The Misrepresentation of the People Act is a proposed Act of Parliament in the UK. The Bill had its First Reading on 17 October 2007; its Second Reading and first vote was on 19 October 2007, so far 37 of 646 MP's support the bill[1]. The Bill resulted from an 11 October 2007 BBC television documentary by Richard Symons in the Why democracy? season. Various experts in the field of politics were asked about the possibility to legally prosecute politicians for lying (in their function), so they could be barred from ever representing the people as politicians again. Various members of parliament were asked if they would put this act before parliament, and one agreed, Adam Price. Many others agreed to the principle, but not the method. The original 'cheeky' title had to be adapted and the full title became A Bill to create offences in relation to the publication of false or misleading statements by elected representatives; and for connected purposes. The content was, however, left largely intact. The documentary started with four principles:
- We, the people, are sovereign
- We grant this sovereignty to our elected representatives in parliament (we are their employers)
- Our elected representatives have a fundamental obligation to be honest
- We are entitled to formal legal independent redress
Among the interviewees, there was general consent to the first three points, but not the fourth. There were several objections and counterarguments:
- You can't have a law against lying. But there already are such laws, such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Statutory instrument 1988 no. 915 and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.
- There is already a means of control in place - if ministers mislead it's the end of their career. But the documentary gives several examples of ministers who first lost their jobs for such reasons, but then got another one in politics soon after. And voting out lying ministers or MPs through the following elections can only be done once every four years, when one can't vote out a specific person. Besides, between government spin and trial by media, how can we possibly know the truth we need to judge them? Anyway, if you get burgled, you don't go to the press, you go to the police. One member of parliament, however, stated that the press should be held accountable for the lies they tell.
- There is already plenty of self-regulation. But this is done through a process in which the prime minister is both judge and jury.
- Members of parliament can ask questions. But the ministers are not obliged to answer, and most of the time give evasive answers. And the party whip is far too powerful.
- You can't give power over to people who are less accountable than parliament. But that has already been done, in the cash for honours scandal.
