MPs' expenses

I have written little on the parliamentary expenses scandal, in part because it just seems a tawdry product of the age we live in. Partly, also, there is some reason behind what is going on. Successive governments have refused pay rises to the legislators so that they might all appear to be suffering with us in the economic mire they have caused. Mrs Thatcher, I seem to remember, linked an MP’s pay to the salary of a senior civil servant and they should have stuck with that no matter how unjustified it sometimes seems (how many times have you remarked that things are gong so well in our country that the MPs deserve a pay rise? Nor have I.)

The upshot of this was a tacit agreement that they could recoup some of their losses with some lavish expenses. That they over played their hand is clear, but there is at least some reason behind it.

The four parliamentarians (three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer) who have had their details referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions are not in this category. There is evidence (they have not been found guilty yet, except by the newspapers) of clear fraud. One of them, for example, seems to have claimed the rental for a property he himself owned; two others are accused of faking invoices.

It is quite unacceptable that these men might be allowed to claim parliamentary privilege from prosecution. The rule of parliamentary privilege was put in place to protect free speech: you could not sue an MP for defamation if he spoke the words in the House, and so he could be fearless in his allegations. It has nothing to do with criminal activity.

The public wants a scalp or two. Let’s get this over with – properly, without compromise or evasion of responsibility – and move on.