Points of Order

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 16 June, I asked a written question to the Department of Health and Social Care, seeking an update on plans for a new dental school at the University of East Anglia. This is a hugely important issue for people in Norfolk and has been raised by MPs across the House. I have been left with a holding answer by the Department for three months, with no updates in sight, and today we break for another month of recess. This is not an acceptable way for the Government to handle scrutiny. I seek your guidance on what avenues are available to me to secure answers from the Government on this issue of deep concern to my constituents.

It is totally unacceptable to treat any Member of any party in this House that way. To be left with a holding answer for three months is not acceptable. I am sure those on the Treasury Bench are now busily answering that question; if not, please let me know, and I am sure we can do something more about it.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the House debated the incursion into Polish airspace by Russian drones, and there was clear cross-party unity on the need for the UK robustly to support our NATO allies. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Secretary of State for Defence chose to announce the deployment of Typhoons to Poland outside this House. There is nothing more important than the defence of the realm, and the decision to deploy service personnel is of the highest significance. Ministers have offered a written statement today, but this action after the fact does not live up to the severity and importance of the decision that the Government have made to deploy our planes and personnel. Can you advise on how we can ensure that future statements of this magnitude are brought properly before this House?

I will be quite honest: this House should be treated with respect. The fact is that I am not quite sure whether the Secretary of State could have come to the House before the Typhoons were needed—and I never want to put the House in that position. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have had no indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on this matter. Quite rightly, he has put his point on the record. I take defence matters seriously, and I am sure that he will have been heard.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to raise a point of order, of which I have sent given you notice. Have you had an indication from the Foreign Secretary that the Government will either come to this House today, or that they will make a statement concerning the UN independent international commission of inquiry report on the Occupied Palestinian Territories? That report has confirmed in horrifying detail the acts of genocide now being committed by Israeli forces against the Palestinian people—against children: destroying hospitals, destroying schools and destroying life itself. This is a serious matter. If we are to continue normal relations with Israel, I think the Foreign Office needs to explain why we are having those relations with a country that is committing acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement on this matter, but he has certainly put the point on the record. I know that many other Members are concerned. I will look to the Government to bring forward a statement on our immediate return to the House. If not, I am quite sure that others will, on our return, look to place before me a request for an urgent question.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The UN independent international commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories has concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Despite welcoming the Israeli President last week, the Government have failed to make a statement, as we have heard. As the House is about to go into recess, can you advise me and the House how we are to seek accountability on this important matter?

I cannot add any more to what I have already said. Once again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have listened to the right hon. Member. I know that we have three hours for the next debate, but, quite rightly, this message has gone across. I could not be clearer: I expect the Government to come forward with a statement. If not, I am sure I can work with Members who may wish to place an urgent question before the House.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 September, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), now Minister of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, issued a written statement on the contingent liabilities from the funded decommissioning programme and Government support package for Sizewell C, which is due to be undertaken on 1 October. It is a liability to Government and taxpayers that could reach up to the tune of £12 billion. That is a significant contingent liability for the public purse, and due parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. Although the Minister stated reasons for not providing the required 14 days for scrutiny and withholding of approval, which is normally required for any contingent liability above £300,000, surely Parliament should have been presented with the results of the ongoing review of the liabilities during whatever time was available, and parliamentary time should have been scheduled to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise—

Order. I think I got the message in the first five minutes.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. As she says, a contingent liability of this size would normally involve the laying of a memorandum for a period of 14 sitting days before the guarantee is approved. The written statement made by the Minister for Energy on 1 September, when the House returned from the summer recess, sets out the reasons why the usual process could not be followed in this case. I suggest that the hon. Member might want to raise this matter privately with the Public Accounts Committee and the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. I know that she is a doughty Member who will ensure that those concerns are raised in many other areas.

Bill Presented

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Secretary David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Pat McFadden, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Lisa Nandy, James Murray, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Alex Davies-Jones, Josh Simons, Anna Turley and Chris Ward, presented a Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness; to make provision for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority; to create an offence in relation to public authorities and public officials who mislead the public; to create further offences in relation to the misconduct of persons who hold public office and to abolish the common law offence of misconduct in public office; to make provision enabling persons to participate at inquiries and investigations where the conduct of public authorities may be in issue; and for connected purposes.