Parliament’s privileges committee is to probe the SNP’s John Nicolson over claims he deliberately undermined the impartiality and integrity of the Speaker.
MPs voted by 371 to 16 to refer the former broadcaster to the seven-member committee responsible for investigating potential contempt of parliament cases.
It follows on from last week when Lindsay Hoyle criticised Mr Nicolson for sharing “a partial and biased account” of their private correspondence about former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries.
The row is over comments made by the ex-Tory minister to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee about “paid actors” on Channel 4's 2010 television show Tower Block of Commons.
An investigation by the broadcaster and show maker, Love Productions found nothing to support the claims.
Last month, in a report, the committee said Ms Dorries should have corrected the record “for the integrity of parliamentary scrutiny.”
Mr Nicolson then sent a copy of the report to the Speaker.
However, Mr Hoyle said he would take no action as the committee had not recommended any action be taken.
Last week, in a video posted on Twitter, the Ochil and South Perthshire MP told followers that the Speaker had “decided to take no further action and not to refer Nadine Doris to the Privileges Committee. In other words, she'll suffer no consequences for what she's done. And I thought you should know.”
The video, which has been viewed more than 615,000 times, sparked an angry backlash against the Speaker.
Tory MP David Davis said the Commons had a duty to "protect the integrity, impartiality and apolitical nature of the Speaker's office."
He said Mr Nicolson had broken "all the conventions on the privacy of Speakers' correspondence" with a "partial and partisan account of Mr Speaker's letter."
Mr David added: "All of us in this House have a duty to uphold its rules and institutions, but by knowingly breaching the confidentiality of Speaker's correspondence, he's done the opposite of that. This is a clear breach of our rules."
Mr Davis said the SNP politician should have apologised to the house and deleted his offending tweet.
"He compounded his misdemeanour, taking to Twitter once again he claimed he offered no apology as no misrepresentation had taken place."
Mr Davis said Mr Nicolson had then retweeted an account that was directly critical of the Speaker, that accused him of "ermine pursuing theatrics"
"I do not believe any of his conduct can be appropriate for a member of the House, but that's actually not for me to judge as a single ordinary member, it is why it is not a motion to condemn, this is a motion to pass this matter to the Privileges Committee of this House of Commons."
Mr Nicolson said he was "deeply sorry that the Speaker is upset."
He told MPs: "I don’t conduct politics in a way – for those who know me – that ever aims to be offensive and I am truly sorry that the Speaker is upset, and I am truly sorry that I have upset the Speaker.
“But it would be disingenuous of me to say that I knowingly revealed this. I could not have been more open by going on camera and discussing this. I clearly wasn’t trying to hide it.”
He added: “People in my former profession, and this profession, who want to pass things into the public domain in a sleekit or surreptitious way, they pass it to journalists, I didn’t do that.
"I stood up and I talked about the letter without revealing in detail its contents, but summarising it.”
Conservative MP Simon Hoare intervened, urging Mr Nicolson to “put the spade down."
The SNP's Pete Wishart said that despite his 21 years in the Commons he was not aware that sharing correspondence with the Speaker was privileged.
"All of this just seems at best retribution, at worst institutional bullying because that’s what it’s starting to feel like right now," he said
Concluding his speech, Mr Nicolson said: “I hope the House concludes that there was no malicious intent in anything that I did and I apologise to the Speaker for breaching a House rule.
“Given the all-party nature of the committee report, I sought no party political advantage and I hope that Members here today will seek no party political advantage.
"My only motivation was to do what I always try to do and that is to engage with debate and to communicate my work here with constituents and with journalists as openly and fairly as I can.”
Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt urged MPs to back the motion, telling the House: “I don’t think that his arguments that he was not aware of what the right course of action should have been or what the appropriate response to journalist enquiries should have been – which was to state that any such correspondence would have been confidential – is a reason for not bringing this motion forward.
“I sincerely had hoped that he would have made an apology.”
If the Privileges Committee belive Mr Nicolson is guilty of contempt they can recommend to the Commons possible sanctions.
These include "oral or written apologies, suspension from the service of the House for a specified period, or expulsion."
The last person to be found in contempt of Parliament, was Dominic Cummings in 2019 after he failed to appear before MPs investigating fake news.
The most recent MP was Justin Tomlinson. In 2016, the Tory politician was suspended for two days for leaking a select committee report.
The investigation previous to that was in 2009 when Adrian Sanders MP was found to have failed to ensure security of committee papers and duty of care to staff, and required to apologise on the floor of the House.
The committee is currently investigating whether or not Boris Johnson misled the Commons over Partygate.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel