An Abuse of Privilege
The courts should and will decide whether the three Labour MPs and one Conservative Peer who are to be prosecuted over their expenses are innocent or guilty.
It is absolutely clear that the system of parliamentary expenses needs radical reform, and that some MPs have abused a lax system: they should be treated the same way that anyone else who behaved similarly would be.
That includes the presumption that any individual is innocent until proven guilty. British law is built on that principle - however much some politicians have been trying to undermine it - and it should apply whether the accused is an MP or a dustman.
Of course, it is highly ironic that a former minister in the present government, and two backbenchers who supported it, should rely on the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty when this government has not exactly been the strongest defender of that principle for others. That doesn't make the principle wrong.
One thing which nobody should be able to do is claim parliamentary privilege. That privilege is there to allow MPs to say what they think is true without being sued and to protect the privacy of constituents who have written to an MP. It is not there to protect any public servant, of whatever grade or party, from investigation of material evidence that he or she has been stealing from the taxpayer.
It is absolutely clear that the system of parliamentary expenses needs radical reform, and that some MPs have abused a lax system: they should be treated the same way that anyone else who behaved similarly would be.
That includes the presumption that any individual is innocent until proven guilty. British law is built on that principle - however much some politicians have been trying to undermine it - and it should apply whether the accused is an MP or a dustman.
Of course, it is highly ironic that a former minister in the present government, and two backbenchers who supported it, should rely on the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty when this government has not exactly been the strongest defender of that principle for others. That doesn't make the principle wrong.
One thing which nobody should be able to do is claim parliamentary privilege. That privilege is there to allow MPs to say what they think is true without being sued and to protect the privacy of constituents who have written to an MP. It is not there to protect any public servant, of whatever grade or party, from investigation of material evidence that he or she has been stealing from the taxpayer.
Comments
Parliamentary Privilege is to protect free speech in the House. In the past it protected an MP from arrest for airing his views. Royal Prerogative versus Parliamentary Privilege was an area of contention in the 17th century, prior to the civil war, when Charles I attempted to arrest political opponents. Now it principally protects MPs from libel action, but only when a statement is made in the House under Parliamentary Privilege.
Privilege was never intended to protect MPs from facing charges for criminal offences committed in the course of work as MPs or outside that role. It would set a dangerous precedent if this was determined to be the case now. Taken to the extreme, would it be acceptable for an MP to murder someone? Fortunately in the past MPs have been tried for criminal offences (Jeremy Thorpe and John Stonehouse.) There is a precedent to charge these three.
Keir Starmer QC (Director of Public Prosecutions) believes there is sufficient evidence that the MPs broke the law, with regard to concealment, falsification and destruction of accounting records for financial gain. These are serious allegations. The MPs have the same right as any member of the public to be deemed innocent until proven guilty and have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. However Parliamentary Privilege is not a defence.