JOHN Bercow has rebuked an SNP MP who referred to peers as "vermin in ermine".
The Speaker said it was not appropriate for such a comparison to be made by David Linden (Glasgow East) as the Commons debated proposals to halt moves to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600.
Linden, referring to the House of Lords as he outlined the contents of his speech, noted: "I want to use a few minutes of my time to talk about the other place along the corridor - the ermine vermin."
Conservative Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) later raised a point of order, telling Bercow he had been taken aback by the comment.
Merriman added: "The Member for Glasgow East during his speech referred to peers as vermin in ermine.
"I believe I have actually confirmed this with the frontbench and I wonder if I could seek your advice as to whether this was unbecoming of this place."
Bercow agreed it was unbecoming of the Commons and Linden, adding: "It was said, as far as I can imagine, as I didn't hear it, sotto voce.
"If it was muttered inaudibly by accident, I am frankly surprised because in the short time [Linden] has been a member of this place I've always thought him an articulate fellow who speaks lucidly in terms readily audible and intelligible.
"If, on the other hand, it was a deliberate ruse to blurt these words out in a manner intended not to be heard but nevertheless to be incorporated in the official report, that is unworthy of somebody of the budding aspirations and potential stature of (Mr Linden).
"I hope he will not resort to such a tactic again.
"We should, seriously, treat each other in this place with basic courtesy - and in referring to members of the (Lords), it is not appropriate to make that comparison or to draw that analogy.
"We'll leave it there for now."
In his speech, Linden went on to say it is "absolutely ridiculous" the Lords - with around 800 peers - is only surpassed in size by China's National People's Congress.
He criticised the continued presence of hereditary peers, adding more widely: "I think the thing that is even more scandalous is the fact they come in, clock in, get their £300 a day tax-free and then leave."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel