This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/philip-green-case-shows-select-committees-power-and-weakness

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Philip Green case shows select committees' power – and weakness Philip Green case shows select committees' power – and weakness
(2 months later)
So, “King” Phil Green, retail wide boy, is still refusing to give evidence to MPs on the Commons business, information and skills (BIS) select committee over how he offloaded BHS on to a passing ex-bankrupt for a quid. Ahead of Wednesday’s standoff the MPs are preparing sanctions. But who is bluffing?So, “King” Phil Green, retail wide boy, is still refusing to give evidence to MPs on the Commons business, information and skills (BIS) select committee over how he offloaded BHS on to a passing ex-bankrupt for a quid. Ahead of Wednesday’s standoff the MPs are preparing sanctions. But who is bluffing?
In reality both sides are engaged in brinkmanship. But King Phil is the one most likely to blink first and appear at Westminster, if not sooner, then later. He has a lot more than his mud-stained Blair knighthood to lose and has very few friends left. When the Daily Mail gets on your case it is time to start checking out options for asylum. Parts of Saudi Arabia can be lovely in the winter months.In reality both sides are engaged in brinkmanship. But King Phil is the one most likely to blink first and appear at Westminster, if not sooner, then later. He has a lot more than his mud-stained Blair knighthood to lose and has very few friends left. When the Daily Mail gets on your case it is time to start checking out options for asylum. Parts of Saudi Arabia can be lovely in the winter months.
That said, the MPs have to be careful not to push their luck and stumble into deep waters that may drown them. Frank Field, Labour chair of the Commons works and pensions committee, which is cooperating over the BHS scandal with the cross-party BIS team (chair: Labour’s Ian Wright), was unwise to threaten Green as he did.That said, the MPs have to be careful not to push their luck and stumble into deep waters that may drown them. Frank Field, Labour chair of the Commons works and pensions committee, which is cooperating over the BHS scandal with the cross-party BIS team (chair: Labour’s Ian Wright), was unwise to threaten Green as he did.
It gave the tax-shy tycoon an excuse to say that the committee, which wants him to fill the BHS pension hole with up to £600m of his own dubiously gotten gains, is biased against him before hearing the defence. I think that could be said of most people reading what has already emerged about the BHS sale. But most of us are not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.It gave the tax-shy tycoon an excuse to say that the committee, which wants him to fill the BHS pension hole with up to £600m of his own dubiously gotten gains, is biased against him before hearing the defence. I think that could be said of most people reading what has already emerged about the BHS sale. But most of us are not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Related: How Britain fell out of love with BHS – timeline
In theory a British parliamentary select committee enjoys the historical right to call for “persons, papers and records” and those who refuse could be guilty of contempt of parliament and punished. It’s all laid out very well in this Commons library briefing paper, updated this month, which makes clear that reform of the ancient practice has been discussed – and repeatedly stalled.In theory a British parliamentary select committee enjoys the historical right to call for “persons, papers and records” and those who refuse could be guilty of contempt of parliament and punished. It’s all laid out very well in this Commons library briefing paper, updated this month, which makes clear that reform of the ancient practice has been discussed – and repeatedly stalled.
In the 18th century those held in contempt could be imprisoned – in a tower at the Lords end, as I recall – or fined. But both penalties died out after being challenged in the courts. The last fine was levied in 1866 and the last person summoned to explain himself at the Bar of the Commons – that white line you can see on TV in the carpet – was John Junor, editor of the Sunday Express, in 1957.In the 18th century those held in contempt could be imprisoned – in a tower at the Lords end, as I recall – or fined. But both penalties died out after being challenged in the courts. The last fine was levied in 1866 and the last person summoned to explain himself at the Bar of the Commons – that white line you can see on TV in the carpet – was John Junor, editor of the Sunday Express, in 1957.
Junor had accused MPs of trousering unfair amounts of petrol during the rationing caused by the Suez crisis, but handled himself so well that the MPs dropped that sanction too. Happy days!Junor had accused MPs of trousering unfair amounts of petrol during the rationing caused by the Suez crisis, but handled himself so well that the MPs dropped that sanction too. Happy days!
Since the reforms triggered by another expenses row in 2009, one of the few undisputed successes of parliament has been the beefed-up select committee system with more expert and independent chairmen, elected by all MPs, not by the party whips.Since the reforms triggered by another expenses row in 2009, one of the few undisputed successes of parliament has been the beefed-up select committee system with more expert and independent chairmen, elected by all MPs, not by the party whips.
Andrew Tyrie, the cerebral Tory who chairs the Treasury select committee (he declared for remain on Tuesday), has made bankers weep with his acerbic and probing questions. But there are others worthy of praise including Field and Wright, and Tory Sarah Wollaston, the GP who chairs health. It’s a promising development on all our behalfs. Just look what the BIS team got out of those BHS executives last week!Andrew Tyrie, the cerebral Tory who chairs the Treasury select committee (he declared for remain on Tuesday), has made bankers weep with his acerbic and probing questions. But there are others worthy of praise including Field and Wright, and Tory Sarah Wollaston, the GP who chairs health. It’s a promising development on all our behalfs. Just look what the BIS team got out of those BHS executives last week!
In light of their greater activism, the most recent attempt to update the committees’ power of punishment – one of several in recent years – offered the Commons and the government the choice of a Parliamentary Privileges Act which would give peers and MPs the statutory power to fine recalcitrants on their collective say so, or a new criminal offence of contempt of parliament which would hand the job to the high court, on the application of someone like the attorney general. A green (discussion) paper was published in 2012 and there the issue remains.In light of their greater activism, the most recent attempt to update the committees’ power of punishment – one of several in recent years – offered the Commons and the government the choice of a Parliamentary Privileges Act which would give peers and MPs the statutory power to fine recalcitrants on their collective say so, or a new criminal offence of contempt of parliament which would hand the job to the high court, on the application of someone like the attorney general. A green (discussion) paper was published in 2012 and there the issue remains.
None of this is straightforward. When the Murdochs, father and son, and their henchfolk were summoned in 2012 to discuss phone hacking, they resisted but eventually buckled. Informal punishment was meted out by a pie thrower. More recently, Mike Ashley of Sports Direct also initially refused to appear and then after acquiesced. But the ever scholarly Joshua Rozenberg pointed out at the time of the Murdochs’ summons, what MPs can threaten witnesses with (and even the privilege their evidence has from libel proceedings) is disputed by serious lawyers. His summary is a good read for would-be backbench grandstanders. TAKE CARE.None of this is straightforward. When the Murdochs, father and son, and their henchfolk were summoned in 2012 to discuss phone hacking, they resisted but eventually buckled. Informal punishment was meted out by a pie thrower. More recently, Mike Ashley of Sports Direct also initially refused to appear and then after acquiesced. But the ever scholarly Joshua Rozenberg pointed out at the time of the Murdochs’ summons, what MPs can threaten witnesses with (and even the privilege their evidence has from libel proceedings) is disputed by serious lawyers. His summary is a good read for would-be backbench grandstanders. TAKE CARE.
As I understand it, much of the problem arises from process and the rights of an accused. Witnesses do not normally bring along their lawyers (as they do in the highly legalistic US Congress) and to allow them to do so would require MPs to have other lawyers to keep them in check as they struggled to prevent their client incriminating themselves.As I understand it, much of the problem arises from process and the rights of an accused. Witnesses do not normally bring along their lawyers (as they do in the highly legalistic US Congress) and to allow them to do so would require MPs to have other lawyers to keep them in check as they struggled to prevent their client incriminating themselves.
It would raise the stakes and the costs. Anything less than fairness might end up in the courts, not to mention fall foul of the You Know Where’s Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But parliament and the courts have kept a wary distance between their respective activities for 300 years, ever since the Act of Settlement (1701) which prevented politicians – they had newly deposed King James II in mind – from sacking judges they didn’t like, Donald Trump style.It would raise the stakes and the costs. Anything less than fairness might end up in the courts, not to mention fall foul of the You Know Where’s Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But parliament and the courts have kept a wary distance between their respective activities for 300 years, ever since the Act of Settlement (1701) which prevented politicians – they had newly deposed King James II in mind – from sacking judges they didn’t like, Donald Trump style.
So when the UK’s supreme court was removed from the body of the House of Lords across Parliament Square to its own building – a Blair-era reform – parliament was careful not to give it the kind of power the US supreme court or Germany’s constitutional court enjoy, to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. That would be going too far, chaps!So when the UK’s supreme court was removed from the body of the House of Lords across Parliament Square to its own building – a Blair-era reform – parliament was careful not to give it the kind of power the US supreme court or Germany’s constitutional court enjoy, to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. That would be going too far, chaps!
Constitutional reformer Anthony Barnett has an interesting essay here on the bigger can of constitutional worms that the 23 June referendum may/not open. Let’s not go there today, it’s a notoriously unBritish subject.Constitutional reformer Anthony Barnett has an interesting essay here on the bigger can of constitutional worms that the 23 June referendum may/not open. Let’s not go there today, it’s a notoriously unBritish subject.
One last thought. By the time you read this King Phil may well have buckled and agreed to appear. But there remains a significant body of citizens whom select committees will still be unable to summon to give evidence on their suspected misdeeds.One last thought. By the time you read this King Phil may well have buckled and agreed to appear. But there remains a significant body of citizens whom select committees will still be unable to summon to give evidence on their suspected misdeeds.
As MPs were sharply reminded when they tried to unpick the Iraq war shambles, ministers, civil servants and special advisers who constitute the government can’t be forced to tell all. A select committee wishing to do that would have to get agreement via a vote of the full House, which (of course) usually has a government majority, so no worries, Tony, Gordon, Dave.As MPs were sharply reminded when they tried to unpick the Iraq war shambles, ministers, civil servants and special advisers who constitute the government can’t be forced to tell all. A select committee wishing to do that would have to get agreement via a vote of the full House, which (of course) usually has a government majority, so no worries, Tony, Gordon, Dave.
But we live in interesting times where loyalties are fluid and majorities fragile. It would certainly make a more interesting and important test case than even King Phil. Long live backbench power.But we live in interesting times where loyalties are fluid and majorities fragile. It would certainly make a more interesting and important test case than even King Phil. Long live backbench power.