It also emerged yesterday that Plaid Cymru MPs had claimed a £4,500 legal bill incurred during the 2004 bid to impeach then-Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Iraq war.
The bill for legal advice on the case for impeachment was split between the three Plaid Cymru MPs Adam Price, Hywel Williams and Elfyn Llwyd.
Despite attracting support from MPs across the Commons, the attempt to use the arcane parliamentary procedure ultimately ended in failure.
Mr Williams said last night: "We were determined to hold Prime Minister Tony Blair to account for taking us into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.
"The impeachment procedure hadn’t been used for 200 years, and we needed expert legal advice.
...but the point is that it would have been nice for Messrs Price, Williams and Llwyd to ask the citizens of the UK before unilaterally attempting to spend their hard-earned tax pounds.
"I’m very glad that we made this effort in 2004; unfortunately it wasn’t successful but I know that millions of people were very glad that the Plaid Cymru MPs, supported by MPs across the House, took the course of action that we did.
"This I think was a proper use of parliamentary resources, of which I was very proud."
He should have wandered round with a plastic bucket outside Westminster for a couple of hours, I'm sure he'd have collected enough to hore a decent brief.
11 comments:
That the best yo can do? Lol!!
And if they had asked ME, I'd have told them what to with their 'legal advice' on bringing down a prime minister for a political decision:
IF YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR CAUSE, FUND IT YOURSELVES!
As it was they charged the rest of us. Though at no time were the rest of us asked.
And in 2005, teo years into the Iraq invasion, the people voted for Blair for a third time. Clearly THEY were not all convinced that he was a war criminal/liar.
This episode is to me more disgraceful than anything else that has happened over the abuse of expenses.
Strange how the hypocritical mainstream press is mute.
Of course they're busy making us turn against ALL politicians, aren't they?
A good day to bury bad news, Plaid Cymru boys?
I've written about this at my blog.
Who pays for legal advice for the government? Oh! yes the poor tax payer.
If it's allright for the goose its allright for the gander. Why shouldn't opposition MPs have the same public resource for legal advice as the government has?
Compared to the 5 billion pounds, and the loss of life, that the illegal war in Iraq has cost the taxpayer, Plaid's £4k is chickenfeed.
Dewi and Alwyn,
It's a question of transparency if they wish to spend taxpayers money on such things as legal advice they should be 100% upfront where that money is coming from.
The question of the morality or otherwise of the Iraq war or the fact that government also uses taxpayers money to fund government legal advice is neither here nor there.
I can't see how this one is even an issue (actually it's not, which is why no proper paper has even commented on it). Bringing the government to account is an opposition MP's JOB. The impeachment thing had cross party support and wasn't therefore a single party political thing.
Isn;t this exactly what expenses should be for, instead of personal things like moats, duck houses and non-existant mortgages?
Also, the only reason this one is even published is that the Plaid MP's voluntarily handed their full expenses to the Daily Post, unlike the aforementioned moat, duck island and non-existant mortgages.
"The impeachment thing had cross party support and wasn't therefore a single party political thing."
It didn't have the support of every single taxpayer in the UK- I think it's an issue not because of the comparitively small amount of money involved or even because it wasn;t for personal gain (I also wouldn't favour some of the more fundamentalist brethern in the HOC getting taxpayers support for their campaigns either. It's the principle, if you want to use the taxpayers' cash to prove a political point then fine, have the decency to ask those taxpayers first though.
But it's their JOB! Holding the government to account is THE job of an MP. It's what they're there for, it's what they were voted in to do.
The whole purpose of expenses is to help an MP do his/her job. An MP's job is to hold the government to account. So the whole purpose of the expenses is to help MP's hold the government to account.
There's no issue here, and only someone trying to drag other parties into the Labour/Tory/Lib Dem mess would try and argue otherwise. (Which is why no real paper has given it a second glance).
Sorry O'Neill, as Hen says, it's their job as MPs to hold the Executive to account. Quite frankly, I just wish the supine MPs from the so-called "Big 3" parties actually realised this and followed suit.
It didn't have the support of every single taxpayer in the UKNeither did the government's legall advice neither did the war. I doubt if there has ever been a parliamentary penny spent that had 100% support from every taxpayer in the UK
OK, let's say a group of fundamentalists (of whatever description) used expenses to obtain legal advice on how they could extend N.Ireland's draconian rules on abortion over the rest of the UK. They claimed it is in the long-term moral interest of the UK. Would you not, at the very least, believe they should be 100% transparent with the wider UK taxpaying public on this?
It's an argument for full, or failing that, more "transparency".
If they had been elected by the voters to represent them then yes, I would be happy with that. Their job is to hold the government to account and make laws. I have zero issue with an MP using taxpayers money to do just that.
As for your "should they be transparent" question then yes they should, but I only say that because I believe the Commons should be transparent with ALL expenses (like the National Assembly for Wales is).
I would describe this as the perfect reasonable use of expenses, unlike the abuse we've seen from many members of the three main british parties.
Post a Comment