MP's court bid for answers fails

Mr Hemming said he was disappointed with the result

The courts cannot force ministers to give proper answers to questions from MPs, a High Court judge has ruled.

The court heard Lib Dem MP John Hemming was concerned they could "duck, weave and not answer" queries, while the government did little to stop it.

Listing 12 ministerial responses he considered to be poor, he said a court needed to enforce proper answers.

But the judge refused his request for a judicial review, saying the ministerial code had to be enforced by Parliament.

'Flawed and evasive'

MPs can ask questions of ministers about policies, with replies usually received two weeks later, to allow detailed replies to be prepared.

Mr Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, highlighted 12 of his queries on subjects ranging from overspending on NHS drugs, the financial position of millennium projects, gas imports, climate change and increases in council tax.

He said he received flawed, partial, evasive and sometimes misleading responses and argued the prime minister had failed to stop this.

Mr Hemming said that when he had complained about it in the Commons, the Speaker of the House of the Commons had said it was not a matter for him.

Ministers, where it is in the public interest, have to answer questions John Hemming MP

The government argued that the case was not "justiciable", or a matter for a court - because the ministerial code was policed by Parliament.

But Mr Hemming argued Parliament was not an independent tribunal - as required by the European Convention on Human Rights - because it was effectively controlled by the government.

"Obviously we are not saying that the courts could sack a minister," he told the court.

"But ministers, where it is in the public interest, have to answer questions."

'Simply unarguable'

Dismissing the application, the second made by Mr Hemming, Judge Mr Justice Bennett described it as "unusual" but "simply unarguable".

"The ministers' code is a matter of enforcement for Parliament and is not amenable to judicial review," he said.

"These are matters which arise within Parliament and the courts are, by the Bill of Rights Act 1689, not entitled to question matters that take place in Parliament."

Sometimes when you are trying to get something changed, you have to go about it in a number of different ways and can't expect all of them to be successful John Hemming Lib Dem MP

Mr Hemming was ordered to pay £2,060 costs - although speaking after the hearing he said he was considering an appeal.

"I'm disappointed because I think the legal arguments are there," he said.

"This is an important constitutional principle - are we saying the prime minister can just get away with saying nothing full stop?"

He is no stranger to the legal process - as a Birmingham councillor he twice sought judicial reviews of electoral procedures, due to concerns about voting fraud - and was unsuccessful.

But new checks on postal voting were introduced in the Electoral Administration Act, introduced in July.

"Sometimes when you are trying to get something changed, you have to go about it in a number of different ways and can't expect all of them to be successful," he told the BBC News website.