Privilege

I remind hon. Members of the decision in question and of the procedure on this motion. The decision before the House is whether to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. It will be for the Committee to report back on whether it considers that there has been a contempt.

Although it is in order for hon. Members to refer to the issues cited in the motion, it is not in order to make general criticisms of the conduct of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) or of any other hon. Member. Good temper and moderation must be maintained in parliamentary language. Previous debates on such motions have usually been relatively short; I hope that this debate will be focused and brief. Any hon. Member who wishes to speak needs to stand at the beginning of the debate to ensure that they catch my eye.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today. I call David Davis to move the motion.

I beg to move,

That the matter of the actions and subsequent conduct of the hon Member for Ochil and South Perthshire in relation to correspondence from the Speaker on a matter of privilege be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I have been advised by the Clerks that this is a very narrow motion, so I will stick strictly and exclusively to the matter at hand. Before I come to the substantive motion, however, I want to say something to those members of the public who may think that this is an arcane or even abstruse issue.

Ever since Speaker Lenthall told King Charles I that

“I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me,”

the Speaker has been the spokesman, champion and protector of the Members and institutions of this place, as well as being the impartial arbiter of our proceedings. If hon. Members think that that is just a piece of ancient history, they ought to consider more recent times. Mr Speaker’s more recent predecessors have been criticised on issues of impartiality or for failing to protect Members: for example, Mr Speaker Martin’s failure to protect my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was highly controversial at the time and very important.

As for upholding the rights of Back Benchers and Opposition Members, we need only look at Mr Speaker’s fierce criticism of the Government during the statement yesterday, when he upheld our rights. It is therefore vital for Members to protect the integrity, impartiality and apolitical nature of the Speaker’s office. That point is clearly recognised in “Erskine May”—hardly a polemical document—at paragraph 15.14, which states that

“reflections on the character of the Speaker or accusations of partiality in the discharge of their duties”

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

He claimed that he

“didn’t ‘release’ the Speaker’s letter. I summarised it entirely fairly.”

That is untrue. He misled the country by deliberately withholding the way in which this decision had been arrived at and his part in it. He also retweeted an account that was directly critical of Mr Speaker, saying that Mr Speaker’s statement had been merely “Ermine pursuing theatrics” and that Mr Speaker was placing his

“integrity above that of parliament”.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire had again compounded his misdemeanour by deliberately attempting to undermine the impartiality and integrity of the Speaker’s office. It is the role of the Speaker of this House to protect Members and stand up for its Back Benchers, and it is the Members’ duty, on our part, to uphold the dignity of the Speaker’s office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I do not believe any of this conduct to be appropriate for a Member of this House. However, that is not for me to judge, as a single, ordinary Member, which is why this is not a motion to condemn, but a motion to pass the matter to the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons.

At the heart of this issue, I believe, is accountability. What should happen to Members who break the rules, and how open should our procedures be? What should the public be allowed to know?

Let me say at the outset that I am very sorry that the Speaker feels that my revealing his decision not to have a debate in the House about our Committee’s report has put him in a bad light with the public. That was never my intention. My intention—[Interruption.] If Members allow me to develop my speech, they will hear my points. My intention was merely to let the public know what had been decided.

I am accused of breaking a rule myself, and I would like to explain the circumstances to the House. I am a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We held a hearing with the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), at which she claimed that a Channel 4 reality series in which she had appeared some years ago had used actors pretending to be members of the public. She claimed that they had confessed this to her. A member of the production team who lived on the estate concerned—

Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed my opening remarks, but it is quite clear that this is not about the actions of any other Member. It is not about what happened in the Committee with any other right hon. Member. It is about the motion before us.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me say that there was considerable press interest in our Committee’s work, and I decided that we should send a copy of the report to the Speaker. I thought that time might be set aside for a debate about referring it to the Committee of Privileges. However, the Speaker wrote back to me saying that he did not believe the case met the threshold for a debate. I recorded a video summarising the Speaker’s decision, and I tweeted it. I offered no comment about the Speaker, nor did I criticise him. There was considerable public interest, and I soon discovered that the Speaker was angry. He believed that I should not have reported his decision. Last Wednesday, he told me in the House that he thought I had not summarised him accurately, and that I should not have reported him at all. It was not my intention in any way to summarise him inaccurately.

Before I was elected to the House, I was a journalist—a reporter for “Newsnight”, among other current affairs shows. I believe in open democracy, but I also believe in maintaining agreed confidentiality. It did not cross my mind that revealing the Speaker’s decision on this was a breach of privilege. After all, what was I to say if journalists asked me whether I had written to the Speaker? Was I to say, “Yes”? If they asked me, “Has the Speaker responded? Has the Speaker given a ruling?”, was I then to say, “I’m afraid I can’t tell you”? I did not consider that I had broken any confidence or betrayed any trust. I did not imagine that the Speaker’s decision on a matter of importance to my constituents could not be revealed. Moreover, I believe that I summarised the Speaker fairly, but I am in the unfortunate position of finding myself unable to prove that, because in order to do so I would have to release the Speaker’s letter to me in its entirety—something which, as we have established, the Speaker does not believe I should do.

There has been a suggestion that I printed only half the letter. That is not the case. The Speaker’s letter to me came as a letter through the post. There was no need for me to print it, nor did I publish it, nor did I show its contents to the camera, nor did I leak it to others. I was very open in the way I talked about it, which I hope shows that I did not think I was behaving improperly. There has also been some suggestion that the Select Committee did not wish to see this matter proceed to a privileges debate. That, too, is not the case. The Committee decided not to refer the Member concerned because she was no longer a Cabinet Minister, but the Committee left open the option for others to do so. Indeed, some Committee members expected that to happen. I agreed with the findings of the Committee, which were unanimous and cross-party.

Order. We really are not here to discuss the matters surrounding the Committee itself. The hon. Gentleman needs to stick to what is in the motion.

May I just say this, Madam Deputy Speaker? I spoke to the Chair and the Clerk of the Committee today. I gave them exactly the words that I intended to use, and obtained their permission to use the words that I have just repeated.

Order. It is up to me to make the final decision. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Those people do not give the hon. Gentleman permission; I do.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke last Wednesday following the Speaker’s remarks from the Chair, and he laid into me with some vigour, using what appeared to be a pre-prepared speech. He was especially exercised by what he saw as my breach of parliamentary etiquette. It is worth me pointing out in that context that he did not contact me to inform me that he planned to speak about me, which as we all know is the convention. I was not afforded the opportunity to reply last Wednesday, but before moving on to other business the Speaker concluded:

“I am going to leave it there for today”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 292.]

I therefore assumed that the matter had been laid to rest. However, the right hon. Member then took to Twitter to pursue his criticism of me, complete with a video of his speech.

Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to be criticising the right hon. Gentleman who moved the motion. He can speak to the motion, not outside it, so can we just stick to the matter in hand?