Points of Order

12:48:00

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During proceedings of the House on 2 June 2025, it became clear that some media organisations had been given access to the strategic defence review document before Parliament. We also became aware that the timing of such early access may have been different for different organisations. I asked a parliamentary question on the matter of who and when, and although the Government did not answer the question, they made clear that trade associations and think-tanks had also been given early access. I asked again, and they refused to answer but made clear that trade unions and “our people” had been given early access. Mr Speaker, Ministers are required to answer questions using the Nolan principles, which include accountability and openness. The principles state: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.” The Government have not followed these processes in answering the question, and that is particularly relevant to the Minister for the Armed Forces, because in his declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, he declares membership of the GMB and Unite, and that a family member is working as a constituent for Babcock International, and that—

Order. The hon. Lady has raised a point of order with me, but she cannot go into a full speech. I have got the message and I am very clear on the message. I have no responsibility for the quality of answers to written parliamentary questions, but I know—this is key—that the Procedure Committee takes a close interest in the matter. She might therefore like to raise it with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who Chairs the Committee.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Let me finish with this one, please. Raising the matter with the Procedure Committee would be a good way to take this forward.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We now know undoubtedly that The Sunday Times was given access to the White Paper, because people could read most of it in The Sunday Times the day before Parliament saw it, although crucially the article did not mention up to 12 new SSNs—nuclear-powered attack submarines. I will explain in a quick second why that is important, Mr Speaker. At 10.30 on the Monday morning, journalists were invited to a reading room in Horse Guards Parade, where they were given access to the White Paper. Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states: “where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.” Thus, that was clearly a breach of the code. However, there was an earlier sitting in the reading room, at 8 am, when we know the White Paper was also seen by members of defence companies, trade associations, academics, think-tanks and trade unionists, at the same time that the markets were opening. Mr Speaker, there is a possibility of insider trading. The share price of Babcock, which would benefit from maintaining SSNs, leapt very early on after 8 am—

Order.

But, Mr Speaker—

No, no, no. Please do not take advantage of the Chair. Points of order are meant to be a little bit more punchy—they are not full-blown statements. I take very seriously the points that have been made, and that is why I raised them myself at the time. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for reiterating my words. I have no responsibility for the ministerial code. If the House so wishes, that needs to change, because unfortunately it makes a nonsense. There is a ministerial code, but it is not being kept to as we would expect. It is for this House to change the ministerial code if it wishes to do so, or I would be more than happy for the Government to change it if they cannot accept it, because we cannot have this continual breaking of the ministerial code. It is appalling and it is unacceptable. This is not a political point. In the end, I am here to uphold the rights of Back Benchers. Back Benchers should hear things first—if documents are to be given out, they should be given to MPs. I am here to support MPs, but unfortunately in this particular area I do not have the power to do so. I wish I had, because things would be different.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. Over the past few days, we have recognised Jo Cox’s murder. Given the additional focus and the encouragement of the targeting of MPs using false information, can you advise us, as the person responsible for the safety of Members of Parliament, how we, as Members, should be behaving, both in the Chamber and online?

We will never discuss Members’ security on the Floor of the House. If there are issues, Members should please come to see me privately. Let me see what I can do to reassure Members, but I certainly do not want to open a debate, because I do not think that that would add to Members’ safety. Please come and see me privately. Bill presented Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Peter Dowd, supported by Patrick Hurley, Kim Johnson, David Baines, Ian Byrne, Derek Twigg and Paula Barker presented a Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24 hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 264).