Dear Mr Double

Mark 53 Comments

grouse-shooting-westminster-hall-debate

Dear Mr Double

I am writing as the petitioner of the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting which was debated in Westminster Hall last week. As a member of the Petitions Committee you were given the job of leading the debate.

I need to tell you that your behaviour was unacceptable. I write to put this on the record more to voice the concerns of the many who signed the petition rather than on my own behalf – I was but one of 123,077 people who brought this subject to Parliament just for it to be ridiculed by the one person in the debate whose job was to speak neutrally, or even respectfully, about it.

Before continuing I would like to record my thanks to David Mackintosh MP, your fellow member of the Petitions Committee, who was first chosen to carry out this role. I contacted Mr Mackintosh as soon as I was told he would lead the debate and he himself was very prompt in replying (within minutes, in fact) and through his office we arranged to meet to discuss the debate. When, almost as soon as this was arranged, I heard that you would be taking the role instead, I contacted you but received no response until 12 days later when I was offered one date to meet you (which was impossible for me).

In the meantime, before I even heard from your office, the evidence session took place at which I gave evidence and you were present. My email, to which you had not at that stage replied, had suggested that we might meet and talk at that event. I waited to see whether you would come and talk to me but although you had a long discussion with the witnesses from the Countryside Alliance and Moorland Association you chose not to talk to me. It probably slipped your mind?

As you opened the debate you made it clear over and over again that you disagreed with the petition and you speculated on the motives of those who signed it.

You can hold whatever views you wish on any subject, but if you wished to voice them on this subject then you should not have taken the job of leading this debate.

Parliament set up the petitions procedure so that the people could bring matters of concern to parliament.  The least that successful petitions should expect is that members of the Petitions Committee given any role in this process should carry them out with professionalism. You failed us miserably.

You have harmed the reputation of parliament by showing such disrespect for the views of over 123,000 voters who signed a petition, under the rules that Parliament agreed, so that their views could be heard and discussed. You should consider your position on the Petitions Committee as perhaps it requires a standard of professionalism that you cannot yet attain.

Yours sincerely

Dr Mark Avery

 

c. Chair of Petitions Committee

[registration_form]

53 Replies to “Dear Mr Double”

  1. Hear hear! I’ve had young people at the youth club with a better grasp of how a debate should proceed than this man!

  3. Very well said Mark. I always struggle to keep my cool when people are just down right rude. I was nothing less than disgusted by the attitude and biased opinions of the Conservative MP’s.

  4. Well said Mark. It’s amazing the amount of work you and Chris have put into this. Aren’t there grounds for litigation against Mr Double as he has not acted impartially? There is definitely a fitness to practice query – his behaviour was appalling.

  5. In fact, are there not grounds for the petition to be debated again given how badly this debacle unfolded?

  6. Yes. Very well said Mark. Well done on keeping your professionalism and dignity intact when you were failed so miserably by those around you.

  7. Hope you’ve also cc’d this to the PM. Although I doubt none of them would have been so rude and ignorant without knowing they had her support.
    I would still love to know the legal position on many aspects of their behaviour. Still can’t understand how the second petition was ‘debated’ at the same time. Seems we need 100,000 signatures but their mates only need a quarter of that figure.
    Completely useless the lot of ’em.

    1. I think that the Prime Minister needs to be aware of this affair. Just discovered from some recent tweets of his that Mr Double is in a little bit of difficulty with other Conservative MPs because of his complaining about the Gina Miller case in the High Court. He says he is disappointed that people are trying to delay Brexit. Why is he disappointed? What is the rush? Why is he worried? …. It looks as though we’re not the only ones who have found him out.

    2. The previous PM responded to a complaint about one of his MPs who behaved in a ‘dishonourable’ manner by saying that his back-benchers were able to express personal views. The fact that they were particularly offensive didn’t seem to matter – such is the manner now in which some parliamentarians conduct themselves. Little wonder that politicians as a species are not held in the high esteem they might once have been? I accept that there are some who do try to deliver for the many not just the few.

      As for conduct in the palace of Westminster I believe that unless their statements are untrue then they are pretty much protected by parliamentary privilege – I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong? Having said that it does concern me greatly that there are unvalidated statistics (some contradicting others from the same side) published in Hansard and that will be used to further the myths around DGS.

      I’d suggest we each consider writing to our respective MPs to register a complaint on the conduct of certain members of the ‘committee’ as many of us were incensed by the ‘debacle’ procedure (hardly a debate with all the sycophantic dribble, obfuscation and filibustering)?

      1. “Having said that it does concern me greatly that there are unvalidated statistics (some contradicting others from the same side) published in Hansard and that will be used to further the myths around DGS”

        Hansard does not purport to be a record of facts in the real world but a more or less accurate record of what is said in parliament: “…which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes (including grammatical mistakes) corrected, but which, on the other hand, leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.”

        The speakers in parliamentary debates are by definition partisan and so no-one with any sense should use Hansard as a source of objective information about the world outside Westminster whether it be the number of hen harriers killed in suspicious circumstances, the state of the economy or anything else. Of course we should hope and expect that our MPs will be truthful but ‘truth’ is a slippery thing and inevitably politicians of all stripes seek to present their case in the best possible light and mould their ‘facts’ to suit their needs or omit to mention anything that is inconvenient to them. We probably all do this to some extent.

        I agree that Mr Double fell far short of the requirements of his particular role in the debate and deserves to be singled out for opprobrium but, though I disagree profoundly with Soames et al I don’t blame them for coming to the debate in numbers and arguing their case forcefully. They were merely doing what they were entitled to do and what the event was supposed to be about i.e. debating whether or not driven grouse shooting should be banned – unfortunately for us they were arguing against Mark’s petition. Personally, I feel more angry towards the Labour Party. Its manifesto included a pledge to “…deal with wildlife crime associated with shooting” but, with the honourable exception of a tiny handful of people, only three of whom spoke, its members stayed away en masse. Consequently the ‘debate’ was more or less entirely one-sided.

        As far as I am concerned, that Labour pledge rings very hollow now and I feel let down by the party.

        1. Jonathan – I too don’t blame the Tories for coming out in strength to defend their interests (although I hope that people realise that was what was going on).

          I agree that the lack of troops on our side of the debate was more worrying but those who turned out did a good job. It’s a start.

  8. Very well said Mark. This debacle and those MPs who were obviously protecting their own (financial) interests have disenfranchised many voters, young and old.

    You, Mr Double, are a disgrace.

  10. Mark, it would be good to hear a bit more of what was actually said – is it possible to link to the relevant Hansard, for example ?

    My overall impression is that the shooters and their Conservative supporters are worried. However arrogant you may be, you don’t tend to behave like this if you feel you’ve really got an impregnable case.

    And you have to do the political sums: yes, their supporters will have been delighted but have they added a single extra supporter to their cause ? Whereas every time the people who are concerned about the killing of Hen Harriers are told they aren’t just wrong but misguided I suspect another few people realise they have an important point.

    And at the bottom of it all, and no doubt studiously ignored by the shooting lobby, is the unassailable fact that there are no Hen Harriers in England – and if there are their life is liable to be short and brutish.

    1. Roderick – good point! I have linked to Hansard (there was a link in an earlier blog but I will try to use them as we go onward – as we may just come back to this subject).

    3. Such dishonourable conduct should motivate not disenfranchise but I accept your point Dave J.

      It simply illustrates that Parliament is overdue for serious reform, for the many not just the few?

      The 11% pay-rise looks small beer to the 25% increase in their pensions? Evidence if it were needed that they just do not understand the real world?

  11. To be honest ……. the way the debate started shocked me greatly. I had not imagined such a biased opening speech …….. and from there on in, the proceedings sank to a low which I hadn’t considered possible. Having said that, the evidence session should’ve given me sufficient warning of the way MPs are allowed to conduct themselves, with the Chairman (I hate Chairperson) rudely brandishing her position …… because she could!

  13. Hard to see any reason for his partisan display other than he was getting some type of political “kickback” from his Tory pals…well said Mark, all too often people just quietly accept the misuse of power…

  14. An excellent letter, Mark. I wold squirm after receiving it. I don’t suppose it will trouble him, but you have cheered me up a little.

  15. Would it be helpful if those of us who also signed the petition and were utterly disgusted by Mr Double’s disgraceful behaviour also wrote to him? Would it help if we also wrote to others in a position of responsibility in this matter and if so to whom would that be?

    1. Perhaps we should be writing to the person who chaired the debate – Philip Davies MP and to the chair of the Petitions Committee – Helen Jones MP – sharing our concerns over the derogatory way the debate conducted itself.

      1. jw4926 -I think the debate went as well as might be expected aside from the very partial start made by Mr Double. One can’t tell MPs what they should say, only listen aghast to how badly informed some of them might be.

        1. Exactly Mark – the misinformation and ignorance shown by some of the MPs taking part, together with the attitudes shown towards those people – many of whom are their constituents – who had signed the petition, should surely be brought to someone’s attention .

        2. I think it is worth writing to Helen Jones to complain about Steve Double, and I will do so. There is a point of principle, and the appalling precedent he set should not be allowed to stand.

  16. Are there actually any guidance notes on how these debates should be handled? Have any of the protocols been breached? If Parliament is going to continue with such an idea, at least they need to agree the process. As we found during this debate, if the petitioners are just going to be insulted and dismissed, they probably would not have gone down this route in the first place. I accept that we should move on, but I do think as many of us as possible should let our MPs know just what a farce this “debate” was.

  17. Landowners and Tories what did we expect from these inbreds? The only real answer is for all of us to lump together and buy big chunks of land. Politicians and the law are a waste of space.

    1. Oliver – I disagree but if you have a few spare millions and can persuade someone to sell, and then have the money for ongoing management – go ahead.

      Land purchase would be a slow but sure solution – but it would be very slow, I’m afraid. Compulsory purchase by the state inside National Parks would be much more attractive.

  18. Yes, I watched, it was shameful. I didn’t expect much, but better than that. I was ashamed, particularly for the young people witnessing it who had worked so hard.

    1. I wondered what conclusions these young people were drawing as they watched and listened. Would the experience influence their career choice? Were they thinking: I wouldn’t want to have people like these as colleagues. I’m out of here!

  19. This one of the problems with the one party state we now have. The Tories can more or less behave how they like and they know that there is little comeback. Makes standing up for nature very hard as they just don’ t care.

  21. He and some of the other MPs were abusing the immunity conferred on them when they speak in Parliament. Unfortunately, this is very common. Double was utterly incompetent as a chair. As a student, he would be a FAIL. If we want to make a formal complaint, I believe this should be to the Speaker but knowing who he is, can we be bothered?

  22. Is there some sort of parliamentary regulatory you can complain to? Sounds like it would be warranted.

  24. Mr Double should resign from the Committee. He disgraced himself: first showing contempt for the petitioners, second showing contempt for Parliament. Bad as is the first, it is the second that will come back to haunt him unless he shows remorse. Let’s just remember that he not only presented a wholly biased position, he denied doing so when mildly challenged. Here it is:

    Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

    The Petitions Committee is quite new, but I would have thought that someone opening a debate on a petition on behalf of ​that Committee ought at least to look at both sides of the argument and not present such a biased argument against the petition. More than 120,000 people signed the petition to ban grouse shooting, and they want a debate that sets out both sides of the argument. The hon. Gentleman is failing them miserably.

    Steve Double

    I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think I have presented arguments on both sides, and I have not yet finished my speech, so perhaps she should wait until I have before jumping to a conclusion.

    In the public gallery we were unable to contain our laughter when he said this. (For those who don’t have time to read the end of his speech, there was almost nothing later to insert balance.)

    Mr Double confessed he was not an expert. He also seemed not to have absorbed any of the evidence submitted to his Committee. None of which restrained him. Shameful, just shameful.

    I worked in and around Parliament for 30 years and never heard anything worse than Mr Double’s speech.

  25. I was struck by the contrast between how the “Ban driven grouse shooting” petition in Westminster treated the views of the petitioner and the signatories (123,077 signatures) – hostility and derision mostly by the Tories. It was a lesson in how to alienate 123,077 people from the democratic system.
    It was in stark contrast to the reception of a petition for a licensing system put to the Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament where the views of petitioner (Logan Steele on behalf of the Scottish Raptor Study Groups) and supporters (7,600 signatures) were received with interest and respect.

  26. I was appalled at the way Double introduced this (and I hesitate to use the word!) debate. The bias displayed was unbelievable! Can the subject be resurrected by another petition with a slightly modified subject?

  27. Probably showing my age, but Double sounded like one of the dodgy characters you used to get on Minder, one of Arfur’s mates. I certainly wouldn’t buy a secondhand car from him, but it seems it’s ok for him to be an MP. Depressing how people can vote for someone like that.

    1. Les, depressing indeed, but then events across the pond suggest that “the establishment” is having its backside well and truly kicked! If the Supreme Court uphold the high court decision on brexit we may have the prospect of an early election here. Could be good news for Hen Harriers!?

  31. Mr Double is an Evangelical Christian who, having made great play of his family life and Christian values to get elected, refused to resign after he was caught having an adulterous affair with his 26 year old, married, taxpayer funded assistant.

    The idea that this letter will cause him even the slightest bit of discomfiture gives him too much credit.

Comments are closed.