Points of Order

19:50:00

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grave situation in the middle east is developing, with further reports from Qatar, and I will return from the Chamber to be briefed further, but my wider accountability to this House is important. On 12 June, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), tabled a written question about the Defence Command Paper 2023, pursuing the exchange that we had had on a point of order before the strategic defence review statement that I made to the House on 2 June. As we prepared to publish our SDR, it became clear that there were no established departmental procedures for sharing major defence publications with the Opposition Front Bench ahead of publication. I asked defence officials before 2 June and have done so since the shadow Defence Secretary’s question, but they have still been unable to find any departmental record of a copy of DCP ’23 being shared with me as shadow Defence Secretary. However, having now checked my Opposition staff records from July 2023, I can confirm that an embargoed copy of DCP ’23 was dropped off at my office, along with the conventional “check against delivery” advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement. We took a similar approach with the SDR: the shadow Defence Secretary received a hand-delivered, embargoed copy of the SDR with my draft statement around 90 minutes before the statement began. However, unlike 2023, we also offered the shadow Defence Secretary an advance ministerial briefing on the SDR, which he declined. I welcome the chance today to correct the record from my point of order on 2 June. The House will also wish to know that I have now established a formal procedure for sharing defence strategies in advance of publication with the Opposition, the Select Committee and other key parliamentarians—something that I have also discussed with Mr Speaker. [Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]

I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for advance notice that he would be giving a point of order, although not of the exact detail. This is extremely important, because while there is no set process, there is a ministerial code, which clearly states that commercially sensitive information should not be given out to the media prior to being given to Parliament. To reiterate, on that day, yes, we were given a hard copy of the SDR 90 minutes before the statement, but I was already in the Chamber for the urgent questions arising from that situation—officials would have known that we were in the Chamber—and was unable to read it. However, at 8 o’clock that morning, senior people from the biggest defence companies in the land received a hard copy of the SDR. The key thing is that, on the point of order on 2 June, I said to the Secretary of State that the situation was unacceptable, and he justified the procedure on the fact that, at the time when I was a Minister—I quote him— “We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.] His justification was something that is not the case, and I said that in my immediate response to him. I am glad that, three weeks later, he has corrected the record. We have war in Ukraine and all the instability in the middle east; there should be consensus on matters of national security, and we should not play games on the most important strategic defence review for many years. I hope that we can now draw a line under this, but to enable that, I hope that the Secretary of State will say to his special advisers and officials that they must be as transparent as possible in all pursuant written questions on this matter to which we still await answers and in responses to freedom of information requests.

The shadow Secretary of State has placed his view on the record. He will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair any further, but I hope that whatever lessons need to be learned will have been learned, and I am sure that, on both sides of the House, that is correct.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary: “In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?” Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq. The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?

First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to imply that the Foreign Secretary was deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption.] That said—

Look, he just—

Order. [Interruption.] Order! That said, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has given the Foreign Secretary notice of his intended point of order, but I think that that is a matter that he will have to raise with the Foreign Secretary himself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair cannot answer for Ministers, but he has made his point.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, many colleagues in this House spoke of compassion, sympathy and understanding. Unfortunately, the same compassion, sympathy and understanding were not extended to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). His father-in-law, my constituent Mr Adrian Lawther, was nearing the end of a very full life, and he rightly wanted to be with his wife and her family at that time. He sought a pair for Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill from the promoter of the Bill and the Government Chief Whip, as well as seeking advice and support from the Speaker’s Office. Mr Deputy Speaker, I was with the hon. Member at the departure gate waiting to return to Northern Ireland when his wife called to tell him of her father’s passing. It now appears that other Members were able to avail themselves of proxies in the hands of Government Whips. The hon. Member should not have been forced to travel to this place to have his vote recorded. I seek your advice, Sir, on the best approach to seek a remedy to ensure that we in this place can support each other to the best of our ability and at times of great personal need.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. May I first express my sympathy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his family? I take it that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) notified the hon. Member that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber today.

Thank you. As the hon. Member will know, pairing is not a matter for the Chair; it is an arrangement between hon. Members individually and their Whips—and of course I could not possibly comment any further on that. However, the circumstances under which a Member is eligible for a proxy vote do not at present include family bereavement. If it wished to do so, the House could change that, but I am not able to do so on my own account. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee has been conducting a review of these arrangements, which might include matters such as pairing.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Speaking at the Labour party conference in Liverpool in 2022, the Prime Minister said: “one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough law on the statute book”. The Prime Minister said “the Hillsborough law”, not “a Hillsborough law”. This was an actual Bill that had its First Reading in March 2017, tabled by Andy Burnham and written by expert lawyers. As the parliamentary lead for the “Hillsborough Law Now” campaign and a Hillsborough survivor, I want to put on record the campaign’s grave concern about the status of the Hillsborough law. The Prime Minister missed his 15 April deadline after a replacement Bill was shown to lawyers involved in the campaign, who made it clear that it contained none of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and did not deserve the name, and it was rejected out of hand. It is rumoured that the Government could be about to table another replacement Bill, still without any of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and without allowing Hillsborough lawyers, families or survivors to see it. Government officials have even suggested that parliamentary procedure means that they are not permitted to first share it, despite the fact that that is what they did with the previous draft in March. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your guidance on whether the draft can be first shared, as it was before, to give us a chance to raise any concerns before there is another betrayal of Hillsborough families and survivors, and all victims of state cover-ups.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It will not surprise him to know that I did not attend the Labour party conference in 2022. The King’s Speech announced that the Government would deliver their manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law by introducing legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, up to the Government to decide how they go about preparing legislation, and that includes whom they consult and when. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will play a major part in the scrutiny of the legislation when it is presented to Parliament.