Wednesday, 14 October 2009

The Legg 'Affair'

With all the furore in which we have MPs complaining about 'retrospective' punishment, threats to take the matter to court and all the other 'whinging' by them, four points should be borne in mind.

1. Since all matters of the Houses of Commons are subject to Parliamentary privilege - and are therefore not subject to the laws of the land - how can the courts be involved?

2. No doubt, once Legg has reported in November, or December, to the Members Estimates Committee they could well send his findings to the floor of the House of Commons. So we are back to the situation of MPs self-regulating their affairs. In this context we have already seen Jacqui Smith left unpunished by her peers.

3. On the subject of expenses the question remains, what is it about the words 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred....for the purposes of performing your parliamentary duties'? How does any any MP justify claims for gardening, tv, cleaning and other related subjects such as duck ponds etc and believe claims such as those fit the criteria of 'wholly, exclusively and necessary'?

4. As a letter in today's Daily Telegraph, from John Newbury of Warminster says, 'Who forgot to give Sir Thomas Legg his bucket of whitewash and the instructions how to apply it?'

No comments: