March 26, 2008
Scarlet Speaker
I wish I could find a screen shot of Michael Martin, the Commons speaker, slapping down an David Winnick for questioning his decision to appeal the release of MPs expenses. What he said was remarkable. But the colour he turned was quite spectacular. As he said the words “media” and “expenses”, his face turned a shade of scarlet that could have set off the fire alarms in the Commons.
For those who missed Mr Martin’s outburst, here is Jim Pickard’s rough transcript of what he said:
“For the House of Commons the rules are quite clear. It is before the courts and it is sub judice and I can’t discuss it. But ….the gentleman is asking…he can go to the court and find out the grounds for appeal. There is nothing to stop him doing that.”
From memory, I think he also suggested that while the media could discuss the case, such debate was not allowed in the Commons because of “subjudicy”.
This is a fascinating and unorthodox point of view that overturns everything I thought I knew about law. As far as I’m aware, MPs can talk about whatever they like in the Commons. They have the legal priviledge to do so. Even if the High Court case was under way, I’d be surprised if the judge would have the power to stop MPs discussing the case outside trial, which is the very definition of subjudicy.
The big question is, who are the lawyers advising Mr Martin? They certainly have a interesting take on law, both in terms of the appeal and in terms of parliamentary privilege. I wonder how much they will cost the taxpayer?
UPDATE: Well, it appears there are sub judice conventions that parliament abides by. The practices are detailed here. I’m not sure whether it applies to the appeal against the ruling by the freedom of information tribunal. But it explains the speakers argument. Can you tell that I am turning a bit red?
Alex, if you read down the Parliamentary resolution to 1973, it overturns the 1963 resolution and says:
“(1)… reference may be made… to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts… which concern issues of national importance [i.e. trust in Parliament]…” and
“(2)… the Chair should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings…” So, by implication, if there is no danger of prejudice to the proceedings, as in Mr Winnick’s question, then discussion should be allowed.
Of course, none of these rsolutions actually bind the Speaker. He can choose to disallow anything he likes and the only option MPs have is to try to get rid of him.
MPs may in future be more careful about who they elect as Speaker.
Posted by: Scary Biscuits | March 27th, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Report this commentIf you read down the Parliamentary resolution to 1973, it overturns the 1963 resolution and says:
“(1)… reference may be made… to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts… which concern issues of national importance [i.e. trust in Parliament]…” and
“(2)… the Chair should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings…” So, by implication, if there is no danger of prejudice to the proceedings, as in Mr Winnick’s question, then discussion should be allowed.
Of course, none of these rsolutions actually bind the Speaker. He can choose to disallow anything he likes and the only option MPs have is to try to get rid of him.
MPs may in future be more careful about who they elect as Speaker.
Posted by: Scary Biscuits | March 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this comment