Susan Gathercole

In 2016, a Parliamentary Committee was forced to summon Matthew Elliot under a parliamentary order to get him to turn up. ME spent 8 minutes refusing to apologise for not turning up previously as requested. ME who disrespected parliament is being appointed to parliament to legislate our laws, what a shambles. Transcript: Chair of the Committee, Andrew Tyrie, "Do you accept it was a mistake to muck Parliament around as you did?" Matthew Elliott, "I regret the fact I was not able to attend when Dominic Cummings gave evidence a number of weeks ago and I am very grateful to you for accepting my apology so gracefully. Then, when it came to the other opportunity to attend, I was sorry that my" AT, "There are two of those, aren’t there? ME, "I was sorry that my diary could not be rescheduled for me to be here, but I am delighted" AT, "There are two of those, now you raise it. The first was that you decided to go to Switzerland—to meet some Swiss politicians, you told my office—rather than coming here. Isn’t that correct?" ME, "I had a trip to Switzerland to see a number of groups, including politicians, business groups—a whole host of activities, yes" AT, "Do you think that is consistent with your duty to Parliament?" ME, "That was arranged or I was invited at about 48 hours’ notice. I did not feel it was appropriate to change my diary at such short notice" AT, "You were notified on the Friday; it was not 48 hours’ notice" ME, "I didn’t receive it until the Monday" AT, "Your office was notified at 2.45 on the Friday before, so it was not 48 hours’ notice but four or five days’ notice. It is important that you give accurate evidence to this Committee. If your organisation is incapable of passing on a message, that is scarcely our responsibility. Do you have any appreciation of what it looks like to a group of MPs when you tell them you would rather go to Switzerland than turn up?" ME, "I can only apologise again for not being able to turn up at that point" AT, "Okay. What about the following week? We asked if you would come the following week, and we had a message to say you were too busy" ME, "The key objective for Vote Leave has always been to make sure that you get the best possible evidence for your inquiry into the economic and financial benefits of Britain’s membership of the EU. For that occasion, we suggested that our former chairman, Lord Lawson, might attend in my place. As I say, he is a former chairman of Vote Leave and a former Chancellor" AT, "Did you ask him first?" ME, "I suggested it to him over the weekend" AT, "You have had ample opportunity to come. You declined two very clear and straightforward opportunities and then declined a third for personal reasons, which we immediately accepted as a Committee. Has your organisation discussed this? It has a core group and a campaign committee, doesn’t it?" ME, "It does" AT, "It has two groups, with the core group meeting daily and the campaign committee meeting weekly. The core group is chaired jointly by Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart. I was not intending to go into all this; I was hoping you would just accept it was a mistake not to attend and we could move on. Did that core group discuss your attendance or non-attendance at any time?" ME, "It was discussed by the board of Vote Leave but not by that core group" AT, "Okay. Who chaired that board meeting?" ME, "It was chaired by Gisela Stuart" AT, "What advice did she give you? ME, "She said that what was most important was that we gave the best possible evidence to the Committee and sent across the best possible witnesses, to give you the best possible facts in this area. I know that she suggested a number of other people who might attend, either alongside me or instead of me. I am very pleased to be here today. I am glad we have been able to schedule this" AT, "I have heard that, but what I want to know is whether they told you to turn up or not" ME, "It was discussed at board level" AT, "Did they tell you to turn up?" ME, "The board discussed the letter we sent to you about having the best possible evidence for the Committee" AT, "Did they tell you to turn up?" ME, "No" AT, "Did they tell you not to turn up?" ME, "No. We discussed the best way to proceed so I could come here at the earliest opportunity, which was always my intention, and I am very pleased to be here now" AT, "You need to realise that the only other witness, certainly in a Committee that I have chaired, who decided he didn’t want to attend, in the six years I have been chairing Select Committees, was the Prime Minister before the Liaison Committee—and he thought better of it reasonably quickly. We have had considerable difficulty getting you. Now that we have had this further exchange, can I just go back to what I said earlier? Do you now accept it was a mistake not to come?" ME, "On the first occasion I wasn’t able to attend, I don’t think it was a mistake, no. I wasn’t able to be here. I am very pleased that we" AT, "We have accepted that point" ME, "Okay" AT, "You have had two further opportunities. Do you accept that it was a mistake not to have accepted one of those opportunities and instead to have argued, as you did, that you should attend with somebody? In fact, you refused to attend with the other leave group, Leave EU, point blank, which required us to hold two sessions. We could have forced it, but we decided not to bother—just to get on with our business. Do you accept that all of this—the mucking around of Parliament that you have gone in for here—was a mistake?" ME, "I regret that it has dragged on longer than I would have hoped, and I am very pleased to be here today" AT, "I find it astonishing that you don’t just say, “Yes, it was a mistake. I understand. Let’s move on and discuss something else.” I’m not going to pursue it further, but I think people watching this session will note that the message still doesn’t seem fully to have got through about how close to the wind you have sailed"