On Monday, the Speaker was promising to “solicit views in detail” from Members about his controversial selection of Carol Mills as Clerk of the House. “People can express their views on the floor of the House,” he said. “I want to hear what people have to say.”
Now it’s – That’s enough of that. There is no point of order further to that point of order. Let’s move on. No , no, no, la-la-la, not listening, presentation of Bills what day?
He calls his accusers in that weary, ‘here we go again’ voice, encouraging Labour to jeer and call out “Keep your hair on!” to. Michael Fabricant. For the PLP Bercow is “Our Speaker” and for that reason Bercow addresses half his rebuttals to their side, seeking their support.
Fabricant told the Speaker he’d lied to the House. He said he had it from people on the panel that Saxton Bampfylde had indeed been prevented from coming and speaking to the panel and giving information about Carol Mills. “I wonder whether, under those circumstances, you might wish to put the record straight so that the House is not misled.”
He made an ancillary point. Would the Speaker lift the threat of litigation against Saxton Bampfylde so they could publicly set the record straight?
The Speaker said he’d take advice on that. As close to an admission that he has threatened to sue the recruiters if they come clean.
Bercow: “He is quite wrong to say that there was prevention of Saxton Bampfylde giving information to the panel.”
So. Saxton Bampfylde knew there were two Inquiries involving Carol Mills and they didn’t try to tell this to the panel?
They should be sued for in incompetence, negligence, uselessness, delboys masquerading as recruitment professionals.
When will Speaker’s Counsel get onto that?
Further to that point of order . . . The Speaker cut him down. “No, no. There is nothing further to that point of order.”
There is this.
Will Saxton Bampfylde pick up the costs of any legal action Carol Mills might bring – including a possible £2m compensation payment?