MP Does Something Good Shock!

I know that with the long running expenses scandal it's almost impossible to believe but one of Britain's Members of Parliament not only done the job he's being paid to but almost went above an beyond the call of duty in the process.

The story began in August 2006 when Trafigura, a British Oil brokerage firm, brokered a deal between an oil company and a local contractor to dispose of toxic oil slops. Compagine Tommy, the Ivorian contractor, clearly didn't do their job properly because the toxic waste ended up being illegally dumped at various locations around Abidjan, Ivory Coast. Within weeks tens of thousands of local residents fell sick with a range of similar symptoms including vomiting diarrhoea and breathing problems. In February 2007 Trafigura paid the Ivorian government £100million to remove the waste but denied any liability claiming that they'd employed Compagine Tommy in good faith and had no idea the waste was to be dumped illegally. In October 2008 the head of Compagine Tommy was jailed in the Ivory Coast over the incident and after some further negotiation Trafigura agreed to pay £1000 each to 30,000 people made ill by the waste but still refused to accept liability.

In September 2009 a report emerged revealing that not only did Trafigura know in advance that the oil slops were toxic they also fully understood that the contractor intended to dump them illegally and tried to cover up these details. Trafigura reacted quickly to the news of this report by instructing Carter-Ruck, a British legal firm who bill themselves as specialists in "corporate reputation management" - that is making sure that damaging information about private companies never makes it into the public domain - to deal with the report. Carter-Ruck swiftly killed the story by applying for and being granted a so called super injunction. Unlike a normal injunction that would have simply prevented the report being published the terms of the super injunction also stopped people discussing the fact that an injunction had even been applied for let alone who applied for it or what it covered.

Through some diligent investigative reporting the Guardian newspaper discovered that Paul Farrelly, the MP for Newcastle-Under-Lyme intended to table a question about the case in Parliament on October 12th 2009. As is standard Parliamentary procedure and what we pay them for this would require a government minister to stand up and offer a detailed answer to the question. The Guardian immediately contacted Carter-Ruck to inquire if the terms of the injunction extended to this parliamentry question. Carter-Ruck replied that they felt the injunction most certainly did apply to the floor of the House of Commons and threatened the Guardian with legal action if they reported the question or its answer. This forced the Guardian to issue a statement on their website saying that they had been "prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it or where that question can be found." Within hours Twitter and the blogosphere were full of some incredibly accurate guesses of which case the injunction referred too along with lots of complaints against the injunction itself because while toxic waste dumping in Africa may not be a major concern for British voters the fact that a private company thinks it can dictate to Parliament what it can and cannot discuss most certainly should be.

The next day John Farrelly stood up in Parliament and asked the following question;

"Yesterday, I understand, Carter-Ruck quite astonishingly warned of legal action if the Guardian reported my question. In view of the seriousness of this, will you accept representations from me over this matter and consider if Carter-Ruck's behaviour represents a potential contempt of Parliament?"

In itself asking this question could well have broken the terms of the injunction however the reporting of it being asked most certainly doesn't. This forced Carter-Ruck to drop the ban on reporting the original question and has called the legality of the injunction into question. It is now up to the Speaker of the House of Commons to decide whether to pursue Carter-Ruck and the Judge who issued the injunction on the charge of contempt of Parliament.