Latest news with #NolanPrinciples
North Wales Live
29-07-2025
- Politics
- North Wales Live
Councillor who failed to declare political party membership 'should consider his position'
Aberconwy's MS has called a former Conwy cabinet member's position 'untenable". Conservative Senedd Member Janet Finch-Saunders has taken aim at former Conwy County Council leader Cllr Goronwy Edwards after it emerged last week he was a member of an undeclared political party. Conwy's current leader Cllr Charlie McCoubrey announced on Friday that Cllr Edwards resigned from his position as cabinet member for infrastructure, transport, and facilities. The resignation followed Cllr Edwards, a Conwy First Independent Group councillor, not declaring he was a member of another party on his register of interests. The controversy follows two Tory councillors jumping ship to Reform. Now Mrs Finch-Saunders has fired criticism at Cllr Edwards, arguing his position is 'untenable". 'I'm very unhappy that a long-standing councillor such as he, an ex-leader of the council, an ex-cabinet member… he's been round long enough to know what he should be doing,' said Mrs Finch-Saunders. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox. 'It's very disappointing that he chose to withdraw this vital information that the public has a right to know. I feel that his position now is untenable, not just as a cabinet member but as a councillor. I think he should consider his position and allow somebody else to fight for that seat, who may honour the Nolan Principles and the integrity that goes with the role of holding such a high position in public life. 'How can you be a member of the independent group of Conwy County Council and be a member of another political party? It makes a mockery of every single independent candidate who believes they stand on an independent ticket, but it also calls into question the integrity of the cabinet and the First Independent Group.' She added: 'How can he be describing himself to his electors… he has brought the role of councillor and the cabinet into disrepute by hiding the fact he was sitting on one group while being a paid-up member of another political party. It is absolutely disgraceful.' The Local Democracy Reporting Service attempted to contact Cllr Edwards for a comment. The Conwy First Independent Group declined to comment at this time. Public notices in your area
Rhyl Journal
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
Glasgow Times
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' A recreation of the Great Fire Of London of 1666, the same year a fine was last issued by the Commons (Hannah McKay/PA) Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
North Wales Chronicle
17-07-2025
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
Leader Live
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Leader Live
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
