LETTER: Unreasonable reactions to Nolan
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.From Mr Ray Thomas
Sir: The debate on the Nolan committee report does not show the House of Commons in a favourable light.
Sir Edward Heath bemoans the growth of suspicion about MPs' integrity but pursues his argument that to be open about MPs' earnings "would be a serious blow to democracy" (report, 20 May). Surely it is more reasonable to argue that secrecy about MPs' earnings adds to suspicion about the integrity of their activities?
The inference of Nolan is not that MPs are crooks, as Anthony Steen, MP for South Hams, suggests. The inference of Nolan is that the lobbying activities of MPs should be governed by rules and procedures.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP argues that Parliament would be damaged if MPs' individual activities were open to question by anyone outside Parliament. But while Nolan makes some recommendations, the report does not suggest than any body other than Parliament should decide on the rules and procedures that should govern MPs' lobbying activities.
Parliament is already the supreme political body, unchecked by any written constitution. Why should Parliament also be the supreme judicial body in deciding whether MPs have followed the prescribed rules and procedure?
Yours sincerely,
RAY THOMAS
Milton Keynes,
Buckinghamshire
19 May
F
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments