On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given notice to the Speaker’s Office and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) of this point of order. I refer to column 95 of Hansard on Monday 12 May. In an intervention on the Minister in the debate on border security and immigration, the Member claimed that
“more than 600 illegal migrants have entered this country today. They could get up to all sorts of mischief, and commit crimes and maybe even acts of terrorism. Does she agree that these young men crossing the channel should be immediately detained and deported, along with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?”—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 95.]
Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this kind of language, innuendo and inaccuracy is unbecoming of this place and not fit to be uttered in this building, and that Members when they speak in Parliament should show respect for each other, rather than risk bringing our whole political process into disrepute? I have no problem with debate, but people should not stoop to abuse, fundamental inaccuracies and conjecture, as the hon. Member did, and I have informed him so already.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. The right hon. Member has put his point on the record. While I am not persuaded that anything unparliamentary occurred in the debate, I remind all Members that “good temper and moderation”, in the words of “Erskine May”, should be
“the characteristics of parliamentary debate.”
I encourage all Members to act towards each other with courtesy.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given prior notice of my point of order to the Speaker’s Office. I seek your guidance on a matter concerning procedure relating to the ability of Members to hold the Government to account. Yesterday, I attempted to table a question relating to the use of RAF Akrotiri by Israeli bomber planes but was blocked. I received the following response: “The Government has blocked questions on the use of military bases”. The reasoning for that block was given as an answer from the Minister to a similar question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 4 October, with the Minister responding on 14 October. Since then, six questions have been tabled relating to the activities of RAF Akrotiri, all without obstruction, and they all received timely answers from the Minister. Under this new ruling, all would have been ruled out of order and automatically blocked, yet they were allowed to be tabled.
Given the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in matters of defence, this raises serious concerns. Operational decisions must not be taken on an ad hoc basis to impede the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise the decisions of Government. Will you advise on whether it is in order for the Table Office to decide to block legitimate questions in this way and on what recourse Members have when attempts to scrutinise and debate Government policy and activity are being blocked?
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She should raise the matter with the Table Office in the first instance. I can, however, advise her that the Minister for the Armed Forces, in response to a written parliamentary question on 14 October, indicated that the Government would not
“comment on any foreign nations’ military aircraft movement…within UK airspace or on UK overseas bases.”
It is not the Table Office but the Government that have blocked questions on this specific subject. Other questions about activities at RAF Akrotiri may none the less be in order. I advise her to talk to the Table Office, who are always happy to help.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave prior notice, both to the Speaker’s Office and to the Member concerned, that I intended to raise this point of order. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) appeared on Channel 4 in his role as deputy leader of Reform UK. Filming in my constituency, he called into question the future of our local power station and therefore the hundreds of jobs that it supports locally, which I know will cause real anxiety for constituents in Selby. He did not inform me that he was coming to Selby or that he intended to use our industry, our jobs and our local communities as a political football for Reform UK’s national agenda. On behalf of workers in my constituency, how might I prevent this from happening again, and how might I relay the message that if he wishes to push his anti-worker, anti-jobs and, quite frankly, anti-Yorkshire agenda, he can do so from his constituency across the border in Lincolnshire?
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order—I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that he intended to raise it. As he and other Members are aware, paragraph 44 of the guide to conventions and courtesies states that
“Members must inform colleagues in advance whenever…a Member intends to visit another colleague’s constituency (except for purely private purposes). All reasonable efforts should be taken to notify the other Member and failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point of order made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the comments made against him were absolutely disgusting and disrespectful. The words we use in this place can have direct consequences on the outside and impact on the security of Members. What steps can be taken to hold Members to account for the language that they use in this place, so that debate is respectful at all times?
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Member has placed his comments and feelings on the record.
BILLS PRESENTED
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Heidi Alexander, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ed Miliband, Hilary Benn, Ian Murray, Jo Stevens, Steve Reed and Mike Kane, presented a Bill to make provision about sustainable aviation fuel.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed with explanatory notes (Bill 240-EN).
Victims of Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (Free Access to Sentencing Remarks) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Olney, supported by Josh Babarinde, presented a Bill to require the provision, free of charge, to victims of rape and serious sexual offences of transcripts of sentencing remarks delivered following conviction for those offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 241).
Energy and Employment Rights Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Carla Denyer presented a Bill to set a timeline for the phasing out of UK oil and gas production and the decommissioning of related infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for ensuring that oil and gas workers have access to appropriate redeployment or retraining opportunities, and to involve unions and communities in the production of this plan, which should include plans for funding; to make provision for the establishment of a training fund for workers in the oil and gas industry, to which oil and gas companies would contribute by paying a levy; to make provision for a proportion of workers’ wages to be guaranteed by the state for a defined period after they leave the oil and gas industry; to introduce sectoral collective bargaining in the energy industry; to extend legislation relating to pay and conditions for UK onshore workers to cover all offshore workers in the UK Continental Shelf and UK Exclusive Economic Area; to require GB Energy’s investments to support UK jobs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 244).