Commons Select Committees.

plasmahal said:
Again, proved evidence of such laws that can summon a private company before a select committee ?????
Click to expand...

They have the Queen's authority to send for people, papers and answers (or something similar to that). Ultimately while we're British citizens we're all accountable to Her Majesty.
 
hughtrimble said:
If you're summoned and you don't go, you face being held in contempt of parliament.
Click to expand...

It's a select committee not a court of law....

So I ask again, please provide evidence and a link to show they have that power.

I can maybe understand that MP's and politicians can be called before parliament and if they don't go then maybe something says they are in contempt.

But last time I checked, Mike Ashley is not an MP and Sports direct is not a governmental body.

So links please, so we can all see.
 
Guidance on giving evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/witnessguide.pdf

This is a guide on giving written or oral evidence to a select committee of the House of
Commons. The House establishes select committees in order to scrutinise various aspects
of government activity. A select committee will often seek written or oral evidence to assist
it in its scrutiny role.
This guide applies to all select committees but it focuses particularly on the select
committees related to government departments, because these are the committees which
most commonly seek evidence from members of the public. The departmental committees
are appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the relevant
government department(s) and associated public bodies.1
They conduct their examination
by undertaking specific inquiries into issues relevant to the government department in
question. This may include considering draft legislation published by the department.
Click to expand...
 
plasmahal said:
It's a select committee not a court of law....

So I ask again, please provide evidence and a link to show they have that power.

I can maybe understand that MP's and politicians can be called before parliament and if they don't go then maybe something says they are in contempt.

But last time I checked, Mike Ashley is not an MP and Sports direct is not a governmental body.

So links please, so we can all see.
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything about a court of law he said parliament and yes you can technically be held accountable to contempt of parliament (although I can't think of any who has in recent times). If you want to known more you have to read up on the law, it basically falls under acts that give MP's parliamentary privilege which were first established under the Bill of Rights.
 
robfosters said:
The issue I have with this is they are firing questions at Ashley and are expecting him to know everything about his company from agencies to contracts and much more.

It's completely unrealistic to expect one man, even if he is the owner, to have a complete understanding of every little thing that goes on in such a huge company.
Click to expand...

As the owner of the company, and given the amount of press that has been around in regards to it's policies it's his job to be aware of what is going on.

You might have an excuse is something goes wrong out of the blue and you're asked the questions, but when the questions have largely been asked in public for months/years about conditions in your business you should have been at the minimum asking similar questions yourself as one of the jobs of the "boss" is to make sure that the company is operating legally.
 
Freddie1980 said:
He didn't say anything about a court of law he said parliament and yes you can technically be held accountable to contempt of parliament (although I can't think of any who has in recent times). If you want to known more you have to read up on the law, it basically falls under acts that give MP's parliamentary privilege which were first established under the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I do want to read up more on this law, hence why those who purport to quote have yet to proved tangible links as evidence.

Please explain
MP's parliamentary privilege
Click to expand...
.
 
plasmahal said:
I do want to read up more on this law, hence why those who purport to quote have yet to proved tangible links as evidence.

Please explain .
Click to expand...

Why should he explain something to you which is so easily found in the public domain with the most basic of web searches?

If you genuinely wish to understand how our government works, I would suggest you do your own research rather than rudely demanding others do it for you.
 
DRZ said:
Why should he explain something to you which is so easily found in the public domain with the most basic of web searches?

If you genuinely wish to understand how our government works, I would suggest you do your own research rather than rudely demanding others do it for you.
Click to expand...

As with many threads here on GD, e.g. the EU thread, we have opinions and make factual statements backed up usually by proof.

I never demanded anything and if you read the OP again, I was asking about how commons select committees work, not the government, there is a difference.

Members were quoting laws around the power to summons non-government people to these meetings.

I merely asked for proof of those laws via link.

Clearly your google skills are far superior to everyone else's as there is yet to be a link i have seen that states a law that allows common people to be punished if failing to abide to a summons to meeting with one of these committees.

Please feel free to impress us further by providing a link you so easily found.

:D
 
plasmahal said:
Today Mike Ashley (Sports Direct) is in front of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

This media story had me intrigued as to why and how, these committees exist and operate.

I'm trying to understand how a private business venture can be called before a committee to be basically interrogated under a threat of summons for seemingly vague accusations of poor treatment of employees.

Surely, if there is any evidence or reasonable cause to believe the Law is being broken, then this should be passed to a legal body funded for this very reason.

I don't see how this is good use of public money.

So I'm trying to educate myself on this matter.

Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/role/

Business, Innovation and Skills Committee - role
The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and its associated public bodies, including the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

On 5 June 2009 the Prime Minister announced that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills would become the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. On the 25 June 2009 the House of Commons Standing Orders governing the committee structure were amended to allow the Committee to be renamed in order to reflect this change.

Committee history
The Committee was renamed on 1 October 2009 with the same membership as the previous Business and Enterprise Committee which was formed on 6 November 2007 and replaced the Trade and Industry Committee. The remit of the Committee reflects the responsibilities of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and includes issues such as the Government's relationship with Royal Mail, competition policy, higher and further education, business competitiveness and trade promotion.

Members of the Committee also participate in the Committees on Arms Export Controls.

In the case of Mike Ashley:

The Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee holds an evidence session examining the working practices at Sports Direct with owner Mike Ashley, representatives from Unite Union, Transline Group and The Best Connection Group.

Purpose of the session

Agency worker status at Shirebrook;
Terms and conditions of workers at Sports Direct;
Health and safety issues;
Review of Sports Direct’s contracts with agency workers

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news-parliament-2015/sports-direct-working-practices-mike-ashley-no-show-16-17/
Click to expand...

The CSC have no power at all to force an appearance. It's basically an invitation to appear.
 
plasmahal said:
As with many threads here on GD, e.g. the EU thread, we have opinions and make factual statements backed up usually by proof.

I never demanded anything and if you read the OP again, I was asking about how commons select committees work, not the government, there is a difference.

Members were quoting laws around the power to summons non-government people to these meetings.

I merely asked for proof of those laws via link.

Clearly your google skills are far superior to everyone else's as there is yet to be a link i have seen that states a law that allows common people to be punished if failing to abide to a summons to meeting with one of these committees.

Please feel free to impress us further by providing a link you so easily found.

:D
Click to expand...

Crikey,

This took me 5 secs to Google earlier.


https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-mps-business-committee-treatment-of-workers
 
Stumble Bum said:
Crikey,

This took me 5 secs to Google earlier.


https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-mps-business-committee-treatment-of-workers
Click to expand...

So it's all a bit of a grey area if you refuse to attend

Committees can seek the support of the House of Commons in providing a summons, putting Ashley at risk of contempt of the house if he refuses, but it is unclear what the potential sanctions could be.

A government green paper on parliamentary privilege in 2012 found that, in theory, parliament could summon a person to reprimand, issue a fine or order their imprisonment.

But*another report that year concluded*committees did not have the power to compel witnesses to attend. That report, written by barristers Richard Gordon QC and Amy Street for the Constitution Society, said parliament’s formal powers had not been used for hundreds of years and might not apply in the present day. Any attempt to exercise them could be tested in the courts.
Click to expand...
 
Nice one Cosimo, that was worth watching.

I do feel that today's meeting with Mike Ashley was not in the true spirit of what these committees are setup for and would have been better for a minister to be questioned over employment law policy around zero hour contracts.
 
Ok just keep hearing the answers you want to hear. No one can convince you otherwise, no point trying.

These committees are quite clearly very effective and a positive thing that yields results. Not too sure why you seem to want to defend that odious fool Mike Ashley.
 
Stumble Bum said:
Ok just keep hearing the answers you want to hear. No one can convince you otherwise, no point trying.

These committees are quite clearly very effective and a positive thing that yields results. Not too sure why you seem to want to defend that odious fool Mike Ashley.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

At no point did I say these committees were useless, so you either don't bother to read the thread or fail to understand the point of the thread.

Again, I totally get why they exist and again agree that for questioning government officials and government bodies, it is a good mechanism to try and improve government. Watch the video Cosimo posted as its a positive contribution to this thread about what I was asking about.

At no point did I also defend any actions by Sports Direct and Mike Ashley. His case was used as an example where these committees don't call forward government officials and government bodies (in this case over employment law and practices) but instead target high profile business and individuals with no links to government.

So we have established what these committees are for so that is a FACT or answer I was looking for yes. We have also established that so far, a threat of summons is not really backed up by anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom