Points of Order

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On two separate occasions in July and September, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), made some very dubious claims from the Dispatch Box about water quality in Scotland, which were repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, on social media and in broadcast interviews. I wrote to the Office for National Statistics to seek clarification. It has confirmed that the statements lack verifiable transparency and that the broad evidence does not support them, saying that:

“without appropriate discussion of the limitations of some of the more specific figures quoted”,

they run the risk of “misleading the public”.

I believe this to be a clear breach of public trust by a Minister and a Government who have staked their reputation on restoring trust in politics. I therefore ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the former DEFRA Secretary repeatedly to make clearly misleading statements in this place that are not supported by the facts, as demonstrated by the ONS, and whether you will call the right hon. Member to this House to apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for what Ministers say or the way in which they use data, but the hon. Member’s point of order is on the record. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard his concerns, and, if a correction is necessary, I am sure one will be forthcoming. I gently remind the hon. Member that I am sure he meant to say “inadvertently” misleading.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is very clear that

“Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given”

under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If

“information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to”

a written parliamentary question. This position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year when she stated that if information would be released under freedom of information legislation, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question.

This guidance appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations on the Government’s plans to hike up parking fines. On 10 July, in answer to parliamentary question 64511, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), refused to publish the material. On 19 August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material, on 16 October, in answer to parliamentary question 77651, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), once again refused to do so.

We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt and information is being provided to members of the public under FOI but withheld from Members of this House. This is a direct breach of the Government’s own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the Departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and that information that would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? Should the two Ministers not now correct this affront and place the information in the Library of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I respond to the right hon. Member’s point of order, I say for the benefit of all Members that points of order should be concise. There is an increasing tendency to use them to make points that should be properly made in debates. I remind all Members that points of order should be limited to matters relating to the business before the House or the rules and conventions of the House.

On the point raised by the right hon. Member, he will know that it is Ministers, rather than the Chair, who are responsible for the responses that they give to parliamentary questions. However, he raises a serious point that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard. Members of this House play an important role in scrutinising the Government, and written parliamentary questions have an important role to play. I know that the Procedure Committee takes an interest in these matters, so the right hon. Member may also wish to raise the issue with that Committee.