From what I've just read you could be held in contempt of parliament if you refuse to appear or perjure yourself. Fines can no longer be issued but imprisonment is still an option, except it has to be a warrant actioned by the Metropolitan police.
I can't seem to link to the House of Commons info on my phone but it's under 'Disciplinary and Penal Powers of the House'.
So, yes, technically he could be arrested and subsequently imprisoned for failing to appear or lying to the committee, the likelihood is incredibly slim.
In theory. But that's the problem, it is very much in theory. It hasn't been tried for many decades and if I remember correctly, last time someone was imprisoned was sometime in the late 1800's. 1880-ish.
What Select Committees rely on is the authority of "the House" and that, in turn, relies on bluster, PR pressure and luck. Luck, because nobody has called their bluff. Yet.
The modern reality is that ANY attempt to arrest, and compel evidence-giving on pain of penalty, risks a challenge under the ECHR Article 6, and it is a very long way from certain the "House" would win.
There has been a series of discussions in Westminster in recent years about beefing up select committee powers with statutory backing, most recently with the initual refusal of the Murdochs to attend, leading MPs to consider what happens if, or indeed, when someone finally does call ths bluff. Like Philip Green appears (so far) to be prepared to do.
The conclusion, in brief, was that any attemp to exercise existing so-called powers are based in outdated tradition and Parliamentary procedure, the leading authority being in Erskine May, but that the legal backdrop to that has changed with the ECHR and that Art.6 challenge. And if they attempt to legislate specific statutory powers, doing so would at a minimum put the final decisions in the hands of the UK Supreme court, or possibly even the ECJ, and that establishes the principle that the House is subject to at least partial oversight by the courts, a principle that's been sacrosanct to Parliament, the supremacy of the House, since the Bill of Right's in 1689.
Currently, the conclusion of that report seems to be that the best course of action is to continue the bluff and bluster, cross their fingers and hope nobody calls them on it.
Ooops.
And that's why I have a bag of popcorn and a coke ready while I watch the stand-off between Frank Field and Sir Philip Green, because I reckon he knows he's got them by the nuts, and the has both the personality, and certainly the money, to make a God-awful noisy fight of this. It should be great.
My bet is there are some furious behind-the-scenes discussions going on. I doubt Field will want to step down, and simply because of their own pride and the credibility of the system, the Commons are not going to want to be seen to cave in to Green's ultimatum either.
But if they can't come up with some mechanism to get Green to back off, then he's got them in a right fix. If he doesn't back down, either they have to remove Field, which shows the next challenger that their threats are toothless, or Green ignores their summons and again, shows their threats as toothless.
My bet is they'll come up with some face-saving deal because, frankly, Green has got them by the nuts and I think he's an experienced enough negotiator to know when, and how hard, to squeeze.
I'm itching to see how they present whatever deal they come to, which inevitably will never be public, to us. What face-saving scheme they come up with.
Because if they try to enforce those theoretical "powers", there's every chance Green will force them to a very public, and potentially humiliating, display of how toothless they actually are. If that happens, Green might be the first but I bet he won't be the last, and any future attempt to intimidate and bluff will be utterly futile. That would put a severe crimp in the ability of committee members to grandstand for the cameras in these hearings, as they so often do.
