Points of Order

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

First, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution over this Session. It has been greater than everybody else’s. As ever, he is quite right to raise this important point today. I take on board what he has said, and I thank him for it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Peter, shall we deal with your earlier point of order first? It is very interesting. Yes, we can have a written statement up to Prorogation—that is still possible. There is another possibility, but I think it would be totally unfair to the Whip if I were to grant an urgent question now on the basis of what you have asked. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it to you that the House should have an urgent opportunity to debate the missing written statement or oral statement on the future of broadcasting, which was referred to yesterday by a Minister, when the House was assured there would be a statement? The question was raised whether it could be oral or written. We have had neither. May I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that this matter should be put before the House as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to the Government Front Bench to see if we can find the written statement so it can be available for Members. I have a lot of sympathy for such a point, especially when it is from the Father of the House. It matters when any Back Bencher raises such a matter, but the Father of the House makes a very serious point: promises were made and they have not been carried out. It would be unfair to grant an emergency urgency question—I would not want to do that—but I believe there is still time for people to come forward with an oral statement. It would certainly be very helpful if the written statement could be found, wherever it is lost and whatever we have to do to find it. Someone ought to be scurrying around to try to find it. The Government have until 12.20 pm. So, who knows, it may be at the Dispatch Box, or it may be that we find the missing statement that could be circulating somewhere.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If it is convenient to the House, I withdraw my previous motion to you.

The point I want to raise now involves your role, Mr Speaker, in connection with the Electoral Commission, and it follows the point of order I raised yesterday in column 799 of the Official Report. We know that matters of election spending, and reporting that spending, can be complicated, as illustrated in the Thanet case when the Court of Appeal unanimously said it was not legal to report an expense both nationally and locally. The Supreme Court shortly afterwards decided unanimously that the Court of Appeal was wrong. If distinguished Court of Appeal judges can be wrong, so can others.

The reason I raise this point is that the Labour party has done two things, one to which I do not object, which is filling the pages of the Worthing Herald to encourage people to vote Labour. That is my local newspaper, and we are very grateful for that. I am not sure how much good it will do the Labour party to show that it has more money than sense.

The point that does matter is the issue I raised yesterday, whereby a letter from the leader of the Labour party to a named elector at a specified address asked them to vote Labour on 5 May. I have had informal discussions with the Electoral Commission. I do not want to go into the details of those discussions, because they were informal. One view is that this is national spending. In court, I think that would be challenged because there are no national elections on 5 May, only local elections.

The second view is that the only candidate for whom an elector could vote in that ward would be the Labour candidate. The question then arises of how that expense will be accounted for in the return. It might be a national return, except that there are not national returns for local elections, or the local agent for the candidate could include it, even as a nominal sum, in their own return. Were that to be challenged, if the return was thought to be inaccurate or incomplete, a complaint would then need to be made to the police. A complaint is not made to the Electoral Commission; it is made to the police.

The House will now rise until after the local elections. The police would not be involved in a formal complaint until after the electoral expenses return had been made, 30 or 35 days after election day. How would the police be put on notice to check nationally—which is where the spending is supposed to be—and locally, where I believe it should be recorded, at least as a nominal expense, so that they could preserve the evidence if there was a challenge at the end of the process? I know that this would need to be determined by a court, but the issue of where the evidence would come from and the necessity of the police to be alert has to be dealt with now.

[Mr Speaker]

We had questions to the Electoral Commission representative earlier, so it might have been possible to mention that then, but the Father of the House raises a very important issue. Mail is sent to named individuals by different leaders and all parties, so this is about not just one, but many parties. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I take seriously the consequences, implications and possible rulings that would come on the back of this.

The Father of the House said that he contacted the Electoral Commission. I am sure that it will come forward with its view and opinion, and quite rightly, this could end up being a judicial matter. I will also put this on the record during my meeting with the Electoral Commission, but I stress that leaders of all parties send out direct correspondence by name. I can guarantee that the signatures will not be handwritten, because they are a national way of corresponding.

We will leave it at that for today. I know that the Father of the House would not want me to be drawn on something that is not actually a matter for the Chair, but I take seriously the implications that could follow, depending on what the decision would be.

We still have chance for a statement—who knows? However, I suspend the sitting, and shortly before the sitting is resumed, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded to indicate that the House is back.