Politics: accountability evaded

By Richard North - October 31, 2024

Well, the budget has come and gone, and there’s not a lot I can add to the torrent of comment delivered so far by the legacy media, topped up by social media.

Even if I was inclined to add my ha’porth, though, I’m with Ben Habib, who tweeted earlier: “On budget day I would usually set out some comment. This budget is worse than any in recent years, but I cannot bring myself to do so. Southport is all that matters right now”.

What particularly grates, and demands further reportage are the strenuous official attempts to shut down comment, seen already through DEI hire, chief constable of Merseyside police, Serena Kennedy, strongly advising people not to engage in “rumour and speculation”.

Needless to say, the BBC has been quick in its attempts to exonerate the government, with a piece headed, “Government became aware of new Southport charges in last few weeks”.

Despite the two candidates for the Conservative leadership asserting that the government had questions to answer about the new charges disclosed on Tuesday, with Robert Jenrick suggesting that information was being “concealed” from the public, the broadcaster gave pride of place to a spokesthing for the prime minister to claim that it was “not correct” to say the government had been involved in withholding facts from the public.

We also had a boilerplate response from the police said it is “certainly not the case” that they have been keeping things from the public, to which was bolted on the somewhat contradictory assertion that “it would be highly unusual for them to release details of a live police investigation”.

We should recall, however, that Starmer took a personal part in this drama, alongside his home secretary, warning that social media was not a “law-free zone” and encouraging the police to take action against “keyboard warriors” – not least for the “crime” of misinformation.

In the event that it was likely that Starmer had been informed very early of the presence of Ricin in Rudakubana’s home, and the possible Islam link, the official attempts to cast Rudakubana as a “Welsh-born Christian choirboy” could in itself amount to misinformation, in which the prime minister was complicit.

Yesterday’s PMQs, therefore, present the first opportunity for MPs to challenge Starmer on what he knew and when, enabling his role better to be established. But it was not to be.

Before the questions got underway, speaker Lindsay Hoyle intervened with a statement remining members that, “following the horrendous, terrible incident in Southport on 29 July, a suspect is awaiting trial, having been charged with multiple offences”. That means, he said, “that the House’s sub judice resolution is engaged, and references should not be made to the case”.

Hoyle went on to say that speculation about the case, including comments made in this House, could seriously risk prejudicing proceedings. He knew, he said, “that none of us would ever wish to do that”. Therefore, he concluded, “it would be wrong of me to exercise a waiver in this case. Members should not refer to it, or risk prejudicing it”.

What Hoyle was referring to was a Commons motion (replicated for the Lords), framed its latest iteration on 15 November 2001, which states quite bluntly: “Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question”.

However, that is not the whole of it. The motion goes on to state: “But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Chair a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions”.

One should note from this text, though, that the prospect of “prejudicing proceedings” is not a relevant issue. The “waiver” to which Hoyle was referring relates to a “ministerial decision” or “issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services”.

There can be no dispute that some MPs would have liked to have question Starmer on his (ministerial) decisions, and it is hardly contentious to aver that “public order” issues were involved, especially as – it transpires – the police were put on alert in anticipation of disturbances when the additional charges were announced.

From the look of it, the speaker misinformed himself and members – not for the first time – and had ample grounds for waiving the motion. Once again, though, instead of sticking up for the rights of the members, Hoyle chose to side with his Labour cronies.

A better-informed Commons might have had one or other MP challenge the speaker but that didn’t happen. The members took the ruling like lambs, house-trained and obedient.

The only MP who tried to break this embargo was Reform’s Richard Tice, who asked whether the prime minister would agree with the government’s own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC. According to Tice, he had said “repeatedly recently that it is important in incidents of terrorism that the authorities put out more information sooner in order to prevent an information gap”.

In typical form, Starmer was evasive. “Obviously I will tread carefully in answering this question, Mr Speaker, for the very reasons that you set out at the beginning of this session”, he said, crawling to Hoyle.

Making the obvious point, he then went on to say: “It is very important, first and foremost, that in all cases, including the particularly difficult case that the Speaker mentioned earlier, the police and prosecutors are able to do their difficult job”.

Then came the jibe: “All of us in this House have a choice to make, including both candidates to be the next Tory leader. They can either support the police in their difficult task or they can undermine the police in their difficult task. I know which side I am on”.

The question, of course, went unanswered. We were left with the inference that any attempt to hold the government and official agencies to account was to “undermine the police” – an easy claim for the authoritarian that is Starmer.

Hoyles, in closing his own statement, had acknowledged that members had legitimate questions about the circumstances surrounding this case. No doubt, he said, “they will want Ministers to commit to come to the House and answer those questions once the legal proceedings have concluded”.

He then gave his “assurance”, that he would “ensure ample opportunities to do so”, with the trial expected to start in late January.

However, this is not good enough. Already a number of “keyboard warriors” have been arrested, and some jailed, partly on the basis of pointing to an Islam link. And only a few days ago, Mark Heath stood trial, accused of, amongst other things, of claiming that the Southport perpetrator was a Muslim.

Accused of stirring up racial hatred, Heath sensibly fought his case with a “not guilty” plea, and had a jury acquit him – indicating that it is probably best to fight such cases.

Currently, with over 1,000 people arrested and charged – and many in prison or on remand – the situation would benefit from a clearer exposition of the issues which, on the basis of what has emerged, may provide mitigation or even justification for some of the accused. Leaving questioning of ministers until after January may be too late for some.

As it stands, some MPs seem to agree. And in the Telegraph, Priti Patel says: “Southport was a terrible tragedy that shocked and appalled the country. At the time, the public and politicians were asking serious questions and yet the Government chose not to come to Parliament or ask the searching questions needed”.

She goes on to say what many of us have already articulated, that: “It is not plausible for the police, Home Secretary, Prime Minister not to have known about the suspect’s background until this week”.

“This detail”, Patel says, “would have materialised within 2-3 days of such a devastating and serious incident with the entire security apparatus focusing on finding answers to key questions”.

Thus, she concludes: “Yvette Cooper and Sir Keir Starmer need to explain what they knew, when and also explain their subsequent approach to the protests that took place at the time, as they were the ones who did not come to Parliament or address the legitimate questions people were asking”.

She is not wrong. Justice will not be fully served until this pair have been called to account.