Summoning powers

 

It's been confirmed by the high priest of Parliament - Westminster's powers to summon witnesses before its select committees and to punish any accused of telling fibs, are weaker than most people realise.

As the continuing phone-hacking row and, now, the evidence given to the Treasury Committee over interest-rate fixing demonstrate, there is a very real question about what MPs on parliamentary committees can do, when they are not satisfied that they have been told the truth.

This paper by the Clerk of the Commons, Robert Rogers lays bare the threadbare nature of Parliament's powers even to summon witnesses, and the extent to which the sanctions available to MPs are out of date, or inoperable under Human Rights law. He opens with a well-chosen extract from Shakespeare's Henry IV:

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you do call for them?

Glendower's mystical bravado captures exactly the tone MPs adopt when they talk about the powers and abilities of the "High Court of Parliament". So far no-one has responded with Hotspur's brutal scepticism - but at some point someone, perhaps a banker, perhaps a News International staffer, is bound to do a Hotspur and refuse to play along.

News International executives appeared before MPs in September 2011

What then? As the paper makes clear, there is no reliable power to compel witnesses to appear before select committees, still less to punish deliberate lies told to them. Even the much-touted solution of requiring witnesses to give evidence on oath, thus making them liable to penalties of perjury, is fraught with problems.

To be sure, the Commons has the power to send the Serjeant at Arms to bring in a reluctant witness - but, as with many of its powers, it now runs the risk of appearing heavy-handed, or worse, plain silly. Picture the Serjeant, in full regalia arriving to apprehend a witness, only to face a stand-off, perhaps on live TV.

Imagine how MPs might appear to the outside world if some offender was brought to the Bar of the House to be admonished - told off - by Mr Speaker; who, by tradition, dons a black tricorn hat for such occasions (which dates that whole procedure a bit). It last happened to the journalist John Junor in 1956 - and, as Mr Rogers says, the Commons might look like a lynch mob if it tried that now. And then, in this non-deferential age, there's always the possibility that the victim might seize the moment and answer back - with the whole incident an instant sensation on You Tube. Remember how George Galloway thundered back at a US Senate committee.

There's some talk of a Privilege Bill to clarify the powers of Parliament; but again, it is far from straightforward to come up with a system of punishing people who refuse to give evidence, or who lie, without giving the courts some jurisdiction over the proceedings of Parliament (a taboo since the Bill of Rights in 1689).

And, as the convoluted process for dealing with the phone hacking witnesses (see earlier post) demonstrates, the handling of these cases has to be fair, allowing "defendants" a real chance to answer the accusations against them and even turn the tables on their accusers.

To be sure, the reputational damage that can be done by a parliamentary hearing may be far more painful than any penalties at MPs' command - ask Rupert Murdoch or G4S. And there are very few incidents where a reluctant witness has not, in the end, appeared before a committee. (The exception is Irene Rosenfeld, CEO of Kraft Foods, who did not agree to appear before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in March 2011 to answer questions about the takeover of Cadbury - although other Kraft officials did give evidence.)

Parliament does need the power to compel witnesses to attend, and it does need some sanction when it believes it has been lied to - and these things are surely not impossible to arrange. The US Congress has a robust attitude towards perjury at its hearings, and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh National Assembly both have clearer powers than Westminster. And if we're about to enter into an era of parliamentary investigations of the powerful, in the City, in the media or wherever, clear and robust powers will be essential. But MPs need to be very careful what powers they demand or they could end up sounding like King Lear...

"I shall do such things...What they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth..."

 
Mark D'Arcy, Parliamentary correspondent Article written by Mark D'Arcy Mark D'Arcy Parliamentary correspondent

Week ahead at Westminster

There's still time for a soupcon of high-powered politics as MPs and peers prepare to decamp for their Easter break.

Read full article

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    I've only watched bits of televised select committee proceedings.
    Sorry folks but they don't give the impression of a coordinated attempt to get at the facts, more like some kind of parlour game. Some members do appear focussed and incisive, but inevitably, some use the opportunity to show off.
    Could do better, but with party politics......

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    In this political pursuit of bankers, does anyone else detect a taint of McCarthyism?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 17.

    Westminster is facing its moment of truth. It can continue to play along with the powerful and vested interest - or it can exert an authority it seems to have lost. The choice is one of good politics... or self-interest.

    Leadership - or the easier option?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    select committees have all ways been a way for the government of the day to hide things and tell the public they have had an inquiry in to the matter but the fact is that select committees can only get information the the groups that they are quizzing are willing to turn over to the committees this means they have to go on hear say and incomplete information

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    The Committees only have themselves to blame for occasionally looking confused, poorly focused and generally ineffective. The Chairmen/women appear to be so in name only allowing various MP members to run riot in off piste rants rather than questions. A more formal structure is required, the chair should boss it and a clear strategy worked out beforehand and grandstanding should be cut short.

 

Comments 5 of 19

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.