Jon Snow, the veteran British newsreader opines on the case of Rupert Murdoch's appearances before the Media Select Committee:
One of the most hard hitting reports of recent times, resulting from one of the intensive investigations will result in almost no Parliamentary action. Not because, on essential elements, there was a split on the Committee, but because even where there was no dissent – in finding that the Committee had in effect been lied to – there is no current consequence of worth. MPs can open the window on wrongdoing, but they can do all but nothing when they find it. Exposing it has little direct effect...
Hence the call by a number of MPs for such investigative bodies to be armed with the power of subpoena and the giving of evidence on oath.
Even now, the legal experts that flank the Speaker in the Commons are trawling the statutes for punishments that are fit for the misdemeanor of “misleading the House”. Will they find a cell in the Tower of London? As of last night the speculation centered on an arcane provision that allows for the detention of offenders “within Parliament”.
The Murdoch Empire operatives have done parliament a favor. They have exposed the antiquity and weakness of our own political system, and its inability to bring miscreants to book. To resort to the word MPs themselves coined of Rupert Murdoch – it is “unfit” for purpose. But don’t hold your breath against anything being done about it.
The parallels to the Science and Technology Committee's inquiries into Climategate are marked. I actually looked into the taking of evidence on oath some time ago, and as far as I could make out then, select committees actually can ask for evidence on oath but simply don't like to do so. It's interesting that Jon Snow seems to have a different idea. Perhaps someone can put one of us right.
It would be nice to see some of those involved in Climategate and the inquiries being held to account for misleading Parliament. But as Snow says, I don't think we should hold our breath.