Points of Order

Debate between Sharon Hodgson and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that the use of vellum—the calfskin material on which Acts of Parliament are printed—is to be discontinued, with Parliament giving 30 days’ notice to cease to the printers. However, in response to a point of order made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on 26 October last year, you made it clear that a decision on this matter would have to be taken on the Floor of the House.

May I therefore seek your guidance on what should be done now in order that Members from across the House can register their opposition to the decision and make the case for the continued use of vellum, especially in the light of significant disputes over the so-called savings that have been cited by the Administration Committee and influenced its recommendation to end the centuries-old practice of using vellum to print this country’s legislation? Surely we think that the legislation that we make in this place—the mother of all Parliaments—is worthy of nothing less.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me notice of it. She is, indeed, correct that when the matter was raised in October last year by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), I indicated that, as had been the case in 1999, the House would be asked to decide whether to agree to the recommendation of the Administration Committee that it should agree to the proposal of the House of Lords—indeed, the decision of the House of Lords—to replace vellum with archival paper. That was my understanding at that time, not least for the historical reason that I have just given. No such opportunity has, however, been offered to the House. That is why she is complaining. The provision of such an opportunity is not in my gift.

I should also say that the arrangements for printing Acts of Parliament and the associated expenditure are matters for the House of Lords, and not for this House, so its arrangements with the printers of Acts are not matters for the Chair.

As for seeking an opportunity to demonstrate the depth and breadth of support for the continued use of vellum, I am sure that the hon. Lady will have thought of tabling an early-day motion. I shall leave the matter there for now.

Points of Order

Debate between Sharon Hodgson and John Bercow

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say the following in response to these points of order. First, I understand that there are strong feelings on this matter, and sometimes feelings that are contrary to each other, and they have been articulated on the Floor of the House this afternoon. About that, I make no complaint whatsoever. In response to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who, with his usual courtesy, kindly notified me in advance of his intention to raise the point of order, what I would say is this: it is not for the Chair to seek to advise Members on those with whom they should or should not communicate. That is a matter upon which they can and will make their own individual judgment. The DPP will decide what course of action, if any, to follow in response to representations, written or otherwise, from a Member of Parliament. I do not doubt the good intentions of the hon. Gentleman, a distinguished lawyer who of course chairs an important Select Committee in this House, but I feel that it is not for the Chair to be drawn into these matters. I hope that, upon reflection, people will feel that there is a certain logic to what I am saying. Colleagues, make your own judgments about these matters.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I said in business questions, the Government recently announced a call for evidence on their review of the secondary ticketing market, with a very tight deadline. I pressed the Government on how they are publicising this call and received a written answer from the Minister for Skills assuring me that all main stakeholders had been alerted. However, I know from the conversations I have had with major stakeholders that in all too many cases I was the one who had brought this to their attention. May I therefore ask your advice on what steps a Member can take to investigate the substance—dare I say truth—of an answer to a written parliamentary question? What steps can be taken to urge Ministers to check the content of their written answers, as all too often, especially recently, it appears that answers are either questionable or far too brief to be of practical use to anyone?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. It is a well-established principle in this House that ministerial answers to questions should be both timely and substantive. In reference to the latter point, colleagues will appreciate that what I am stressing is that a reply that simply says, “I hope to respond shortly” is not regarded by most Members as in any way helpful and that to comply with the spirit of the obligation upon Ministers to reply to answers it is important that those answers should be substantive.

As the hon. Lady will fully appreciate, the Chair has no responsibility for the content of answers. Every Member is responsible for the veracity or otherwise of what she or he says in this House. Ministers are certainly responsible for the content of their answers. My advice to the hon. Lady is that if she is dissatisfied with the answers, because she thinks either that they are uninformative or incorrect, she should table further probing and specific questions, based on those answers she has received, seeking to track down the precise particulars that she wants to establish. If that is unsuccessful, there is always the recourse of oral questions to the relevant Secretary of State and the opportunity to apply for Adjournment debates. I have not noticed, over the past 10 years, the hon. Lady displaying a noticeable reluctance to explore those avenues.