Today, the Constitutional and Judicial Policy Subcommittee of the Saeima’s Legal Affairs Committee, while reviewing a proposal from the Progressives party to revoke “lifetime passes” for former MPs who have been convicted of crimes, agreed to revise the proposal to restrict convicted former MPs from accessing the Parliament buildings.
Saeima deputy Andrejs Judins (JV) expressed concerns during the meeting, noting that the proposal raised various issues. He questioned whether the pass would also be revoked from former deputies who had been convicted “due to negligence.” Judins argued that former MPs should not be equated with current ones. “There is a difference between walking through the corridors and making decisions,” Judins said.
Deputy Antonina Nenaseva (Progressives) stated that if problems were identified in the proposal, the subcommittee could draft a version that addresses these issues.
A representative of the Saeima’s Legal Bureau noted that implementing the “Progressives’” proposal could cause administrative difficulties, as it would be challenging for the Saeima’s administration to determine whether a former MP had been convicted and therefore should have their “lifetime pass” revoked.
Saeima Speaker Daiga Mieriņa (ZZS) suggested that perhaps broader reconsideration is needed regarding how passes are issued in general, which would allow better tracking of individuals’ movements within the Parliament.
During the meeting, subcommittee members agreed to refine the Progressives’ proposal by preparing a revised version
that would allow for restricting the movement of convicted former deputies within the Saeima buildings.
The Rules of Procedure of the Saeima currently stipulate that former Saeima members, as well as members of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia who voted for the 4th of May 1990 Declaration of Independence, have the right to visit the Parliament buildings. However, these rights do not extend to deputies who were expelled from the Saeima.
The Progressives argue that “lifetime passes” to Parliament premises should not be granted to deputies who, after the end of their parliamentary mandate, have been found guilty of a criminal offense.
Deputies point out that MPs can be convicted for anti-state activities or violent crimes, and in such cases, allowing access to Parliament buildings raises concerns about potential threats to national security or the rule of law. The Progressives emphasize that Parliament should not grant exclusive rights of entry and presence to former MPs convicted of criminal offenses after their term in office.
“The so-called ‘lifetime pass’ signifies an honorary status, which should be revoked if there are objective doubts about a person’s loyalty to the state or if the person has committed a criminal offense — that is, has engaged in unlawful behaviour warranting the most severe form of liability: criminal liability,” the party justifies its proposal.
At the same time, the proposal provides that, if necessary, a former MP who has been denied a “lifetime pass” under the amendments could still visit the Parliament by applying for a pass through the regular procedure — meaning that the ban on entering the Saeima buildings would not be absolute.