By-election must wait for appeal

SHAMED MP Phil Woolas was offered a lifeline last night after all three parties backed the Commons Speaker’s position that an election should not be held until after an appeal had been heard.

As the Chronicle reported yesterday, a specially-convened election court at Uppermill Civic Hall found Mr Woolas deliberately lied about his Liberal Democrat rival and barred him from standing for election for three years.

An initial application for judicial review was rejected by Mr Justice Silber on the basis that judicial review was not the appropriate legal route — instead the appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Woolas’s legal team rejected that analysis and renewed the application, which is now expected to be the subject of a hearing as early as this week.

Yesterday, Commons Speaker John Bercow told MPs that a High Court judge had ordered an “expedited hearing” of Mr Woolas’s application for a judicial review and signal to political parties that a by-election should be delayed.

Mr Bercow said: “I am advised that a renewed application for judicial review has been made to the Administrative Court.

“The Administrative Court judge has ordered an expedited hearing of the renewed application as he considers it essential that the electorate of Oldham East and Saddleworth should know who is their member of parliament as soon as possible”.

Commons Leader Sir George Young and Shadow Commons leader Hilary Benn backed a delay pending the legal proceedings.

Mr Benn said: “I think it would be sensible for the House to pause before considering the issue of a by-election writ.

“We could end up with two members of parliament for the same constituency.

And that would hardly be desirable. So it seems to me that the prudent and practical course of action is to allow the legal process to be concluded before the House considers the matter of the writ.”

Liberal Democrat spokesman Alistair Carmichael also agreed to wait but demanded to know what assurances were in place that the electors would not be denied an MP “indefinitely”.

Veteran MPs from both sides of the chamber also warned of the potentially far-reaching consequences of the court’s judgement for future campaigning and the possibility of an explosion of legal challenges from defeated candidates. Tory MP of 27 years, Edward Leigh, said: “I think there are massive constitutional issues that this House should debate. It is the first time in 99 years that a member has been evicted. It is for the people to evict MPs not judges and what worries me about this is, it will become virtually impossible to have robust debates in elections.

“People will be terrified of attacking their opponents. What happens if a minor candidate for the BNP attacks a major party candidate you are frightened of attacking them back for fear of disqualification, these are issues that need to be discussed.”

Writing on his blog, Oldham West and Royton MP Michael Meacher said: “It is not for me to determine whether or not my colleague Phil Woolas did so now that the court has reached its decision.

“I do, however, believe that he has been treated harshly, and that some of his traducers should take a wider look at this whole question of truth-telling because it could open up other embarrassing revelations.

“It has always been a good principle: let him who is innocent cast the first stone. I don’t of course have details of any other specific case, but it would certainly be surprising if among the other 649 MPs there was not a single instance where a Member had not strayed beyond the limits of truth and honesty in portraying a political opponent in an election.”

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has indicated that Mr Woolas has no future as a Labour MP even if he succeeds in overturning the ruling. But at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party last night, angry MPs voiced their support after Ms Harman publicly disowned Mr Woolas at the weekend.

Blackley MP Graham Stringer said: “I think the whole of the PLP thought Phil had been hung out to dry and had not been given the support that he should have done.

“People are angry that he was not give the support. People also are worried about courts interfering with election decisions and fear democracy is in a slippery slope.”

One Labour MP told the Chronicle tensions were rife at the PLP and 11 MPs spoke out against Ms Harman’s comments. The deputy leader was forced to admit she went too far and should have simply suspended Mr Woolas from the party and allowed the party’s disciplinary process to kick in.

The Chronicle understands that if Mr Woolas wins the appeal the original judgement would become void and he would be reinstated as the MP.

Lib-Dem candidate at the election Elwyn Watkins who brought the charges against Mr Woolas said it would be wrong if the election was delayed “by weeks or months”.

“I think the Speaker has taken the appropriate decision but we are ready for the by-election whenever it comes,” he told BBC Radio 4’s “PM” programme.

“What would certainly not be acceptable would be a delay of weeks or months. But if it is a question of a short period of time then everyone is entitled to proper legal process.”

The Liberal Democrats, whose narrowly–defeated candidate Elwyn Watkins brought the rare case, suggested voters could end up unrepresented “indefinitely” if the case dragged on.