Resignation a half-hearted show of integrity
Keith Vaz’s decision to depart the home affairs committee settles some questions but it raises others
The decision by Keith Vaz to vacate the helm of one of the most influential select committees in the House of Commons has been presented as a personal sacrifice that will safeguard the integrity of the democratic process, but in reality that is a laughable travesty.
As has been widely publicised over recent days, the veteran Labour MP has become caught up in allegations concerning a sex and drugs scandal. He is not the first politician to be engulfed in controversy, nor will he be the last, and it is worth reiterating that everyone, irrespective of their public profile, is entitled to a private life.
The dilemma faced by Mr Vaz, however, is altogether more nuanced and complicated. As chairman of the home affairs select committee, he routinely dealt with legislation concerning drug use and payments for sex, two issues at the centre of the allegations against him.
His decision to step down from the chairmanship acknowledged the importance of the committee’s process. It was, he stressed, in the best interest of the committee that its “important work can be conducted without any distractions whatsoever,” adding: “I am genuinely sorry that recent events make it impossible for this to happen if I remain chair.”
The fact that Mr Vaz has referred the allegations – made against him in a Sunday newspaper – to his solicitor may have had some bearing on the imprecise nature of his statement. But legal considerations aside, his address failed to properly acknowledge the poten- tial conflict between his personal and political lives. The only moment he came close was when he declared that “those who hold others to account must themselves be accountable.”
The issue of perception is paramount in this instance, and Mr Vaz’s departure from the committee is insufficient to address concerns. The fact that it took a spokesman for the commitee to confirm that he had resigned not only as its chairman, but as a member, shows the manner of his exit could and should hae been handled better.
Questions over whether he can be seen to act as an independent advocate may recede, but the wider issues require clarity lest they arise again in future. It is crucial that the Commons Standards commissioner and the wider parliamentary body give consideration to this.
The overarching principle surrounding this incident is a wearily familiar one. People have lost their faith in elected politicians. The process has been gradual but they have been pronounced, The result is that our democracy is facing a crisis. The only way to begin to put that right is for politicians to act as leaders of society and people of integrity. In short, the electorate must be able to trust them to do the right thing.
Mr Vaz may believe that stepping down as chair brings a regrettable episode to a conclusion. It does not. If he is sincere in his convictions, he should resign as an MP. In doing so, he would not only protect the reputation of the committee on which he served for many years, but the standing of elected members across the house.