Skip to main content

Mr. Speaker's advice to MPs: "...try and try again."

More and more Members of Parliament are getting frustrated by the unaccountability of the government, and the failure of Ministers to answer questions properly. This exchange (below) took place in the House of Commons yesterday, and clearly shows how little power MPs have to hold Ministers to account: even with the Speaker's support.

Points of Order
4.31 pm
Mr. David Gauke(South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that, nearly two weeks ago, I raised a point of order with you about an unanswered question from the Home Office. That unanswered question related to the number of unanswered questions from the Home Office. It was a named day question, the date in question being 5 June. I received a response that the Home Office would answer as soon as possible —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that I am trying to listen to a point of order? It is a distraction when she speaks so loudly.

Mr. Gauke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the holding answer said that an answer would come as soon as possible. That was on 5 June. I raised a point of order with you exactly a month later about whether an answer would be forthcoming. I would be grateful to know whether there has been any progress on this matter, given that the recess is looming.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order. I was getting a bit worried myself, in case I got a holding reply—but I can inform him that the good news is that since I came into the Chamber, an answer has arrived. As soon as I leave here, I will read the answer and I will share it with him. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Simon Hughes
(North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have been very clear in the past about the duty of Government not to release information publicly before it has appropriately come to the House. I have not given you prior notice of what I am going to say, so I apologise, because you may want to reflect on this. You could reflect on whether you could issue the same sort of warning to agencies of Government. The particular case that I have in mind occurred today. The Crown Prosecution Service’s Director

17 July 2006 : Column 38

of Public Prosecutions was due to make an important announcement at 12 o’clock about the prosecution or otherwise of police officers in relation to the shooting at Stockwell, but it was clear that there had been a leak of his intended announcement beforehand. I wonder whether you could take the time to reflect on that. If you were able to help the House by making sure that that sort of announcement was also protected—so that it could be made by the appropriate officer rather than announced in the press beforehand—that would be much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but my feeling is that the Crown Prosecution Service is an independent organisation, and operates in a different situation from that of a Minister of the Crown.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) about ministerial non-answers, you will remember the advice that you gave me a few days ago in relation to a question that I had asked the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked whether he was informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Chancellor’s proposed announcement on the future of Trident before the Chancellor made his Mansion house speech. The answer was:

“I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues.”—[ Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1107W.]

You advised that I should table another question. In pursuance of your advice, I did so, asking whether in the course of those regular discussions the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the Secretary of State for Defence of the content relating to the future of Trident in the Chancellor’s Mansion house speech before that speech was made. The reply was:

“I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 5 July”.—[ Official Report, 11 July 2006; Vol. 448,c. 1798W.]

I wanted you to know the seriousness with which Ministers take your strictures on these matters.

Mr. Speaker: I knew that I was giving the hon. Gentleman good advice, but he must try and try again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…