Who or what was David Miliband referring to in PMQs?
December 1, 2013 6:35 AM   Subscribe

During Prime Minister's Questions on the 20th November, David Miliband launched into a tirade about certain people who have funded the Conservatives. After listing a bunch of dodgy dealers, he says "and they're just the people I can talk about in this house". What did he mean?

My question is - who are these people he can't talk about? People who have taken out 'super' injunctions? I thought that MPs could talk about anything in the House of Commons without fear of prosecution.

Video here - skip to 6m20s.
posted by derbs to Law & Government (8 answers total)
 
*Ed Miliband
posted by atrazine at 6:58 AM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Response by poster: Oops - sorry. Can't believe I missed that.
posted by derbs at 7:26 AM on December 1, 2013


Best answer: He was referring to Rebekah Brooks (wife of a school-friend) and Andy Coulson (former director of communications) who are currently on trial in relation to phone-hacking.
posted by gregjones at 8:29 AM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Best answer: Not certain, but my assumption is this is a reference to Andy Coulson and a number of other people connected with the conservative party who are currently parties in criminal trials. While it is technically possible to talk about persons on trial in the house of commons without risking prosecution - Milliband obviously does not want to say anything that might prejudice those trials or might be used as an accusation of prejudicing those trials.
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 8:35 AM on December 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


Best answer: Yes, almost certainly Brooks and Coulson.
posted by greycap at 9:16 AM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Best answer: what another fine product said
posted by KokuRyu at 10:12 AM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Best answer: Bear in mind that he's being disingenuous when he says 'that I can't talk about in this house.'

He knows full well that he's covered by parliamentary privilege when speaking from the floor of the house. He can say (almost) what he damn well likes, and so long as it's within the bounds of what's permissible in that context, there can and will be no consequences, for him at least, if not a trial in another place.

Parliamentary privilege is a contested concept and when MPs used it in the last few years to breach super injunctions there were howls of outrage, but no consequences of which I'm aware.

My view is that he's intimating breaches of party funding rules but isn't 100% of his evidence base. All of the parties have been guilty of taking whiffy money in the past. My read is that Wallace is intimating another irregularity in this mould rather than skirting round the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Full disclosure: lobbyist, but not yours. Not a member of any political party (in the UK) since 2009. Don't have a dog in this fight.
posted by dmt at 11:16 AM on December 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yes parliamentary privilege, but under the sub judice rule, he would be unable to discuss anyone currently undergoing judicial proceedings.
posted by stuck on an island at 7:49 AM on December 2, 2013


« Older Help me find a smallish plain white china butter...   |   received an invalid gift card Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.