TIME FOR CHANGE ?

Well, at least the now former MP for Rotherham, Dennis McShame, has resigned and paid back the money he admits to have swindled over his expenses.   The amounts involved and the reasons behind this fiddle are now well documented but perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this case revolves around `parliamentary privilege.`

Now some months ago, the police were investigating McShame`s expenses claims but in July the investigation ended because of our old friend parliamentary privilege.  I had always thought and agreed with the notion that parliamentary privilege was there to ensure and protect free speech in parliament, not to provide a bolt hole for MPs who had indulged in criminal activities.

However, it seems that the letters written by the former Labour minister to the Committee on Standards, in which he openly admitted fiddling his expenses, are not admissable as evidence as they are protected by parliamentary privilege and thus cannot be used to prosecute McShame.   Now the Clerk of the Journals, one Liam Laurence Smith, has admitted that people will find this situation `surprising` but goes on to suggest that the privilege exists so that parliament can function effectively.

I`m not sure he can be taken seriously if he is claiming that MPs who not only commit acts that would lead to criminal proceedings outside parliament but also confess in writing to doing so, should be protected in this way.   It`s nonsense, of course, and time the whole business of parliamentary privilege was changed so that continued freedom of speech is ensured but clear abuses of the system which seek to thwart otherwise legitimate police investigations cannot happen.

Back in April this year, the then Leader of the House, Sir George Young, when introducing a Government consultation paper on "how to prevent the possible misuse" of these privileges, said that "the connotation of the word `privilege` is unfortunate in its suggestion of special treatment for Members of Parliament."   He wasn`t wrong.