The news that the Liberal Democrats are to boycott the Speaker's Committee of seven senior MPs to look into aspects of the Damian Green affair will set the cat among the pigeons.
But it can't come as a surprise to the government, which is doing all it can to neuter such a committee and shorten Monday's debate as much as possible. The Committee will, according to Harriet Harman reflect the membership of the House. This means that it is likely to have 4 Labour members, 2 Conservatives and 1 LibDem. The minority parties are likely to be unrepresented. If the LibDems boycott it, their place may go to one of them, I suppose, or more likely Labour will take it themselves.
But the main issue is that it will not meet until any action against Damian Green is complete. So if he is charged and it goes to trial, the Committee might well not meet until after the General Election. Does Harriet Harman think we are stupid? This committee can meet without even ever mentioning the words 'Damian' and 'Green' in its proceedings. It is there to ensure that such a situation and never reoccur and to establish what went wrong.
Unless the Government backs down I would urge the Conservatives to join the LibDems in boycotting this Committee, which is clearly not a Speaker's Committee - it is intended to be a Committee of government lackeys.
28 comments:
Ofcoure Harriet thinks we're stoopid.
Randall's done a hatchet job in the Telegraph - good article if you like depression.
The Tories will do nothing, as usual.
If you think of ALL the opportunities this week to crucify Labour and the speaker and not ONE has been taken. Nothing. Zilch.
Gordons's description of DC and the Tories is correct.
Iain,
I do congratulate the Liberal Democrats on this move. WHY didn't Cameron announce this yesterday?
Mr Clegg is, seriously,wiping the floor with him over this issue.
It is, to me, showing Mr Cameron as a ditherer!as if he is not convinced that the Green affair warrants a real fight!!
I am trying to support him. He gave a really good speech on the Queens address. He was excellent. But the Green affair is something else.
It is a topic still making news, despite Brown's attempt, with another of his off the cuff announcements - this time help to mortgage payers who are struggling - It is a topic that needs proper management by Mr Cameron and his team.
This reluctance, by Mr Cameron, I find quite concerning. Does Cameron believe that Green is not innocent? If NO then he should be leading the fight. He is not and that, as I say, is very concerning!
But it is Mr Cameron's reliance on a close circle of people who cannot be giving him the right advice.
Such reliance will continue causing people like me thinking that he is not up to the job and regretting that David Davis is not the leader!
I believe that Mr Cameron needs people who are able to articulate the 'common man' those people Mr Cameron needs to vote for him. I have said before that I would bring in the likes of John Gaunt, Richard Littlejohn, Nick Ferrari and there are many others, who could help him tremendously.
Littlejohn, for instance, suggested last week that Cameron should have got all his MP's and with agreement all the Lib Dems and others to resign en-block and stand for re election over the Green affair! That would have forced the Queen to call a general election! Now that would have been extremely interesting.
Remember Lord Heseltine grabbing the mace? Such was the anger in those days, but it was not replicated over the Green affair. WHY?
I hope Mr Cameron brings big guns back into the front line, people who can and will fight. Mr Cameron has got to stop being Mr Nice Guy and come out fighting like never before.
All committees of the House of Commons have to match the proportions in the House as a whole. It's entirely routine and unexceptional. The House's sub judice rule is likewise not able to be waived.
The desperation of the Tories to insist that they have to have special rules for them is really quite blatant.
Dammit. Even the current issue of "The Week" has his name spelled DamiEn on the cover, instead of Damian.
Boothroyd. please go back to Erskine May.
Tell me, am I correct that it does not cater for committee's created by the speaker?
The speaker, being above party politics, is NOT bound by the convention you have, correctly, stated whereby all committees must reflect the make up of the House?
Those committee's are the standing committee's and ad hoc committee's announced by the government of the day!
I do accept that by handing it to the government, as he did, they are playing by the rules
But, the speaker could insist upon an equality of party membership could he not!
Also, Sub Judice only applies when one is charged and facing court proceedings...not an investigation!
So it cannot apply in this case....unless, of course, you are expecting Damian Green to be charged in this case. I do hope so!
It is not just the Speaker that should be above party politics. This issue should be above party politics, and one way of demonstrating that would be to ignore normal committee precedent of being representative of the political make up of the house.
No, strapworld, sub judice as applied in Parliament covers any ongoing criminal investigation whether or not charges have been brought.
The term 'Speaker's Committee' is an imprecise one because there is no such established format. There is only one 'Speaker's Committee': the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, which has 9 members: 3 Labour, 3 Conservative, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Ulster Unionist and Mr Speaker himself. This is a Parliamentary committee and the normal rules on proportionality have been applied.
David, haven't you rather shot yourself in the foot there? Isn't that an argument for this committee having a similar composition?
David Boothroyd.
Thank you for that.
It confirms my thoughts that the speaker could, if pressed, insist on a less partisan approach.
Never thought I would thank you Mr Boothroyd but I do.
Perhaps if the proportions cannot be changed a simple offer should be made.
Let the Tories pick the labour members of the comittee, and let labour pick the tory ones.
I'm sure the Tories can find some honourable backbenchers and avoid the partisan hacks
I've been considering what Betty Boothroyd would have done - yowzers - only 20 special branch officers, better get back-up as you'll need it!
So whose committee is this then? Announced by the cretinous Speaker but not his? Is he speaking on behalf of the Government - as so often - or on his own behalf?
Sub judice my arse. Precedents?
So if "This is a Parliamentary committee and the normal rules on proportionality have been applied." then the LibDems are being daft and grandstanding. And Tories are being sensible.
The committee is meant to be of senior members who allegedly will be all sensible and moral over this so perhaps the party composition will not count.
It depends doesn't it who gets nominated. If the speaker is weak then labour placemen will fill it otherwise people like Frank Fields will be appointed.
However -there is no way it should wait months before sitting. The HoP issue is nothing to do with the facts of the case, its to do with how the police came to be raiding parliament.
The Speaker does not have the power to create committees on his own; only a resolution of the House of Commons can do that. The Speaker can't put down a motion himself, so he relies on the Government to do it for him. This is the same for this Speaker as all his predecessors.
Interesting to see the argument that the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission should be the precedent. It was created and its membership defined by statute (section 2, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000): four members ex officio (Speaker, Chair Home Affairs Select Committee, Home Secretary and Local Government Minister), and five Members who are not Ministers.
If the new Speaker's Committee is analagous then you'll need primary legislation, and Jacqui Smith will be on it.
Harriet Harman is being foolish. She wins brownie points by refusing unequivocally to support the Speaker, then she loses them all again with the committee folderol.
Surely it would be better for everyone, even the government curiously enough, if this matter was sorted out as quickly as possible. Then people will stop talking about it.
On the other hand, perhaps Ms Harman knows something about the ongoing investigation that we do not.
Even so, not Parliament's finest hour; just a pity there have been so many like it with New Labour.
BTW Geoff Randall's piece is outstanding.
Strapworld. Could not agree more. Fat Chance though. Boothroyd, just pull your anorak over your head; you may sound like you know what you are talking about but it doesn't wash with me. This Government makes up the rules as it goes along, so any pseudo legal mumbo jumbo you come out with is irrelevant.
Aren't the details of the Green case specifically excluded from the committee's remit ?
How then does sub judice apply ?
It seems that the committee is being both delayed unnecessarily and emasculated. A boycott makes sense.
wrinkled weasel, I do appreciate your support but I must say that David Boothroyd is correct in every detail this morning.
He obviously had a hearty breakfast and so is spouting common sense.
It does prove, though, that the meeting of Harman and others the day before to 'stich' up the event, was successful, from their point of view!
O that Cameron was as devious!
David Cameron is not attacking in quite the head-on manner that many of us appear to think he should.
A suspicious mind might conclude that the reason is that when or if he comes to power, he wants to be able to use or abuse some of these ill-defined powers?
Another point is that they true powers reside in Europe and the civil service and those will continue when the Tories take over - they can't rock the boat too much.
I thought Ming Campbell already volunteered during the Speaker's remarks earlier this week?
LFAT - I think the Speaker voluteered him - fatuous ploy.
Old Holborn I fear is right!
The Tories aren't putting up a very good fight at the moment!
Come on Tories get it together, us bloggers cant keep on carrying you!
There are several separate issues here. The "mole" irrespective of his motives should be fired from the civil service.
Then we have Damian Green. The only issue which could be considered to be criminal is if he offered an inducement to the mole. If not there is no case to answer.
Then we have the search of Parliament. The Speaker is, in several ways, implicated directly or indirectly in this. He was either negligent or incompetent or wilful. Those are the only matters that can be decided by a committee. It is odd that such as committee should be appointed by the Speaker - this is reminiscent of the "independent review" established by Sharon Shoesmith.
Lastly the question of who in Government knew of the raid in advance. That can never be established as a stone wall has been erected. The Committee will have no tools to knock that down with.
Since the guilt or innocence of Damian Green cannot be established by this committee the talk of sub judice is so much My Eye and Betty Martin.
The WV words are getting better - mine is "slych".
Oliver Drew: It's a pity the Lib Dems have had a fit of pique and withdrawn because Sir Menzies Campbell would have been ideal. They did the same thing, with similar consequences, on the Butler Inquiry. I would imagine the Conservative members would be Michael Howard and either Dominic Grieve or Douglas Hogg, dependent on whether the Labour members include ministers.
However there is no particular justification for an exception to the normal rules about political balance. Sorry, but there are no special rules for Tories.
Direct public election of the Speaker is an absurd notion since the Speaker has no power over the general public and is purely an internal post. Perhaps you have forgotten that since 2001 the Speaker is elected in a secret ballot of Members of Parliament; this procedure has not yet been used because no MP challenged Michael Martin at the beginning of the 2001 and 2005 Parliaments. What has often been proposed is that the Speaker becomes an ex officio Member of Parliament.
The Tories should only take their places if they intend to make a constructive contribution. It's not likely to be a forum for grandstanding. I can see why they might not be interested.
David Boothroyd
The subject of the charges against Damian Green are not at issue in the committee's discussions, therefore sub judice is entirely irrelevant. Iain said as much in the original argument, so you are being disingenuous to bring it up.
It was interesting listening to David Starkey, last evening. He is convinced Members of Parliament have lost, forgotten or do not know the history of their position.
ALL are there to challenge the executive..not the three or more camps we have at present. He believes that we should now, and he did say he thought he would never say it, that we should now follow the United States in having two fully elected chambers and a directly elected Prime Minister.
Then Committee's - as in the USA - may make MP's far more alert to their real role - that of challenging the executive!
He believes that the arrest of Damian Green was one of the worst outrages against the people's parliament for years!
He also believes that the Speaker abrogated his responsibility in protecting MP's...he should resign!
You can get it on iplayer
Post a Comment