SNP MP John Nicolson has avoided punishment after sharing the contents of a letter from Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle on social media.
Mr Nicolson last year angered political opponents after he posted a video where he laid out the response from the Speaker after he asked him to refer former minister Nadine Dorries to the Privileges Committee.
The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee had published a report into claims from Ms Dorries about a Channel 4 documentary using “paid actors” instead of members of the public, which the committee called “groundless”.
No action was subsequently taken against the former minister, who quit the Commons earlier this year.
Read more: Speaker accuses SNP MP of misleading public
But Mr Nicolson, the MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, was himself referred to the Privileges Committee after having made public the contents of the letter from the Speaker.
In a video posted on social media, Mr Nicolson told followers: “Now the committee published an excoriating report, and I don't think that Nadine Dories, because of that, should go to the House of Lords in Boris Johnson's resignation honours list.
“So I sent a copy of the report to Mr Speaker, and he's responded and I thought I should update you on what he said.
“He says that he's considered my letter, but he's 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 Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, criticised Mr Nicolson in the Commons for making part of his letter public, warning it “misled the people of this country”.
The Speaker added: “It certainly put me in bad light with the people of this country, and I don't expect that to happen with an impartial Speaker.”
In a 61-page report published on Thursday, the committee described Mr Nicolson’s actions as “highly regrettable”.
It labelled his action as “disruptive” and warned his refusal to offer a quick apology to the Speaker “nearly crossed the line into being a contempt”.
Read more: SNP's John Nicolson could face Commons suspension after conduct probe
The report said: “We consider that Mr Nicolson’s initial action in publishing the Speaker’s decision was disruptive, and we conclude that his subsequent conduct in neglecting to correct the mistaken impression he had given, or to offer a proper apology to the Speaker in good time, nearly crossed the line into being a contempt.”
The report added that Mr Nicolson’s actions had resulted in “unjustified public pressure and abuse to be directed at the Speaker”.
But, the report said: “In view of his candour and co-operation with the Committee, and because when giving oral evidence he offered, through the medium of the committee, an apology to the Speaker, we recommend that no further action be taken.”
The committee recommended steps be taken to “to improve the communication to Members of the House’s expectations as to the circumstances in which private exchanges with the Speaker, particularly in relation to privilege, are to be regarded as confidential”.
Read more: SNP MP cleared of bullying after liking tweet calling Tory 'grotesque'
The report concludes that “there has been an expectation, grounded in precedent and a past decision of the House, that correspondence with the Speaker on matters of privilege should remain confidential unless the Speaker authorises publication”.
But it added that “it has become apparent that this expectation is not clear” to MPs.
It said: “We have no reason to think that Mr Nicolson and other Members were being insincere when they said they were not aware of the expectation in regard to confidentiality over raising matters of privilege.
“Irrespective of the fact that Mr Nicolson felt he was acting within his rights, we consider that he showed intransigence in refusing to accept he had actually been at fault, and that he had caused unjustified public pressure and abuse to be directed at the Speaker.”
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