PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Points of Order - 21 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, in what I believe is truly a genuine point of order, as to how Parliament and the public should understand the terminology in “Erskine May” about inadvertently misleading the House. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) pointed out:

“The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process…that have now turned out not to be true.”

He asked:

“Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?”

The Prime Minister replied:

“No, I did not mislead the House of Commons.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 51.]

He then argued that other information that had been withheld from him had led to this situation.

My understanding is that giving the House wrong information, but in good faith, is precisely what is meant by inadvertently misleading the House. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that, and nor does the Foreign Secretary, to whom I asked a similar question this morning. Is it me who is misunderstanding the meaning of the term “to inadvertently mislead the House”?

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order, and for providing notice of it. Although Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks at the Dispatch Box, I am very clear as Chair that this is of the utmost importance and that Ministers must take their responsibilities to this House seriously. If the right hon. Member requires further advice on what may or may not constitute this House being inadvertently misled, I suggest that he follow up on the specific concerns with the Clerk of the Journals in the first instance.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has left the Chamber. She did give a response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), but we have some concerns about what she has said, as I expressed to you when I came to the Chair about 15 or 20 minutes ago. The Chancellor referred to the £150 reduction, but we do not think it applies to Northern Ireland—that is our assumption. I cast my mind back to when the Prime Minister was here last Monday, when he referred to the help with home heating oil that has been given to Northern Ireland and said he would consider providing more. We had hoped that today’s announcement would ensure that those in Northern Ireland get extra help, but clearly that is not the case. I am not here to catch the Chancellor out, because it is not about that; it is about getting accuracy and honesty in the responses. What can Opposition Members do to ensure that the Chancellor can correct the record?

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and for giving me some notice of it. He will have heard my earlier response. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers, but Ministers should take their responsibilities seriously to make sure that answers are correct. I note that representatives of the Treasury Bench are still sat there. I am sure the message will be passed back to the Chancellor, but he will have heard her response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I do not intend to continue this debate via the Chair.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe it is important to set the record straight. In response to my question, the Chancellor suggested that households in Northern Ireland got £150 off their energy bills in April. That is factually wrong and somewhat misleading, and I believe it is important that the record is set straight, because households in Northern Ireland will not see £150 off their bills like those in GB. The money received as a result of the Barnett consequentials is still sitting in the Sinn Féin Economy Minister’s departmental purse, and there has been a refusal to engage with the Treasury to get the money spent. Not only do we need the record to be set straight, but we need a plan to get the money to our constituents, who are hard pressed. Will you advise me on how I can progress this matter?

The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier responses. She has most certainly put the matter firmly on the record. As I have said, the Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her and other points of order loud and clear this afternoon.