Memorandum submitted by Caroline Lucas
MP, Leader, Green Party (P 51, 2010-11)
As a new Member, I have been very disappointed
by the frequency by which I have found out that there is to be
a ministerial statement from the press, before this information
is made available to MPs. Where notice of or information about
the content of a statement is leaked, the Speaker should have,
in my view, the power to require the Minister giving the statement
to explain to the House who leaked the information and
on what authority.
Should this suggestion be of interest to the Committee,
I hope consideration might be given to such an explanation
having a minimum of five minutes so that the House cannot be given
a single sentence, for example, about the matter 'being investigated'.
It would also be very interesting to hear the Committee's
view on the implications of the Chamber giving the Speaker
the power to increase the amount of time that backbenchers are
given to debate a statement where it has been leaked to the
press.
To assess the number of times information on a statement
has been leaked and the willingness of Departments to address
this, I have recently put the following Parliamentary Question
to each Government department:
To ask the Secretary of State for [Department] on
how many occasions his/her Department has provided embargoed media
briefings prior to an oral statement to the House since 26 May
2010; in respect of how many such briefings his/her Department
was informed that the embargo had been breached; what steps were
taken as a result of each such breach; and on how many occasions
his Department has provided media briefings without an embargo
prior to an oral statement to the House since 26 May 2010.
No doubt the Procedure Committee will have obtained
similar information in the course of its Inquiry. However, I
will collate the answers and forward these to the Committee in
the new year.
Finally, I recently circulated a document to all
MPs and the Speaker, entitled The Case for Parliamentary Reform
which suggested that the Chamber should
give the Speaker the power to summon a Secretary of State or the
Prime Minister to give an oral statement to the House on matters
of urgent public interest.
At present, if the Government does not propose a
statement itself on a matter of immediate public interest, and
if the official opposition or other backbenchers do not submit
an Urgent Question to the Speaker for a debate on that issue,
there is no means by which the Speaker can ensure there is a debate.
Giving this discretion to the Speaker would provide a mechanism
which would help hold the Government to account in the public
interest.
Communicating policy announcements and legislative
proposals to the media before Parliament is a challenge
to the role of the Chamber. Therefore, the Committee's Inquiry
into this issue is very welcome and has the potential to help
reinvigorate Parliamentary democracy. I look forward to the Committee's
findings.
December 2010
| 
