A very German question?

An elegant example at PMQs this week of what's known in the trade as "The German Question." This is not some intractable geopolitical issue, but a smart parliamentary technique.

The German bit relates to grammar; in German, the verb mostly comes at the end of a sentence - in a German Parliamentary Question, the sting comes at the very end, minimising the chance for a minister to come up with an answer.

Hence:

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): "In 2011, the Prime Minister quite rightly confirmed to the House that the Wilson doctrine, the prohibition on the electronic monitoring of Members of Parliament, was still in force. Unfortunately, on 24 July this year, the Government's own lawyer, Mr James Eadie, QC, stated in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in answer to a complaint from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), that the Wilson doctrine is not legally binding, cannot work properly and accordingly places no obligations on the intelligence agencies. This is clearly inconsistent with the Prime Minister's previous statement. Can he clarify the status of the doctrine for the House today and confirm that it has real meaning?"

rebuff

The Prime Minister's response was pretty brusque, and contrasted sharply with his genial treatment of Harriet Harman, in her final PMQs as acting Leader of the Opposition:

"I have got nothing to add to comments I have made about this issue before, but I am very happy to write to my right hon. Friend and set out the position." A pretty dismissive rebuff.

Anyone care to bet that, when that letter is received, a Point of Order, or a request for a debate will follow?

With an action by Green parliamentarians Caroline Lucas and Jenny Jones under way at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, there's speculation around Westminster that the Wilson Doctrine is , to put it gently, no longer operative.

This could get rather interesting.