20-60 when going from his office to his home. No explanation is offered of why he didn't just go home and stick something in the microwave which would have been just as quick and sustaining.

Burns records other restaurant expenditure which is questionable at least. He mentions an expenditure of £98.20 in a restaurant called Lola's in March 1998. Lyons explained that he had incurred this expense entertaining Mr. John Croddans, one of the Prime Minister's secretaries. Burns make no comment on this; perhaps he thinks this is the way top people ought to transact their business. Many members might differ. Some might think it is desirable for the General Secretary to have confidential meetings with someone close to Blair but it is not necessary to spend £100 on it. Others might say that it all part of the general sleaziness that has brought politics into disrepute.

Another example which Burns didn't pick up on is an expenditure of £162.95 in Fredericks restaurant, Islington, just before Christmas 1997. This is described by Lyons as office hospitality/sustenance. Can we assume then that Lyons took a pal or two from the office (and it would not have been more) for a slap-up meal to celebrate the festive season when the union already lays on a party?

It is not a question of such examples being isolated instances, Lyons' credit card statements are full of this kind of expenditure.

Burns exonerates Lyons over his expenses claims for attending routine meetings. He points out that of the internal meetings cited, the majority were at the weekends or on holidays. On the other hand a high proportion were not. Lyons claimed that the others were very early in the morning or late at night. He goes on to say that the expenses claims were very small, reflecting the care that had been taken in making them. He stated that he was usually out of pocket as a result.

Roughly speaking then, Lyons, for example, picked up a coffee and Danish on his way into the office, didn't get a receipt and then claimed an approximate amount later on. It is a lot to swallow to accept that such claims are justified.

No attempt is even made to justify expenses claimed in respect of media interviews. It was verified that Lyons had taken part in the interviews as claimed. However there is no record of any actual expenditure far less that it could be claimed back.

For meetings with government ministers and MSF MPs, the rationale is that drinks were brought and so on in and around the meeting. No doubt they were but was the expenditure claimable? It is not exactly unknown for trade union activists to buy a drink after a meeting but very few would think of claiming it back. Is there any reason why a General Secretary should be any different, especially when there are no rules or guidelines which give him permission.

Burns obviously thinks so. He concludes, "Accordingly, in our view these expenses have been properly incurred on MSF business and the presumption upon which the allegations are based (namely 'meetings that could not have warranted the expenditure claimed') is not correct."

It should be stressed that Burns is only expressing his own opinion and that of the MSF officials he consulted. Chowcat's opinion was different and, at the least, represents a valid and widely held trade union outlook.

Burns put all Chowcat's allegations on unjustified or inexplicable expenditure to Lyons and in every case was satisfied with the reply. Not all of it is quite so easy to explain away however.

For example, in May 1998 Lyons purchased a ticket for Le Shuttle for £159 for an IMF conference in Germany. He later purchased another rail ticket for £130.50 for the same conference. Over the dates of the conference he bought petrol in France and Germany confirming he had taken his car through the Channel Tunnel.

Lyons explained that the General Secretary and the President have always been able to be accompanied by their partners on official engagements at the expense of the union. Although the facility is rarely used, it has always been available. On this occasion, his wife agreed to come with him, but was required for work reasons to return to London before his expected return by car. This explained the need for two rail tickets.

This is really pushing things up to the limit and beyond. There is an argument for having such a perk, though many might hold the opinion that if you cannot have it for everyone, you should not have it for anyone. But do we really have to go as far as to pay partner's expenses to fulfil their own personal commitments.

Mendes should not be forgotten in all of this. The main allegation levelled by Chowcat was that he claimed for rail and taxi journeys which he did not actually undertake. The allegations were based on information in Mendes' diary compared with the expenses claims which was supplied to Chowcat by Solomon. Mendes did not use the standard MSF travel warrant system but claimed to have bought tickets for the claimed journeys.

Burns exonerates Mendes on these allegations. He records without comment Mendes' explanation that the claims for taxi fares were based on estimates and not receipts. Mendes also says that he kept two diaries at work, one which was available to Solomon and another one which he kept confidential. Burns was able to verify that the claimed journeys took place in less than half the cases (he claims in his report that he verified a majority but this seems not to be right). Despite all these discrepancies and shortcomings, Burns finds no case against Mendes.

More information was disclosed at the Solomon Tribunal and there are a number of matters for which Mendes needs to provide a satisfactory explanation. Regrettably, this may not now take place as he is now on extended sick leave and is not expected to return. There is a current of thought which says that he already terminated his employment with the union.

In summary, bearing in mind what Chowcat and Burns have to say, there is no documentary evidence that Lyons and Mendes were engaged in a large-scale swindle involving the branch funds though there are sufficient reservations about the first investigation to justify further inquiries being made.

Lyons, and a number of other officials, received loans or advances on salaries to which they were not entitled. Lyons and Mendes tried to disguise this fact until they were compelled to admit it.

All the expenditure attributed to Lyons by Chowcat and in the newspapers on expenses and credit card expenditure did actually take place. Lyons made expenses claims and credit card expenditure on every conceivable occasion where it was possible to do so. A proportion of these claims were justifiable, a proportion were borderline and a proportion cannot be justified under any circumstances, especially considering his salary of almost £100 000 per year. One wonders what on earth he thought his salary was for. Cumulatively, a substantial amount of money was involved and cumulatively, his behaviour was gross. There is a clear pattern of arbitrary self-indulgence, without heed for the union's interests or reputation. In total, his conduct was indefensible.

The Cover-up

The other half of the equation was the cover-up that went into operation to prevent the public disclosure of the allegations against Lyons. The standpoint of this article is that union members have an absolute right to know what is being done in their name and with their money. In the case of financial conduct in MSF, this right is reinforced by the union’s rules which give members the right to inspect all books and financial records. In addition members have statutory rights to this kind of information. The MSF leadership went to enormous lengths to nullify or frustrate these rights.

Some background to the events described below needs to be sketched in. Lyons and Chowcat had worked together at national level in MSF from the early 90s. They were the no. 1 and no. 2 in the union. In addition to their official positions, they were both leading supporters of MSF for Labour, the main faction in the union which largely controlled the fulltime officers and the NEC. However, there was a progressive falling out between them. Chowcat describes it thus, “We both came from the same type of union background...and were consequently...of broadly the same overall viewpoint on major trade union issues. I became privately concerned, however, about a degree of over-concentration on immediate issues and felt a need for firmer strategic thinking in relation to the longer term future.” This led to a number of clashes of increasing intensity. By the end of 1998, it looked as though Lyons was winning the struggle. He had detached Chowcat from his power base in finance and administration and it had become possible to envisage Chowcat being pushed out of the organisation altogether. This enmity was well known to other leading members of the union, both fulltime and elected, who were having to decide which side they were going to back.

This certainly raises the possibility that Chowcat acted out of self-interested motives in raising the allegations and this was held against him in disciplinary proceedings. Chowcat has denied this and has said, "I was had no serious concerns about such issues prior to this disclosure [by Solomon]...I was surprised by the nature of the allegations and by the supporting evidence and was duly concerned about them. I was not prepared to simply accept them as conclusive but viewed them as serious enough to warrant investigation...I took steps to ascertain my legal position and believed I was under a duty not to ignore this information, but to report it to the union in an appropriate manner." Even if he was acting from questionable motives, which is virtually impossible to prove, it does not invalidate what he has to say.

The Fix Goes In. In late February 1999 Chowcat sent his written allegations about Lyons and Mendes to the MSF President Dave Cooke who immediately enlisted the chair and vice-chair of the General Purposes & Finance Committee, John Gardner and Bob Braddock, to carry out a preliminary investigation involving interviews with all three protagonists. When Chowcat was unable to provide documentary evidence on the allegation of large-scale fraud, they decided to send him home, though he was not formally suspended at that stage. However, they afforded Lyons and Mendes different treatment. They were allowed to continue at work as normal.

Two further investigations were set up, that by HW Fisher & Co. described above and an internal one conducted by Tony Ayres, the personnel manager, aimed at finding out how Chowcat had got hold of the information he had presented to Cooke. Among other things this involved monitoring the calls on Chowcat's mobile phone. It also involved interviews with MSF employees which were conducted in a highly aggressive manner.

The differential treatment of Chowcat versus Lyons and Mendes was much criticised at the time and indeed it seems quite inexplicable in terms of due process or fair treatment. It conveys the impression that Chowcat was at fault and that Lyons and Mendes were not. Gardner, in a memo to the rest of the NEC, argued as follows, "What is of great concern to us is the motive for bringing this allegation [of false bank accounts] in the first place. This is something that requires investigation. Tony Ayres has been instructed to carry out the necessary inquiry. He will then inform me of the outcome when Bob Braddock and myself will have to decide what further action will be taken. In these circumstances it was determined that in the best interests of MSF, AGS Chowcat should remain absent from work pending our deliberations."

The other controversial feature was the use of HW Fisher & Co. to carry out one of the investigations. The company provided MSF with much more than just accountancy services, having been closely involved in financial and personnel policy making. The investigation was carried out by a department with no previous involvement with MSF. But even if there were Chinese walls within the company, it still had a big stake in MSF and many people felt it could not be considered to be a properly independent organisation.

Lyons made good use of the advantage he had achieved, organising a series of meetings for fulltime officers and staff round the country. At these meetings he or a close associate briefed the others on the Lyons’ version of events. This was clearly important in influencing the overall response within the union. It is reputed that Mendes also made good use of his time, with reports that he was seen leaving Head Office in the early hours carrying boxes of documents. However, Chowcat does not appear to have put much effort into rallying his supporters at this time, even allowing for the difficulties he faced.

The provision of information to the lay members of the union was left in the hands of Cooke. He wrote round to branches and Regional Councils giving a guarded version of events, "Allegations of financial malpractice were made by a full time officer to me...I immediately delegated [Gardner and Braddock] to investigate these allegations...No evidence of financial malpractice has been substantiated." Cooke then responded to proposals or observations with threats to try and impose the official line.

For example, I wrote in on behalf of the London Management Committee to say, "...Chowcat will remain absent from work pending Ayres' investigation. However it appears that Lyons and Mendes are attending work at present. This seemed to our Management Committee to introduce an imbalance into the investigations being carried out in that one of the protagonists is being treated differently from the others...Other main observation made at our meeting were 1) all the allegations made should be investigated, 2) that accountants with no connection with Fishers should be invited to carry out those parts of the investigation requiring professional accounting expertise, 3) the investigations should be completed and acted upon as quickly as thoroughness and fairness allow and 4) that both Lyons and Chowcat cannot remain in our employment as a result of this occurence."

Cooke replied, "I believe that your letter indicates a gross interference in matters concerning relations with MSF employees, officers and staff, and violates their rights to agreed procedures. I shall be referring your letter and its contents to the next NEC meeting for the NEC to consider whether any further action is necessary."

Cooke subsequently sent two more circulars to branches and Region strongly advising them not to discuss the matter at all. Needless to say, this had only limited success.

Chowcat’s removal from Head Office was quickly followed by formal suspension. The grounds for this were provided by Ayres who had only been in the union for a couple of months at this stage and who said in a memo to Gardner, “There is evidence that there was collusion between Chowcat and at least one member of staff in privately compiling information leading to the allegations. Chowcat claim all information in this case was received by way of anonymous brown envelopes. If that were true, the process of dealing with it was completely inconsistent with the responsibilities of a senior official working in the best interests of the union. There is, however, clear doubt as to whether the information was indeed received in the way claimed. Other aspects of the background to the allegations made by Chowcat were clearly handled in a way which was inconsistent with the levels of trust and confidence which could reasonably be expected of a senior official operating in a way as to avoid bringing the union into disrepute. The methods adopted by Chowcat and one member of staff in preparing for and proceeding with the allegations suggest that they were primarily and subjectively aimed at securing the General Secretary's and head of Finance's removal from office. I consider that the actions of Chowcat and a member of staff – Solomon – amount to gross misconduct and both should be immediately suspended pending the outcome of whatever action you wish to take under the appropriate disciplinary procedures.“

It would seem that Ayres rather over-interpreted his evidence, to put it politely. However, Gardner and Braddock accepted his conclusions and reproduced them as their own in a report to the NEC. They suspended Chowcat and proposed the formation of a disciplinary panel consisting of NEC members Alastair Fraser, Hugh Scullion and Jo White.

This was reported in the NEC minutes as follows: "Following recent events, Dave Cooke, MSF President, presented a statement to the NEC which had been prepared by an Investigation Committee appointed by the President, and its recommendations were discussed and ENDORSED." This was all the information reported to the membership who were in any case being enjoined not to discuss the matter. Little wonder that some NEC members were a little hazy about what they had decided.

The NEC panel concluded that Chowcat should be sacked though this was never actually reported to the full NEC. It should be noted that one member of the NEC panel, Scullion, was at that time a prominent supporter of the main opposition faction in MSF but was trying to get a job with the union. Scullion did in fact obtain a fulltime post in MSF some time later. It is also worth noting that Lyons sent two memos to the panel saying that he was no longer prepared to work with Chowcat though he was later prevailed upon to withdraw these. Finally, the panel was not shown the report of the Fisher investigation before they took their decision on dismissal.

Consolidating the Grip. Chowcat appealed against his dismissal and this was put on ice for a while the union leadership dealt with another problem, the 1999 Annual Conference. The affair had obviously generated enormous interest within the union and had attracted a large number of emergency motions expressing a variety of views. It was clear that it could not be passed over in silence and that there would have to be some kind of statement made. Here is how the leadership dealt with the issue, from a report which I wrote at the time:

"Conference did not discuss the current allegations of corruption in the union after a ruling by the President. The events had generated intense interest in the run-up to Conference. A large number of emergency motions were submitted. When the Standing Orders Committee sifted through these, they declared that only two were in order, from London branches as it happens. But before Conference could decide what it wanted to do with these, the President took matters into his own hands. He made a lengthy statement, as he had previously notified the Conference he would do. The gist of his argument was that the circumstances were governed by Rule 47c) on disciplinary action against fulltime officials and it would prejudice the procedures to discuss the matter in Conference. He therefore ruled that no discussion could take place. A commitment was given that a full report would be made to branches when the procedure was complete though it was not established that this would include the full reports from Fishers and the Certification Officer. The Vice-President Frank Barry, who took the chair when the President was making his statement, did not permit the ruling or statement to be debated. A vote was taken on the ruling which was upheld by 321 votes to 289. That was that so far as contributions from the floor of Conference were concerned.

The only other occasion in which the circumstances came up in Conference was right at the end when the General Secretary nominated three candidates for the MSF positions for the TUC General Council, himself, John Chowcat and another official. They were elected unopposed but one hesitates to claim they represent our best combination.

It must be said that this is only the latest and possibly the most serious of the scandals that have afflicted the union in recent years. The leadership of the union has responded to this situation by deploying a number of devices to prevent or limit open discussion of the events. This secretive approach has done nothing to prevent misconduct while reducing the accountability of our leaders and narrowing the basis of our collective decision making. We have moved further down this road in the course of the present crisis. This is an unhealthy approach. It is imperative to continue to demand full disclosure of the allegations and the evidence made by John Chowcat, the explanations offered by Roger Lyons and Nelson Mendes and the details of the disciplinary action taken against John Chowcat. And, in general, to campaign against the secrecy which is eroding the democratic structures of the union."

Soon after the initial allegations, former Labour Party General Secretary Jim Mortimer, who is a member of MSF, and some other members contacted the Certification Officer and asked him to become involved. The Certification Officer is the state official responsible for overseeing trade unions with powers to send in inspectors in order to deal with complaints. In this instance, he decided not to do so but asked MSF to keep him informed and to send him a copy of the Fisher report. The Certification Officer issued his own report in July and effectively exculpated Lyons and Chowcat. He made much of the fact that Chowcat had withdrawn the allegation of stealing branch funds and gave little weight to the evidence of unauthorised loans and the misuse of credit card facilities and expenses claims. He gave unqualified praise to the Fisher investigation. There are two possible explanations for this: either the Certification Officer saw nothing wrong in union officials living the high life at their members' expense or he had paid scant attention to the Fisher report, merely accepting its conclusions in an uncritical fashion. This certainly leaves some questions to be asked of exactly what role the Certification Officer is expected to play and whose interests he serves.

His intervention did give an important advantage to the MSF leadership. He was the only person who had seen the evidence who could fairly claim to be independent of the union's bureaucracy. His conclusions were influential in defusing the situation inside MSF. Not surprisingly, they have been quoted on all subsequent occasions by the MSF leadership as evidence that the allegations were groundless.

After Conference the leadership was faced with the awkward problem of how to deal with Chowcat. There was a change of direction as they contemplated the consequences of sacking him. There was an obvious danger that the details of the allegations and of the treatment of Chowcat would then become public after so much effort had been put in to keeping them secret. The decision, therefore, was to negotiate severance terms with Chowcat, known as a "compromise agreement."

The terms of this agreement have never been made public. Indeed they were withheld from the MSF NEC. The only people who knew of the terms were Chowcat, Lyons, Gardner and Braddock plus their respective lawyers and the secretarial staff who prepared the documents. At a special meeting held shortly after the Certification Officer's report was published, the NEC was fed a remarkable story that they could not be informed of the terms of the agreement on equal opportunities ground. It was claimed that the understanding on confidentiality over-rode the union's rule book and statutory requirements on the disclosure of financial information. However, it was declared that Chowcat had left the union "without a stain on his character." A precis of the Fisher report was circulated at the meeting but the copies were gathered in afterwards. It was proposed not to circulate the report further on the grounds that it contained information on the financial activities of an individual, i.e. This was, of course, not in line with the commitment on disclosure given at Conference.

The NEC willingly accepted all of this with only three dissenters. They went on to declare that the affair was finished and that there should be no more discussion of it. These were extraordinary decisions. The MSF rule book establishes the NEC as the governing body of the union between Conference. It is the employer and it has a duty of care in regard to the funds and property of the union. All of these responsibilities were shirked in deciding voluntarily to remain in ignorance of the terms of the compromise agreement and of the full Fisher report. By this behaviour, if nothing else, the NEC members declared that they were not fit for office.

Nor does Chowcat come out of this looking good. At no time since his initiative in approaching Cooke had he attempted to make his allegations public or to mobilise support within the union. He may have felt by July that the game was up and that all he could do was negotiate terms. But it is hard to establish your credentials as an anti-corruption campaigner if you end up by accepting a large sum of money and making off with it in secret. But as mentioned above, whatever suspicions there might be about his motives, this does not detract from the substance of what he had to say.

There has been a lot of speculation subsequently about how big the pay-off was. The figure of £250 000 is frequently mentioned and Chowcat does not deny this, saying only that the terms offered were "satisfactory." There is also some suggestion that he obtained some topping up of his pension.

Writing to Lyons shortly after Conference on Chowcat's suspension, I said, "You will be aware that Annual Conference, with the recommendation of the NEC, clearly expressed its wish for openness and accountability in these matters and instructed the NEC to reform its procedures in order to protect the reputation of the union. I hope that we are all going to agree that the era of secret trails is over." Gardner replied, "I will resist the temptation to counter your comments about a 'secret trial' other than to say this whole exercise has been carried out fully in accordance with union rules and procedures. This whole affair has been conducted within the general ethos of openness and accountability and in the interest of the reputation of the union. That repuation also includes continuing to respect the interest of individuals who work in it or represent the union, hence the need always to strike the appropriate balance."

With the departure of Chowcat and the favourable report from the Certification Officer, the MSF leadership was now in a strong position and they were not about to relinguish their advantage. Some members attempted to obtain information about the Chowcat pay-off under the union's rules and by quoting the statutory requirements on disclosure of financial information by trade unions to their members. They were simply brushed aside.

Anyone else who got out of line was subjected to threats. For example, I wrote the following article for the London Region bulletin towards the end of the year:

"SCANDAL IN MSF

There have been growing rumours and allegations of misconduct in MSF over the last several years, involving senior officers of the union and other leading figures. Matters reached a head in the recent scandal involving General Secretary Roger Lyons, former Assistant General Secretary John Chowcat and Head of Finance Nelson Mendes...Despite the official whitewash, there are many questions still to be answered. Not the least of these is why Chowcat was paid off at all. Either his allegations were true, in which case he should still be in MSF's employment, or they were not, and he should not have been given a penny. The fact that he was paid to resign inevitably raises the suspicion that hush money was involved.

Also of huge concern is the secrecy surrounding the payment which the NEC agreed without knowing the sum involved or other details. In fact, only three or four people in the union know how much was paid. Regrettably, this is far from the first occasion in which confidentiality has been preserved when employees have left the union in circumstances which demand a full explanation. The NEC has gone as far as to argue that it has a contractual obligation to keep the details of termination payments secret.

This is completely indefensible, and probably legally wrong as well. There may be circumstances where an ex gratia payment is justified, but if so, the reasons should be given and the sum involved published. There can never be a good reason for what, in effect, are under the table payments.

It may be that the details of the Chowcat pay-off will emerge. The London Regional Council has agreed to proceedings being instituted if the NEC does not agree to publish the details. It will be a sad day for the union if our democratic procedures are not sufficient for the purpose and other means are required, but this may turn out to be necessary.

This most recent scandal has highlighted an intolerable situation which has arisen in the union. There has been serious misconduct, albeit by a small minority of our employees. The NEC has attempted to deal with this by surrounding the circumstances with a shroud of secrecy. They have bought into an argument that individuals are entitled to confidentiality and that members at large are not entitled to openness in how their money is being spent. This is a completely wrong way of looking at matters. It only encourages the abuses it is intended to deal with if employees get to believe the worst they can suffer is a big pay-off. In this, as in so many other areas of our culture, it is essential that the interests of our members come first and that our priorities change to reflect this."

When Lyons found out about this, he called in his favourite lawyer, Colin Ettinger of Irwin Mitchell who wrote, "Secondly, there is an article called 'Scandal in MSF.' This concerns allegations concerning 'misconduct in MSF over the last several years.' Again this does relate to local issues or indeed advance the interests and policies of the union...There is an issue relating to the costs of this publication. I would anticipate that the union is already committed into a contract to pay the publication costs and these would have to be met. However, those who may have sanctioned the printing of this journal will have done so beyond their remit. In such circumstances it may well be the case that they should be responsible for any of the publication costs...I would also draw your attention to rules concerning disciplinary action to take against individuals. In particular an individual can be removed from office if they have been found to be 'guilty of defalcation of the union's funds.' Defalcation of course means misappropriation. Payment for a journal/newsletter which has been commissioned in breach of the union rules may well, in my view, amount to such a breach."

Lyons transmitted this letter verbatim to the Regional Council and also secured the backing of the NEC in preventing the bulletin from being published. He even went to the lengths of contacting the bulletin's printers and telling them they would not be paid for their work.

By early this year, it looked as though the MSF leadership had got control of the situation and had come through the crisis successfully. But they were about to be undone by the determination of Marcia Solomon and the renewed interest of the press.

The Cover-up Crumbles. Shortly after Chowcat made his allegations, Solomon swore an affidavit on her role in the affair and sent it to Ayres. This was, in fact, how the union leadership found out that she was Chowcat's informant, the interrogation of the Head Office staff not having yielded any results. By her own account, she was at that time in a pretty distressed frame of mind and shortly afterwards she went off sick.

She remained off work for a considerable time during which her contact with the union and with the Certification Officer was by telephone. Eventually she was subjected to the MSF investigation and disciplinary procedure, was charged with a breach of trust and confidence and with bringing MSF into disrepute and was dismissed for gross misconduct in December 1999. The dismissal was carried out by National Secretary Paul Talbot who had no previous experience of carrying out disciplinary action and who stepped in at the last moment to cover for a sick colleague.

Throughout this period, and subsequently, Solomon maintained her assertions about the Daxo and Guildhall accounts and about the expenses and credit card fiddles. Even before she was sacked, she had decided to apply to an Employment Tribunal using the public interest disclosure legislation that had come into force in 1999. She then added a claim for unfair dismissal and complaints of race discrimination and of victimisation for trade union activities. These complaints were later dropped.

A serious effort was made to force her out of the case. In January this year, Irwin Mitchell, acting for MSF, wrote to Solomon's solicitors, Pattinson & Brewer, as follows:

"As you know, it is part of the Respondent's case that you client has lied under oath and, as such, has committed the offence of perjury...I am sure that you have explained to your client the consequences of her conduct in this respect, and the courses of action open to my client as a result, namely, to report the offence to the police, or to bring a private prosecution against her.

My clients would like your client to be aware that both courses of action remain under active consideration. In particular, if the tribunal accept that you client has lied under oath, I anticipate receiving instructions to pursue both courses of action vigorously.

No doubt you will copy this letter to your client."

In June this year, they wrote again:

"My client remains of the view that the Applicant's central claims of whistle blowing and unfair dismissal have no reasonable prospect of success...The purpose of setting out the above is to put the Applicant on notice that if she fails in her claims, it is the respondent's intention to make an application for costs against her on the basis of her unreasonable conduct in the proceedings."

Their client's hopes were to be confounded within a few weeks.

It took many people by surprise that the Tribunal hearing actually took place. A lot of people assumed that MSF would be able to wriggle out of it one way or another. But Solomon stuck to her guns and the hearing began in early July. It was quickly established that MSF would have to prove that Solomon acted in bad faith when she originally passed information on to Chowcat. They never came remotely near it.

Solomon proved to be a good witness, standing up well to a battering from the MSF counsel. She was supported by Chowcat who stated his belief that she had acted in good faith. She received more support from a specialist witness, Bartholemew Madge, who was able to throw doubt on the adequacy of the Fisher report. It emerged that the investigator had made no effort to find out about Lyons' and Mendes' personal finances and that there was a second witness to the existence of an MSF Guildhall account whose evidence had been omitted from the report. On the other hand, the witnesses for MSF were less than than impressive. Laurie Bell from the Unity Trust Bank was forced to admit that there had not been a search for returned cheques to the bank that might have been made out to Lyons and Mendes. He also had to admit that there were substantial discrepancies between the bank records and MSF records, such that you could not rely on the bank records to tell you what was going on in MSF. The Tribunal members rolled their eyes in incredulity as Talbot maintained over and over again that Solomon had acted from political motives or from a desire for personal advancement without being able to adduce a particle of evidence for his claims. He also had to reveal the shortcomings in the procedure by which Solomon was sacked. The MSF counsel had a habit of arguing continually with the Tribunal chair which did not do a lot for the case either.

There was, in addition, an insuperable obstacle that could not be overcome. Having given Chowcat a clean bill of health, however expedient a manoeuvre that was to get rid of him, it then became impossible in any believable way to claim that Solomon had acted in bad faith in providing him with the information in the first place.

The counsel, though, pursued one tactic consistently. That was to maintain that the allegation of large-scale fraud was the major one and to downplay the material on expenses and credit card expenditure or keep it out of the Tribunal altogether. This was the line which the MSF leadership has been following in its overall treatment of the issue.

By the fourth day of the hearing, it was obvious to everyone that the MSF case was going down the tubes. At this point, the Tribunal chair called the representatives of the two sides together and gave them some private advice. It seems pretty obvious that she told the MSF representative that they were going to lose. At any rate, negotiations started between the parties and a settlement was reached in a few hours. MSF agreed to pay Solomon £140 000. She got £50 000 tax free (the tax being paid by MSF) and the GMB, who represented her, got £50 000 plus VAT. MSF paid its own costs, also a large five-figure sum. The total bill can be estimated as close to £200 000.

In the settlement, both sides maintained their initial position, i.e. MSF continued to assert that Solomon is a liar and she continued to say that her allegations are true. In that sense it could be claimed that the outcome of the Tribunal was a draw. But the size of the settlement contradicts this. As Solomon did not actually lose any income as a result of her dismissal from MSF, it is unlikely that she would have got any more if she had won her case and the GMB would have likely had to pay their own costs.

It is hardly a matter of criticism of Solomon that she settled when she did rather then see the case through to the end. But the MSF observers at the Tribunal felt more than a pang of regret. For one thing, it meant that Lyons and Mendes did not have to give evidence which they were scheduled to do. They should give thanks that the sudden end to the hearing prevented their total public exposure.

Excuses and recriminations have broken out in MSF subsequently. It has been argued among other points that the public interest disclosure legislation had only just come into force, that the legal advice received was faulty and that the Tribunal chair was biased. The truth of the matter is that the union's position was indefensible, the presentation of the case was poor and the other side had done its homework properly and knew what it wanted to achieve. The MSF team acted as though they were still in internal union procedures where they could control the situation and say what they liked but this time they met a good side on a level playing field and they got trounced. It would do the union a lot of good to recognise this and draw the appropriate conclusions. It would also be fruitful to discuss why it was necessary to treat a black woman from a lower grade so much more harshly that anyone else involved.

The other argument that has come forward is that the whole affair was got up by the GMB to discredit MSF. Or, as Lyons would have it, got up by the GMB General Secretary John Edmonds, to discredit him. There is little doubt that there is bad blood on both sides here. MSF organises GMB staff and GMB/APEX organises MSF staff. There have been disputes about bullying and harassment both ways round. Solomon was a GMB/APEX rep and is now employed by the GMB. The GMB put a lot of resources into ensuring that she got first-class representation in the Tribunal case. There is good reason to believe that a lot of the press leaks stemmed from the GMB. They obviously gave fully enthusiastic backing to their member, perhaps more than enthusiastic, but if the material hadn't been there, it wouldn't have been necessary to do it in the first place.

The Solomon case provided the raw material but it needed the intervention of the press to bring it to the attention of the MSF membership. Far and away the most important role has been played by The Guardian which has now carried nearly 20 articles and letters about MSF affairs. The investigative reporters David Hencke and Steve Parry have now compiled a huge file on MSF, with a lot of information being provided by MSF members. Many of the other national papers carried stories though the broadcast media have been largely silent. On the left, Tribune has been active with an editorial calling for Lyons to go plus a number of stories and letters. A number of other left-wing papers have carried articles and features. The exception is the Morning Star which has given the story little coverage. The other person worthy of mention is the MSF public relations officer Richard O'Brien who confessed in an unguarded moment that his job for the last 18 months had consisted of trying to keep the story out of the media.

There are many on the left who would object to the internal affairs of a trade union being exposed in this way. Speaking as someone who was threatened with a legal action for suggesting there was too much secrecy in MSF, my reply is that the democratic mechanisms had broken down and there was no other option.

The other consequence of the Solomon case was finally to place some core documents in the hands of MSF members. These were rapidly spread around, demonstrating the advantages of an e-mail network. The effect on both activists and ordinary members was dramatic with a flow of motions, petitions, protest letters to Head Office and letters to the press. By the end of July more than half the Regional Councils had called on Lyons to resign or face a new, independent inquiry. The NEC was obliged to go some way towards meeting the demand for a new, independent investigation and finally agreed to publish the Fisher report. If they hoped in that way to defuse the situation, they are almost certain to be proved wrong.

Is MSF Corrupt?

Lyons and his core supporters are still maintaining that he did nothing wrong and that there is no evidence against him. That is a false claim. There is a very large amount of evidence, as described earlier. It is matter of what view you take about it. Now that MSF members will be able to study it in detail, it will be a big surprise if they do not conclude that there was systematic abuse of the union's funds and property.

The Solomon case was not the only one the MSF leadership has had to contend with in mid-2000. In fact, there is a total of six court and tribunal proceedings brought by members or employees in this short period. That fact, if nothing else, proves that something has gone radically wrong in the way the union is run. One of the Employment Tribunal case was brought by Howell John, a former fulltime official who, quite separately from Chowcat and Solomon, blew the whistle on unauthorised loans to fulltime officials. Apparently he had quite a lot to say about other questionable matters which have still to reach the public domain. But John decided to go for a settlement a few days before the Tribunal was due to start. The Guardian valued this at £200 000 but according to MSF the sum was £108 000. The Tribunal case brought by Bryan Keegan, Lyons' former chauffeur, is still pending but if it goes ahead, there will be further revelations.

The cover-up, now busted, is the true scandal in MSF. The facts of Lyons' behaviour are disgraceful enough. But the cover-up demonstrates that the collective political culture at the top of the union has gone seriously astray. Look at the costs. Three people lost their jobs. People were threatened with the police or with legal actions. The NEC shirked its duty. The MSF rules and the law were broken by the refusal to disclose information. Conference procedures were abused. Disciplinary procedures were abused in the treatment of Chowcat and Solomon. Staff were subjected to intimidatory interviews. Chowcat cost £250 000 minimum, Solomon about £200 000, John £108 000 using the MSF figure, the Fisher report is reported to have cost about £100 000. That is well over half a million pounds.

And all of this was to disguise the fact that Lyons is a dubious character. Not to disguise it from active MSF members or people in politics, the law, the media or industrial relations, many of whom are perfectly well aware of what he is like. But to disguise it from the ordinary MSF members whose subscriptions are necessary to finance the whole performance.

That brings us back to our first question: is MSF a corrupt organisation? There are certainly significant elements of corruption at national level. However, that is far from the whole story. At the basic level of recruitment, organisation and relations with employers, MSF is still a good union which provides a service for its members. There may be the occasional official or lay representative whose activities are open to question but what organisation is entirely free from such people. Whenever allegations of corruption have surfaced at national level, there has been a strong reaction among the activists and increasingly among the ordinary members as well.

But without a doubt, there is some corruption within the organisation which, as a matter of fact, has quite deep historical roots. It would be wrong to think it all started in 1997 and only concerned a single individual. This has been an unexploded bomb waiting to go off for 20 years or more. It has now detonated. But there are a number of factors which contribute to the particular character of the present crisis. These are related to the increasing centralisation and erosion of accountability within the union. The factors are:

* the low level of participation of members in the running of the union

* the weakness of the democratic structure

* the poor quality of the NEC

* changes in the composition of the fulltime officer force

* the factional nature of MSF national politics

* the character of the General Secretary

It is hardly a secret that only a tiny proportion of members take an active interest in the affairs of the union beyond their workplace. It affects all unions though MSF may be in a weaker position because of the highly variegated nature of its membership. But there is very little effort to persuade members to take an interest, despite lip-service to the contrary. Members could read the union's glossy publications from one year's end to the next without ever picking up any real idea of how the union is actually run. Many fulltime officials actively discourage members from becoming more deeply involved in order to consolidate their position as the main link between the union and the workplace.

There is low participation in the democratic structure which is in decline. Basic membership and financial functions have been transferred from branches to Head Office. The Annual Conference is still important, being formally the supreme governing body of the union, but its influence has weakened and it is easy to disregard for those who wish to disregard it.

The advent of postal ballots has altered the nature of the NEC. The older systems of branch ballots, whatever its shortcomings, at least contained an element of peer scrutiny of NEC members. This has vanished and has not been replaced by any genuine accountability to the membership at large. In many cases elections are not contested. This has resulted in a decline in the standard of NEC members who can get by without having to acquire any political skills.

Many fulltime officers no longer regard themselves as trade union activists but as career professionals. They are less likely to have a background of workplace organising in MSF and even less of involvement in the democratic structure. As a result, their links with the lay representatives are weaker and they have no real base of their own in the union. Their central relationship is with the General Secretary as the dispenser of patronage.

The national politics of MSF have been dominated by factionalism since its inception. We are probably not particularly worse in this than many other trade unions nor need it necessarily be a bad thing in itself. But the downside of factionalism is that people will condone or facilitate practices in the interests of the faction which they would not otherwise contemplate.

Elsewhere in this article there is a great deal about Lyons' approach to these matters. Suffice it to say here that his character is not up to dealing with demands of the situation.

All of these factors combined to create the potential for a major scandal. This potential has been realised, not just for MSF, but for the whole trade union movement. This type of thing affects the standing of the whole movement in the eyes of ordinary workers.

Many group representatives have complained that the publicity has made it more difficult for them to recruit members. That is bound to be the case. Corruption within an organisation is pervasive and if it is not curbed, eventually it will come to affect all the other activities.

Even the MSF NEC has now accepted the need for urgent reform. This must happen but will only take place if there is continuing pressure from the membership for it to do so. But it is impossible to believe that proper reforms will be carried out by people who have made a career out of misconduct. That is why Lyons must go, and a whole number of other people must go with him.

Hugh MacGrillen

August 2000