Points of Order

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, he is certainly a modest fellow, although not with much to be modest about. We will not discuss that any further, but what I would say is that disputes about the impact of the Government’s most recent offer on pension levels are an appropriate matter for debate, and arguments over calculations and hypothetical examples are not tantamount to any deliberate misleading of the House. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—not an old—hand who has put his concerns forcefully on the record.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received an approach from the Health Secretary to say that he may have misled the House yesterday in Health questions when answering a question from me about the risk register for his NHS reorganisation? He told the House:

“I have been very clear and published all…risk information relating to the modernisation of the NHS”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 149.]

He has made the same argument to the Information Commissioner who, in a legal decision, said that

“he does not accept the argument and considers that disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published.”

Will you advise the House, Mr Speaker, on how we can correct the record and get to the truth about the risks that the Government’s policies on NHS reorganisation pose to our NHS?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but there is not much that I can offer by way of encouragement or comfort. He is an experienced Member of Parliament, and he has put his interpretation of those matters on the record. I said a moment ago that the contents of answers are a matter for Ministers, but answers to parliamentary questions are not themselves covered by the statutory provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. If he thinks either that the Minister has erred or that I have erred in my exegesis of his point of order—or, indeed, both—no doubt he will return to these matters and will require no encouragement from me to do so.