Based on a global comparative analysis, an aspiring goal for parliaments in the area of “incompatibility of office” is as follows:

• The legal framework places limits on MPs holding offices that are incompatible with their role as an MP, such as being a member of both houses in a bicameral parliament, holding judicial office or holding office in the civil service.

• Where incompatibilities of office arise, provisions and processes are in place for the issue to be resolved quickly, by the MP either resigning from the incompatible office or being disqualified from holding their parliamentary office.

• The legal framework and parliamentary practices effectively protect against the possibility of conflicts of interest arising from incompatibility of office, and against any unnecessary diversion of MPs from their duties. Parliament maintains and publishes data on the other offices and roles held by MPs.

Based on a global comparative analysis, an aspiring goal for parliaments in the area of “non-accountability and inviolability” is as follows:

• Parliamentary non-accountability is established in the legal framework, which contains clear provisions that protect MPs from legal reprisals for the votes they cast, and for the words they express both within and outside parliament in connection with the exercise of their parliamentary duties. This non-accountability can never be lifted. 

• Parliamentary inviolability is established in the legal framework, under which parliament must give its consent before an MP can be arrested, detained and/or prosecuted. The only exceptions are situations of in flagrante delicto and situations in which an MP’s alleged wrongdoing is unrelated to the exercise of their parliamentary duties. 

• Due process is followed throughout the procedure for lifting parliamentary inviolability. The MP in question can defend themselves and is heard before the decision on whether or not to lift the inviolability is taken. Parliament, or its relevant committee, reviews the lifting request carefully and only agrees to do so if it is convinced that the proposed legal action is grounded in law and supported by evidence. 

• MPs are able to claim in court that they were not caught in flagrante delicto and/or that the charge brought against them relates to the exercise of their parliamentary duties and, therefore, that the legal action taken against them should have required the lifting of inviolability first. Likewise, a victim of wrongdoing by an MP is able to claim in court that the wrongdoing does not relate to the exercise of the MP’s parliamentary duties. 

• The legal provisions on parliamentary inviolability are implemented in such a way that MPs are both adequately protected when needed, but also prosecuted when justified. No majority in parliament should shield an MP from criminal action when there are clear reasons for prosecution. Similarly, no majority in parliament should lift the inviolability of an MP when such a decision does not appear to be justified.