The Ashcroft Affair: MPs demand privilege review
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THERE WERE calls for a review of parliamentary privilege last night from Conservative MPs still angry that their party treasurer was linked in the Commons with United States drugs inquiries.
Sir Patrick Cormack, shadow deputy leader of the House, demanded that privilege - and its protection from libel actions - should be used only when an MP can prove that allegations have "real substance".
The 1689 Bill of Rights states that "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any place or court outside Parliament", effectively allowing MPs to level whatever accusations they like against outsiders.
Tory MPs were furious that Peter Bradley, the Labour MP for The Wrekin, gave details of drugs and money-laundering investigations in which Michael Ashcroft's name had featured, before admitting he had no idea whether the Tory treasurer had done anything wrong.
The latest exchanges may reignite proposals that were being considered last year to give a right of reply to anyone named by an MP under Parliamentary privilege. It is a privilege, however, that few MPs would like to see diluted because of its effectiveness of airing matters that would otherwise remain secret.
Civil rights lawyers yesterday advised against changing the rules. "Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental safeguard for free speech in a democratic society," said Mark Stephens of Stephens Innocent, libel lawyers who represent the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post in the United Kingdom.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments