Speaker and PMQs

Two things became obvious at last week`s PMQs: Johnson can be embarrassed by the Labour leader into revealing his failures, both to cope with details and to scrutinise government reports, and secondly, he will attempt to stage-manage proceedings by asking rather than answering questions. Now that the Office of the Children`s Commissioner for England has ruled that the prime minister "was wrong to claim that there were 400,000 fewer families living in poverty now than in 2010", and that Starmer`s figures were right, and that "600,000 more children live in relative poverty" today, should not today`s proceedings begin with a statement from Johnson or the Speaker to that effect (PM`s claims on child poverty "misled MPs", 23/06/20)? Most certainly, Starmer should not have to use up one of his six questions by mentioning it.

         It is the Speaker`s job to ensure the rules of procedure are followed in the house of Commons, and that must include what happens during PMQs. If Johnson attempts to throw questions back at Starmer, in what obviously is an attempt to avoid answering, and display his ignorance at the same time, the Speaker has to intervene.

Oh how Tory MPs laughed when Johnson during the recent PMQs said that "a great ox had stood" on Starmer`s tongue, implying, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition wasn`t allowed to say whether schools were safe because of union pressure (Star, 18/06/20). Starmer was quick with his retort that if the PM wanted to swap positions Labour was ready, but what really was happening was that Johnson, duplicitous as ever, was employing the only tactic ha has, when faced with questions he can`t answer about government reports he hasn`t read - he waffles on until he hits on something he thinks worthwhile and repeats it. In this case, it was a question to Starmer about school safety. By repeating the question at least three times, he avoided answering questions about the increase in poverty.

   According to the government website, not only does it specifically, and hardly unsurprisingly, say that PMQs is when MPs question the prime minister, it also states that the Leader of the Opposition is the only MP "allowed to come back with further questions". On the Speaker`s role the website is clear; he has "full authority to make sure all MPs follow the rules of the house".

    The conclusion is obvious: if PMQs is not to be turned into a complete farce by a prime minister simply not up to the job, the Speaker has to enforce the rules. If questions are not even attempted to be answered, and Johnson resorts to his avoidance tactics, the Speaker must insist on the rules being followed, even if the session has to overrun. Failing that, is there such a thing as a motion of no confidence in the Speaker?