Urgent Debates Declined — Sexual Assault Allegations—Roast Busters Case

I have received a letter from Kelvin Davis seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s inability to prosecute claims of sexual abuse. In order for an urgent debate to be held, there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The police yesterday afternoon announced their decision that charges would not be laid following the Operation Clover investigation. Although the Minister of Police is answerable to this House for police operational matters, under our system of Government the decision to prosecute or not is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. Had the police in making their decision revealed substantial or substantive policy changes, I may have been inclined to accept the application because of the public interest. I note that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has yet to report finally on its investigation. A Government’s response to such an inquiry might occasion an urgent debate if it were to reveal a new or significant development of significant importance in itself that warranted setting aside the business of the House. However, the purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government accountable for an action that has occurred for which it is responsible. There must be a distinct Government responsibility for the particular case for which leave is sought to debate. An urgent debate is not an opportunity for a general debate on issues of concern to members. The application is therefore declined.