Court explains MP expenses ruling

Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot MorleyThe three men all deny the charges against them
Related stories

Supreme Court President Lord Phillips has said parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs from being prosecuted for “ordinary crimes”.

Last month the court rejected a bid by three ex-MPs’ to have their cases heard by parliament, not the courts.

He said the ancient right was meant to protect Parliamentary business from interference and claiming expenses did not “form part of of this business”.

Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor deny theft by false accounting.

The three former Labour MPs will now face separate trials at Southwark Crown Court.

They had argued that Parliamentary privilege, which protects MPs from legal action arising from events in Parliament – should apply to expenses.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument on 10 November.

Explaining the unanimous decision by a panel of nine senior judges, Lord Phillips said the case had raised a “novel and important question of law”, as for many centuries courts had recognised there were some parliamentary activities they could not inquire into which fell within the “exclusive cognisance” – or jurisdiction – of Parliament.

“Parliamentary privilege has never prevented the prosecution of Members of Parliament for ordinary crimes that are not connected with carrying out the business of Parliament”

Lord Phillips Supreme Court president

Lord Phillips said: “Parliamentary privilege is essentially concerned to protect from interference the business that Parliament exists to conduct, in particular the legislative and deliberative debate and discussion that takes place on the floor of the Houses or in Parliamentary committees.

“Making claims for allowances and expenses does not form part of this business. It is an incident in the administration of Parliament.

“Parliamentary privilege has never prevented the prosecution of Members of Parliament for ordinary crimes that are not connected with carrying out the business of Parliament.”

Former Bury North MP Mr Chaytor, 61, of Todmorden, West Yorkshire; former Scunthorpe MP Mr Morley, 58, of Winterton, north Lincolnshire; and former Livingston MP Mr Devine, 57, of Bathgate, West Lothian, are all on unconditional bail and face separate trials. Mr Morley’s had been due to start on 22 November but has been delayed.

In the Supreme Court hearing in October, Nigel Pleming QC, representing two of the men, told a panel of nine Supreme Court Justices that their appeal was “not, and never has been, an attempt to take them above or outside the law”.

He argued important issues of principle were raised by the case and the allegations had to be “dealt with by the correct law, the law of Parliament” – arguing that only Parliament could question and impugn statements made in Parliament.

He argued that the expenses scheme was created and is administered by Parliament for Parliamentarians: “The administration of the scheme is also entirely a matter for the House of Commons – this extends not only to its creation but to its regulation and enforcement.”

All three men were barred by their party from standing again as Labour MPs at the general election.

The charges against them followed a nine-month police investigation triggered after details of all MPs’ expenses claims were leaked to a national newspaper.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Clinton seeks Afghanistan support

Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev giving speech to open OSCE summit 1 Dec 2010President Nursultan Nazarbayev has been criticised for failing to improve Kazakhstan’s rights record
Related stories

World leaders and top diplomats are in Kazakhstan for a rare summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

The talks in Astana are expected to focus on Afghanistan, international drug trafficking and terrorism.

Human rights campaigners have said Kazakhstan’s poor record on democracy and rights make it an unsuitable venue.

Critics say the event is just a talking shop, and a clever way for the oil-rich country to boost its image overseas.

This is the by far the biggest international event ever to be held on Kazakh soil.

Heads of state and high-level diplomats from the 56 European and former Soviet states that make up the OSCE are gathering in the capital Astana.

It is the first such summit in a decade – and it comes amid the continuing Wikileaks controversy.

Regional security, frozen conflicts and the war in Afghanistan are on the agenda.

Map

But throughout its chairmanship of the OSCE this year, Kazakhstan has been criticised for its poor human rights record.

The government had promised to make amends when it was awarded the chairmanship in 2007.

But, human rights groups say, now that the country’s leadership has achieved its main foreign policy goal of hosting the summit, it is happy to weather international criticism.

And, given that many of the leaders present will be facing each other for the first time since the latest Wikileaks US diplomatic cables were published, any residual concerns about Kazakhstan’s human rights record are likely to be almost entirely drowned out.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Airport criticised over security

Manchester Airport's Terminal 1 (pic courtesy of Carl Silver)Manchester Airport said the issues raised have been addressed by the UK Border Agency
Related stories

Travellers arriving in the UK could walk out of Manchester Airport without passing through customs and immigration checks, inspectors have said.

The UK Border Agency’s (UKBA) independent chief inspector John Vine said they found two areas where people could walk out of the airport.

Unreliable facial recognition gates could have also compromised security, he said.

Manchester Airport said the issues raised had been addressed by the UKBA.

The inspection at the airport – which is the UK’s largest outside London – took place on 5 to 7 May but the outcome has only just been released.

Mr Vine said: “We observed that there were two areas in the airport where there was the potential for international passengers transferring between terminals to be able to walk out of the airport without passing through primary control points.

“It was considered serious enough to have been discussed at the level of Home Secretary yet had been removed from the airport risk register, placed on a regional risk register and not dealt with.”

He said he was concerned to discover UKBA staff had known about the “potential risk to the border” for some time.

“We understand that the facial recognition technology at Manchester Airport is now amongst the best-performing of all UK ports”

Manchester Airport spokesman

Facial recognition gates broke down five times in one week, trapping a passenger on one occasion, inspectors found.

Mr Vine said there was an unacceptable “lack of rationale” for the reasons why staff stopped and searched some passengers.

A spokesman for Manchester Airport said: “We are not aware of any international transfer passengers who did not board their connecting flight.

“The issues raised in today’s report into the Border Agency operation at Manchester Airport have already been addressed by UKBA.

“Indeed, we understand that the facial recognition technology at Manchester Airport is now amongst the best-performing of all UK ports.

“When UKBA highlighted the issue in terminal three involving a handful of international transfer passengers, we strengthened our joint procedures immediately.”

International passengers arriving at the terminal and transferring to other flights from other terminals are now escorted by security guards.

Steve Brassington, the UKBA’s director for Border Force North, said: “We accept the majority of the recommendations made by the inspector within the reports and the necessary changes have been or are being implemented.”

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.