Points of Order

There are quite a few points of order. Of course, I must start, rightly, with the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to come first and last, because I have a second one on column 799 from yesterday about the Electoral Commission.

My first one is about Prorogation and a written statement that the Government said that they will make about the future of broadcasting. I checked three minutes ago and it has not been received in the Table Office. Can written statements still be made during Prorogation or is there some way to ensure that the Government get the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to put that statement into the hands of Members of Parliament before Prorogation? My subsidiary question is that the Member Hub website goes down at Prorogation, which is where most MPs would expect to find the statement, so how will we get it?

At present, the Department has issued a press notice to give its take on what is in the statement. In column 798 yesterday, I asked whether we could have an oral statement. The Government have not complied with that and they have not complied with their intention to publish a written statement. Mr Speaker, I would be grateful if you could guide the House and the Department on how we can now proceed.

I was surprised that nobody put in for an urgent question this morning on this issue following the news today, just as a way of having a holding platform. I am disappointed, but I want to think about my answer and would prefer to try to offer a way forward when the hon. Gentleman comes back with his final point of order at the end.

We will work our way through the points of order, starting on the Opposition Front Bench.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who has now miraculously appeared. Yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister responded to the High Court ruling that found the Government broke the law in discharging patients to care homes without testing them for covid first in 2020, saying that

“the thing we did not know in particular was that covid could be transmitted asymptomatically”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 762.]

I am afraid that I believe the Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because on 28 January 2020 advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—I have checked—on asymptomatic transmission included that

“early indications imply some is occurring.”

On 24 February The Lancet—again I have checked—published a paper which stated that

“infected individuals can be infectious before they become symptomatic”,

and on 13 March the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, told the “Today” programme that

“it’s quite likely that there is some degree of symptomatic transmission.”

Yet it was not until 15 April that the Government guidance was changed to require patients to be tested before being discharged to care homes. That appears to us to contradict what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I am sure that is inadvertent, but can you, Mr Speaker, advise me on how we can best ensure the Prime Minister returns to the House and corrects the record?

I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. As has often been said before, it is vital that statements made in the House are accurate; however, the Chair is not responsible for the contents of a Minister’s speech. What I would say is that I am sure nobody would want to leave an inaccuracy, and I would have thought they would wish to correct the record so that it is not left in abeyance. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s point of order and a correction will be forthcoming if one is needed; I would think it is better for the House to have accurate information, so let’s see what we can do.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the chair of the Government’s Social Mobility Commission said that

“physics isn’t something that girls tend to fancy. They don’t want to do it, they don’t like it…I just think they don’t like it. There’s a lot of hard maths…The research generally…just says that’s a natural thing”.

She said she was

“certainly not out there campaigning”

for more girls to do physics, adding:

“I don’t mind that there’s only 16%”.

That contradicts the lived experience of many girls and women who love maths, such as myself, and research from many organisations and institutions such as the Institute of Physics, the all-party group on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths, which I chair, and, most importantly, the Government’s own stated policy on encouraging girls in STEM. Can you, Mr Speaker, advise me: given that we are proroguing today I cannot lay any written questions, so how can I ascertain whether the Government have changed their policy on encouraging girls into STEM?

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. On the very last day of a Session she has very few options, as she notes, but I am sure her words will not go unnoticed and, once again, those on the Treasury Bench will be listening and I hope it can be taken on board, and I am sure some communication can be made to her.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are short of time in this Session, can we put it on the record that physics is something that girls tend to fancy, that they do want to do it, that they do like it, that they enjoy and excel at the maths in it and that the House supports their options?

That is obviously not a point of order, but it is certainly a point well made. My daughter, who is a physics teacher, would be proud.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before we prorogue, is there some way in which I can get Ministers to pass my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State for Transport for grasping the issue of saving High Wycombe driving test centre for, I think, the second time in a year? Further to that, may we confer to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency that driving instructors in Wycombe stand ready and are brimming with ideas and enthusiasm to help it in getting done what the Secretary of State would like: to find a permanent place for that test centre?

I think that the hon. Member has achieved his objective. What more can I say?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given Prorogation, can you advise me on how I might raise the urgent matter of the fifth successive Care Quality Commission warning notice for mental health services in my constituency and beyond in Norfolk and Suffolk? Those failings, driven by cuts and successive failures of leadership, have led to deaths, suffering and tragedy for more than a decade. How can I make it clear to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that enough is enough and that he must take direct control of this failing service, provide it with emergency funding and rebuild it from the bottom up with its patients and hard-working and dedicated staff?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. It is not a procedural matter requiring an immediate ruling from the Chair. The Table Office can advise hon. Members on how to raise matters that are of great concern to their constituents. The hon. Member made his point forcefully, and I am sure that people will have heard a clear message.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a relatively new Member of the House with just 20 years’ experience, may I ask you to give me some procedural advice? Is there any procedure by which I can inform the House that my constituent Luke Symons, who was incarcerated for five years in Sanaa in Yemen and whose case I have raised many times on the Floor of the House, was released this week and is back, safe and well with his wife and child in my constituency? Further, is there any mechanism by which I can put on the record my thanks to all Members of the House who over the years have expressed support for Luke and his family, as well as to his grandfather Bob Cummings, who campaigned tirelessly for his release?

Once again, the hon. Member has achieved his objective—it is certainly on the record—and the whole House supports the release of his constituent.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and hon. Members will know that, yesterday, the Government of the Russian Federation sanctioned a number of Members of this House—including yourself—but the list also included individuals who are no longer Members of the House. May I suggest that you write to your counterpart in the Russian state Duma to give them a list of current Members of Parliament? Some of us would very much like to have the badge of honour of being sanctioned by the Russian state.