Points of Order

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I believe constitutes a breach of the ministerial duty to respond to Members’ correspondence in a timely manner. On 28 November last year, I wrote to the now former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to raise concerns about the absence of legislation requiring service providers to give residents notice before installing large cables on their properties. I have since followed up with the Department on 22 January, 20 March, 28 April, 13 June and 24 July. I have now been waiting for nine months without receiving a substantive reply. I understand that the new Secretary of State is new in her job and I congratulate her for that, but this considerably hinders my ability to represent my constituents and I seek your guidance on how we can get a response.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point of order and for giving advance notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair. However, all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government—I see Members on the Treasury Bench nodding in agreement and am sure that they will ensure that the appropriate Minister is made aware and responds to the hon. Member’s request as soon as possible.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House yesterday, during the debate on the Chagos islands Bill. In column 816 of Hansard, I discussed the role of Olivier Bancoult in the relationship with David Snoxell, a previous high commissioner to Mauritius. I said:

“The latter’s pressure on David Snoxell was enormous; he once went to the extent of locking him in his office until they had a proper meeting.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 816.]

I have now checked that with Mr Snoxell and I made a mistake. The background facts are that in early November 2000, David Snoxell asked Olivier Bancoult and his committee to come and see him so that he could discuss with them the High Court judgment allowing them to return to the outer islands. That was a perfectly friendly meeting. Mr Snoxell goes on to say:

“I had several meetings over the next 4 years with him and his committee members. Although Olivier regarded me as not on his side and occasionally denounced me in the press, he never locked me in my office.”

I wanted to correct the record so that all can be satisfied that the truth has been told.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I also thank him for correcting the record in so much detail at the earliest opportunity.