It has just been announced that the Home Affairs Select Committee is to convene to discuss "The police aspects and processes over the arrest of Damian Green."
This is quite an interesting development, as in theory it could do exactly what the so-called Speaker's Committee was supposed to do - but do it quickly and not wait until the case is over. The chairman of the Committee, Keith Vaz, supported the Ming Campbell amendment yesterday.
12 comments:
you may not have realised the relevance of a couple of people asking about this as 'points of order' after the debate. the Speaker said that it was up to each committee as to what they discussed.
Is this the first correct thing Keith Vaz has ever done?
from hansard.
Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker...... Secondly, can you confirm that it is none the less possible for other Committees of the House, including the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, to take up this matter if they wish to do so?
Mr. Speaker: The House has made its decision and it is best for me not to comment on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He is aware of the rules of the House on the composition of Committees, and it is best that I do not make any comment on that matter.
8 Dec 2008 : Column 304
Mrs. May: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. .... . I, too, ask for confirmation that the subject will be open to other Committees of this House, such as the Standards and Privileges Committee, and that their remit covers the matters that your Committee would cover.
Mr. Speaker: I make no comment on the right hon. Lady’s first point. On the latter point, it is up to Committees of the House to decide what they wish to do and what action they want to take. That is entirely up to them.
The normal procedure in referring a matter to the Committee on Privileges (now the Committee on Standards and Privileges) is to give written notice to the Speaker and then to rise at the start of public business to make the request. The Speaker will then consider the matter overnight (even if it is obvious) and rule the next day on whether it is a prima facie question of privilege; if it is, then a motion by a Government minister formally refers the question to the committee.
No MP has yet attempted to refer any matter of the Damian Green affair to the Committee, which is interesting in itself. Some aspects are plainly not in breach of Parliamentary privilege (the arrest itself, for example). The Speaker would also be bound to rule that the search of offices on the Parliamentary Estate is not a prima facie breach of Parliamentary privilege because there is no such privilege defined. Perhaps this is why it has not been referred.
As for the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry, this does at a stroke produce an inquiry covering most of the areas in which the Campbell amendment yesterday sought to extend the Speaker's Committee remit. Logically we can expect the opposition parties now to accept democracy and co-operate with the Speaker's Committee.
The speaker's committee was derided because it's composition would reflect the parties' share of seats in the Commons. It'll be a whitewash!
But that's exactly how the composition of the Home Affairs Select Committee is decided. It has 8 Labour MPs and 4 Tories.
If this is such a posiive development, why ws the speaker's committee so roundly criticised?
Good decision by the Home Affairs Committee.. not surprising though, since a majority of the committee voted for the Campbell amendment in the first place (opposition member, Vaz and David Winnick).
Maybe also an investigation by the Public Administration Committee is to be expected? Tony Wright also supported the Menzies Campbell amendment.
Ben,
Good point. Given that yesterday's sulk was largely a protest at having the issue considered by a committee with a Labour majority then logically they will have to boycott these deliberations as well. Or else execute a quiet three point turn.
Vaz will fall in line behind Gordo and the government at the last moment. He always does.
Keith Vaz doing something that I approve of... I need a lie down.
1.04 and 2.16. It's nothing to do with the composition of the committee; it's to do with meeting the Speaker's request.
Speaker Martin in his statement to the House on 3 December, wanted:
“the matter of the seizure by police of material belonging to the hon. Member for Ashford to [be referred to] a Committee of seven senior and experienced Members, nominated by me, to report as soon as possible. I expect the motion necessary to establish this Committee to be tabled by the Government for debate on Monday. I also expect a report of the Committee to be debated by this House as soon as possible thereafter.”—[ Official Report, 3 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 3.]
That is not the motion that was put to the House by the Executive for debating.
As Theresa May stated:
Any motion agreed by the House today must put into practice the wishes of Mr. Speaker expressed in his statement last week, and to do so it must include three points. First, the Committee must be able to look into the seizure of material from the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Secondly, the membership should be chosen by Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker alone. Thirdly, the Committee should meet now and its report should be debated by the House as soon as possible.
I should have thought that it would be simple for the Government to put those points into a motion for the House. Sadly, they have singularly failed to do so. The motion from the Government bears no resemblance at all to Mr. Speaker’s statement and the Leader of the House has singularly failed in her defence of the Government’s motion.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con) added the corollary '..that not to carry through in precise measure what Mr. Speaker has asked shows that the Government do not have confidence in Mr. Speaker...'.
"It's nothing to do with the composition of the committee;"
Is that the line now? And presumably we have always been at war with Eurasia. And big fans of the Speaker too. Dear oh dear.
Being the Chairman of the committee brings with it quite a lot of influence.
Giving the impression that you may come out against the Government, and then falling into line is most helpful and deserves to be rewarded.
Was that not what Vaz was told by the whip in the leaked e-mail on 42 days, after his committee was unexpectedly helpful towards the Government?
I note that Keith Vaz voted against the Government motion yesterday, which gives the impression that he is against the Government position.
I wonder if, in the final reckoning, he will be helpful again?
Post a Comment