John Hemming MP abuses parliamentary privilege
So it's finally out in the open. Today in parliament, the Lib Dem MP John Hemming outed Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of the Imogen Thomas affair superinjunction. You can watch him doing it, and the Speaker's robust* (and in my opinion correct) admonishment of him here:
It had become pretty much common knowledge for anyone with a Twitter account, or Scottish newsagent that Giggs was the culprit. So it could be argued that all Hemming was doing was bringing an unsustainable situation to a head.
I think this is wrong. Parliamentary privilege exists in order to make sure that parliament can freely speak on issues without fear of its MPs being prosecuted. There are situations where this is vital for our democracy and it should be a cherished and carefully used privilege. It should not be used to out philandering footballers who have allegedly been sleeping with former reality TV contestants.
There are various arguments about superinjunctions going on at the moment and I have some reservations about how they are currently being used. But it is not the place for a member of parliament to unilaterally decide to flout a court order under protection of this ancient parliamentary right on such a trivial matter.
Not least because the more this right is abused, the more likely it is in future to start to be eroded. I can certainly imagine if this sort of thing continues that eventually the argument will be put forward that there are certain things currently covered that need to be excluded from parliamentary privilege. I for one would not want to see that happening. It is telling that most MPs of all parties are reportedly very annoyed with Hemming. I suspect they are concerned about this too.
MPs need to make sure this debate never gets started, because who knows where it could lead. Nowhere good for our democracy I am sure.
*Incidentally, I am wondering if Bercow could have asked for Hemming's contribution of specifically naming Giggs to have been redacted from the parliamentary record and edited out of Hansard? Does anyone know if this is an option that was open to him or whether even if it was it would have opened its own can of worms?
Posts
3 comments:
I'm sure Bercow wouldn't have had that option, due to the very same parliamentary privilege.
"Parliamentary privilege exists in order to make sure that parliament can freely speak on issues without fear of its MPs being prosecuted."
Absolutely, yet there is also the not inconsequential issue of members of the Judiciary unilaterally using Laws such as the Human Rights Act to curtail the ability of parliament to legislate while also restricting the ability of the free press to cover an issue.
Parliament is sovereign precisely to check the powers of unelected bodies such as the judiciary, so anything which removes or restricts parliamentary privilege (even where it might be used irresponsibly) risks upsetting the whole consitutional balance, abolishing effective democracy at a stroke and replacing it with (for example here) an oligarchic judiciary.
This would then politicise the trial process and subordinate the rule of law through centuries of established precedent to the ability of lawyers rhetorical performance. The law would no longer be a standard, but a measure - which has many far-reaching implications for a society, just look at some of the differences between the USA and the UK.
This would then politicise the trial process and subordinate the rule of law through centuries of established precedent to the ability of lawyers rhetorical performance.
*and your ability to pay for the best lawyer available.
Post a Comment