What an odd coincidence.
While passing my eye over recent decisions of the Information Commissioner (as one does), this ruling caught my attention. A member of the public had asked for correspondence and documentation relating to whether members of parliament should declare overseas trips paid for by the British Council.
The Parliamentary authorities ruled that the information was exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, because its release would "infringe the privileges of the house".
The request went to internal review, was rejected again, and was then passed to the Information Commissioner for a final decision.
At this point, who should intervene but Speaker Martin, Gorbals Mick himself, who promptly issued a certificate under s43(3). This part of the Freedom of Information Act essentially says that the Speaker is going to be the arbiter of whether Parliamentary privilege is in danger or not.
He decided that it was. Quelle surprise.
So, reading between the lines, would you say that the British Council has been paying for MPs holidays and that Speaker Martin has intervened to keep everything hushed up?
Rotten timing for Mr Speaker, isn't it?