That is a fair observation but where does the logic of "conflict of interest" stop.

There will be MPs who have children. Are they allowed to speak (or chair committee's) on childcare.

If an MP has a medical condition - For example the MP with Cerebral Palsy.

MP's over 65 and pensions policy

There are many examples of this for what is a Legal activity. Indeed it might not be a bad idea for MP's pontificating on drug policy to have at least tried poppers.

Oddly I don't think that's necessarily a 'bad thing' per se. If your going to have a committee looking into prostitution or drug legalisation, you do need people with experience on 'the other' side.

The chairman, ideally, should be someone who is neither pro or anti though. However, we have a political tendency to accept a chair person who has a 'strong moral stance' that's in line with the government policy, which is in no way any worse than having someone who might be 'pro-change'.

But in an ideal world, you want someone who is not really in possession of a strong moral stance.

That said, commitees and specialist advisors tend to be just ignored if they don't line up to the government 'stance' (David Nutt springs to mind).

What should happen, is that they all try them, and it gets televised. So we see MP's trying to negotiate keeping his kidneys with an Romanian pimp, try to score cocaine from a dodgy looking motor on an iffy estate and of course taking a beating from a couple of drunk women they've mistken as 'brasses'.

Then after the 'round of scoring' its marks negotiating 'specials', chopping lines and sneaking drugs into assorted clubs.

Before finally the consumption. MP's on Acid, in a rave, with Die Antword playing (music and videos), or trying to get a handjob from a disinterested junky behind a skip...

That would be f**king great TV, and could revitalise politics. John Crace, from back bencher to back scuttler, Teresa Maybe4crack, Corbyn's discount hairy Abbot - Its got the makings of perfect TV.

I think it's about time we brought in legislation to prevent people like Vaz, Mandelson, Archer, Aitken etc becoming MP's or having their right to stand as an MP taken away once they are convicted of a serious crime like fraud or perjury or previous misdemeanours come to light.

[Link]

The above link shows that this is not something new... political scandals have existed for well over 100 years. It's crazy that we are so strict about criminal records for other professions but MP's seem immune?

In Vaz's case his dealings with the Hinduja Brothers should have been the end of his political career.

I would hope that his constituency would turn on him now and demand he resigns as an MP too.

After all male foursome I'm guessing the last thing you'd want to do is sit on a chair.