4 ms·

They are abiding with the law, though. They have been asked for information and replied that they don't just give out information because people ask - essential

They are abiding with the law, though. They have been asked for information and replied that they don't just give out information because people ask - essentially they said 'come back with a warrant.' That's perfectly reasonable.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It would be if the select committee system were an organ of the police. They are not, and warrants are not required.
- ameister14 8y ago
  Ok, so the select committee system questions have compulsory answers? In the US, the committee would have to subpoena in order to legally force the answer. Is that not the case here?
  - topynate 8y ago
    The Constitutional Society wrote an 86-page paper in 2012 attempting to show that any such powers are extinct, and that primary legislation is necessary to restore them: https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-Committees-and-Coercive-Powers-Clarity-or-Confusion.pdf https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-... But late last year, a select committee exercised these powers anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
    - pmyteh 8y ago
      The question is one of enforcement. Parliament can certainly order the production of documents, and send the Serjeant-at-Arms to threaten consequences if the documents aren't provided. That was enough in November to get the documents coughed up (one suspects that the target in that case had no particular incentive to test the limits of constitutional authority, given it wasn't his secrets he was being coerced over - a good excuse for handing them over would seem to be enough). What's not abundantly clear is if Parliament can actually still carry through its threat of imprisonment for contempt, if the recipient of the order decides to face down the Serjeant. It's possible that the courts would swiftly issue a writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that contempt of Parliament is defunct. It's also possible that the European Court of Human Rights would consider legislative proceedings for contempt to be a breach of the Convention, but as actions of Parliament are outside the reach of the Human Rights Act (which makes the Convention directly applicable in the UK) they have no way of enforcing the decision even if they made it - and it would take months at least to get to the front of the queue.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Loosely yes. Refusing to answer can lead to you being in contempt of parliament. Once upon a time there was even a prison cell in parliament for use in such cases. Unfortunately our oversight committees depend on some fairly ancient ways and powers. Hence the cute story a few months ago of the parliamentary bailiff, which is normally a purely ceremonial role, arresting that Six Three guy passing through the UK. Perhaps those ancient laws need modernising, as there's certainly a few relics among them. Then again it is only fairly recently they have been started to be treated with contempt.
  - b_tterc_p 8y ago
    If you are legally required to disclose X and you don’t disclose X, a committee would not need to get a subpoena to force you to do so. The difference is that you’re required to share this information from the beginning, not being asked to do so later.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

It would be if the select committee system were an organ of the police. They are not, and warrants are not required.

ameister14 8y ago
Ok, so the select committee system questions have compulsory answers? In the US, the committee would have to subpoena in order to legally force the answer. Is that not the case here?
- topynate 8y ago
  The Constitutional Society wrote an 86-page paper in 2012 attempting to show that any such powers are extinct, and that primary legislation is necessary to restore them: https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-Committees-and-Coercive-Powers-Clarity-or-Confusion.pdf https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-... But late last year, a select committee exercised these powers anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
  - pmyteh 8y ago
    The question is one of enforcement. Parliament can certainly order the production of documents, and send the Serjeant-at-Arms to threaten consequences if the documents aren't provided. That was enough in November to get the documents coughed up (one suspects that the target in that case had no particular incentive to test the limits of constitutional authority, given it wasn't his secrets he was being coerced over - a good excuse for handing them over would seem to be enough). What's not abundantly clear is if Parliament can actually still carry through its threat of imprisonment for contempt, if the recipient of the order decides to face down the Serjeant. It's possible that the courts would swiftly issue a writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that contempt of Parliament is defunct. It's also possible that the European Court of Human Rights would consider legislative proceedings for contempt to be a breach of the Convention, but as actions of Parliament are outside the reach of the Human Rights Act (which makes the Convention directly applicable in the UK) they have no way of enforcing the decision even if they made it - and it would take months at least to get to the front of the queue.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Loosely yes. Refusing to answer can lead to you being in contempt of parliament. Once upon a time there was even a prison cell in parliament for use in such cases. Unfortunately our oversight committees depend on some fairly ancient ways and powers. Hence the cute story a few months ago of the parliamentary bailiff, which is normally a purely ceremonial role, arresting that Six Three guy passing through the UK. Perhaps those ancient laws need modernising, as there's certainly a few relics among them. Then again it is only fairly recently they have been started to be treated with contempt.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  If you are legally required to disclose X and you don’t disclose X, a committee would not need to get a subpoena to force you to do so. The difference is that you’re required to share this information from the beginning, not being asked to do so later.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]