We are hearing a great deal about Parliamentary privilege in the news media at present, but how many of us really understand what it means? However, to properly understand the context we need to re-visit the MPs expenses scandal.

Following the outrageous expose’ in the press, Gordon Brown appointed Sir Thomas Legg to audit MPs expense claims from 2004 to 2009.

There 646 MPs are there in the House of Commons. Sir Thomas Legg’s recommendations, published by the House authority, were for 390 MPs to repay some £1.3 million of "invalid" claims.

Sir Thomas Legg has critised the "deeply flawed" system at the House of Commons.

In his summary Sir Thomas said the "rules were vague, and MPs were themselves self-certifying as to the propriety of their use of the allowance". There was also a "prevailing lack of transparency" and officials had a "culture of deference" to MPs, "even though this was expressly required by the rules".

This is damning stuff, particularly as it is directed at 60% of our elected representatives.

Retired judge Sir Paul Kennedy has fully or partially upheld appeals by 44 MPs against Sir Thomas's initial conclusions, reducing the total repayment demand £1.12 million.

Tory backbencher Bernard Jenkin, who faced the highest demand for £64,000, was among those whose challenges were successful, with the repayable sum being halved to ‘just’ £36,000.

Following the appeals, the biggest repayment, £42,458, has been requested from culture minister Barbara Follett.

A new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has been set up to decide MPs' salaries and check their expense claims for credibility, but at what price to the taxpayer?

The cost of setting up this new body which is responsible for cleaning up Parliament will cost £6.5million, which is six times the £1.12million that MPs repaid to the taxpayer for their fiddled expense claims.

Add to that the publicly funded £1.1million cost of Sir Thomas Legg's audit and the real cost is £5 million to the long suffering taxpayer, who do not have the option to claim it in their expenses.

But the tale does not end there. Some of the cases of fiddling were so blatant and outrageous they became the subject of a police investigation.

The outcome is that Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that three Labour MPs, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and a Tory peer, Lord Hanningfield, will face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. They all deny the charges.
Anyone convicted faces a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

Now these devious fellows are not going to simply submit themselves to the fairness of British Justice. Oh no, they claim they are protected by Parliamentary privilege and say that the issue should have been resolved by the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards; a nice, cosy, in-house, slap-on-the-wrist solution.

We now return to the original question of what is Parliamentary privilege. The 1689 Bill of Rights which gives force to parliamentary privilege dates back to the English Civil War when Parliament was fighting for the right of independence from the monarchy. It established the rights of Parliament and enshrined them in law. Article 9 states that "the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".

The privilege prevents MPs and peers from being sued for defamation, which means that they can say whatever you like within Parliament without the fear of prosecution.

However, we see no mention of protection from prosecution for fiddling your expenses. Parliamentary privilege was never intended to help politicians escape the criminal law. Most fair minded people would agree with the principle that no one is above the law – including MPs.

By seeking to hide behind Parliamentary privilege these politicians continue to bring their office into disrepute and make Parliament a laughing stock.

I suggest we give all four of them their day in court; the criminal court.