Owl thinks private lives should be private – but if you have a public life that puts you in direct conflict with that private life (such as heading an inquiry into drugs and prostitution) then you should be prepared to be held to account. But who does that accounting?
The Daily Telegraph explains the difficulty:
“The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament is clear: “Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity …”
During a parliamentary career that has lasted almost 30 years so far, Keith Vaz has faced many questions about how well he lived up to that standard. …
… His chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs committee does not just give him a prominent public position and an additional salary, it also gives him regular direct contact with senior ministers and officials, and privileged access to some of the most sensitive official information about matters of crime and national security.
In short, Parliament has chosen to ignore all of the questions about Mr Vaz’s conduct over many years and reward him with a position of great power and responsibility.
Time and time again, serious concerns have been raised about the “integrity and probity” of Mr Vaz. Every time, the parliamentary authorities have failed to investigate those concerns with the tenacity or objectivity requited to give the public full confidence in their findings and in Parliament as a whole.
This newspaper has argued over many years that MPs sadly cannot be trusted to police their own conduct, calling instead for independent oversight, perhaps from a body similar to the US Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog solely composed of non-politicians.
Mr Vaz is living proof of why politicians cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.”
East Devon Watch 