MPs and the law

They should not look to use the defence of Parliamentary privilege as some form of indemnity against prosecution. This ancient device was merely intended to uphold the principle of freedom of speech at Westminster so Parliamentarians could speak out on contentious issues.

Even when this safeguard was being enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament that followed the English Civil War, it was never intended to cover the alleged misappropriation of public money – the highly damaging claim at the heart of the criminal inquiry against Mr Morley, the Scunthorpe MP, and others. Such a mistaken belief only gives credence to the belief that the defendants, and many other MPs for that matter, still fail to grasp the seriousness of the expenses scandal – and how its many ramifications have shattered the public's trust in their elected politicians.

This is reinforced by reports that Mr Morley, and his two colleagues who have also been charged under the Theft Act, could still receive "golden goodbyes", totalling tens of thousands of pounds in each instance, when they quit the Commons at the election.

Irrespective of the merits, per se, of retiring politicians receiving such payments – an issue that merits an entirely separate debate – any payments to MPs facing criminal charges should be withheld, and only paid out if those concerned clear their names in a court of law that has been presented with the full facts.