Points of Order

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has visited my constituency to make a political video for social media. He has undertaken videoed interviews with apparently no reference to the services available to tackle the issues that he is seeking to highlight. I cannot accept his attempt to use the communities in Westminster and the City as a political football. Since before I was elected, I have campaigned for more local police officers and specialist outreach workers to tackle the very specific issues that we are facing locally. Following my campaigning, the Government have invested an additional £12 million into Westminster and—

Order. I think we have got the message. You are absolutely right to raise the point of order, but you do not need to go into the full detail. The point of order is about somebody coming into another person’s constituency and the answer is clear: whichever party a Member might represent, if visiting another constituency, they have to give notice to the Member of Parliament who represents that constituency. We have had it happen before and we do not need it. We are a quite a long way off a general election. I am disappointed. Every Member should always be informed of somebody coming into their constituency. Please respect each other.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this, but I have to. On behalf of several Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice last Wednesday in relation to the hunger strike taking place in our prisons by Palestine Action prisoners, some of whom have now been hospitalised. We wrote simply asking for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but we have not received any response. I informed his office yesterday that I would be raising a point of order. We gave it another day, but we still have not had a response to that letter. This is a matter of urgency, and I expect at least the courtesy of some response, even if the Secretary of State is not willing to meet us.

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. I always expect Ministers to take seriously correspondence from Members, whichever side of the House they are on. This is totally unacceptable. I cannot make a meeting happen, but I do expect people’s correspondence to be dealt with quickly and effectively. I hope those on the Treasury Bench will be listening very carefully and will make contact with the right hon. Member. As I said, this is not acceptable; I am getting more and more people complaining about ministerial correspondence—we have even heard of one case that took 12 months. It is not good enough. The ministerial teams need to get their act together and make sure that Members of Parliament, quite rightly, get a reply timely.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for what you just said in response to the point of order from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Is there any way you can ensure that a Minister comes to this House to give a statement about the hunger strikers in the prison? I visited one of them yesterday, and I am deeply concerned about what is going on in our prisons: people are being held for an inordinate length of time on remand, and their access to justice is being delayed.

I cannot guarantee that. I am not responsible for what goes on within this Chamber; I am here to keep good order. With another senior Member quite rightly raising a point of order on this issue, I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the message again. Who knows? It might be that there are different ways to ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the Chamber. Both of you know how to do that, so I will leave it with you. Given the experience between you—I would hate to add up how many years—I think you know the answer to the question.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have looked through the agenda up until Christmas, and it appears that there is no opportunity for Members to question either the police settlement or the local government settlement. Normally there is a debate held about both of these matters, or at least a statement given on the Floor of the House, so that Members are able to ask questions on the settlements. I understand it seems to be the Government’s intention to put out a written ministerial statement on the last day of Parliament and not to give us an opportunity to challenge. Local authorities are at the moment finalising their budgets for next year, so they need to know how much funding they are going to get from the Government. Could you use your good offices to encourage the Government to come forward with at least a statement?

Quite rightly, the point has been raised, and once again I expect those on the Treasury Bench to have taken it on board. As I said previously, there are other mechanisms that the hon. Member may wish to consider. I could see the shock and horror of the Opposition Chief Whip when the hon. Member made his point of order—I was absolutely overwhelmed by the shock! Allowing that to rest, I do take this matter seriously, and the House should hear that. A WMS is not the answer on matters so serious, and those on the Treasury Bench should have heard that point. We should not shy away from this House; in fact, we should always come to the House first—I cannot say it more than I do. Once again, I suggest that at some point the ministerial code needs to be changed if people are not going to take it seriously. We will leave it at that.

Bill Presented

Reindeer (Licensing for Exhibition) Bill

Sarah Dyke presented a Bill to provide that, for the purposes of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, domesticated reindeer are not wild animals; to make further provision about licensing in respect of the keeping or training of reindeer for exhibition; and for connected purposes.