PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Points of Order - 29 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The whole House will be very concerned to hear about the dreadful stabbings this morning in the borough of Barnet. As the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet, I am very worried about this repeated violence against the Jewish community. I want to reach out to the whole House to say that we condemn these alleged attacks and wish the police, the council and all the community services the very best in solving this and bringing to justice the perpetrators of these violent crimes.

Prime Minister, do you want to respond?

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I learned about before Prime Minister’s questions. It is deeply concerning to everyone in this House. There is now a police investigation, and we all need to do everything we can to support that investigation and be absolutely clear in our determination to deal with any of these offences, the like of which we have seen too much recently.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am the secretary to the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and I raised earlier this week a point of order concerning the role of the US agency APCO in undertaking the investigation of journalists for Labour Together, which resulted in the smearing of those journalists. I explained that as a result of concern about the reach of APCO’s investigation, a number of hon. Members have submitted subject interest requests to the company and to Labour Together. There has been a delay in the response from Labour Together to those requests, but APCO has confirmed, in a very redacted form, that information on MPs was being collected.

I referred this week to information from a whistleblower —a freelancer involved in the Labour Together inquiry—indicating that APCO had instructed this person to destroy files and material related to the inquiry. Only hours ago, we had it confirmed online by the Financial Times that tapes exist that include conversations by APCO’s head of media relations for Europe, Tom Harper, discussing the deletion of an email account and saying

“they will be able to see that through digital forensics or something like that”

with regard to references and this inquiry. He also refers to processes to “muddy the waters” and the audit trail.

I can also report—[Interruption.] I am sorry for the delay. I can also report that evidence was submitted to the inquiry being run by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser, by Paul Holden, one of the journalists and victims of the smears, but evidence was not supplied by the Cabinet Office to the secretariat to the Sir Laurie Magnus inquiry.

On behalf of the NUJ parliamentary group, I express our concern—[Interruption.] This is important. The NUJ parliamentary group is concerned about the smearing of journalists. We need to know what surveillance, if any, was taking place of hon. Members and for what purposes. We call again for an independent inquiry into the role of APCO and Labour Together in this issue.

This is a very serious allegation, and I take it seriously. Members of Parliament are here to carry out their duties. What is being alleged is very serious, and I believe that it needs to be investigated thoroughly. The right hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time, so he will no doubt use the Table Office as part of the avenues to pursue what he has said—there may be other ways. There may be serious security implications for this House, which I will take up via other avenues.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) visited my constituency yesterday without notifying me. This is not the first time that the usual courtesies of this House have been disregarded by Reform UK when visiting Portsmouth. Further to that, is it in order for a former Immigration Minister who helped to shape the current asylum system to visit constituencies and push campaigns that mislead and cause hatred and division? Given the blatant disregard for this convention and courtesy to the House and the absolute lack of integrity and respect, can you advise what recourse is available to me as a constituency Member?

I think there is another point of order on the same matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was very busy yesterday, as alarmed residents in the town of Seaford in my constituency reported sighting him too. He was apparently there campaigning to support the Reform candidate for Seaford North, who is set to lose his seat to the Liberal Democrats. I understand that it is a common courtesy in this place for Members to inform one another of official visits to their constituencies, but on this occasion, that did not happen. Could you advise me on this issue?

I thank both hon. Members for their points of order. As I have reminded the House on numerous occasions, Members must notify their colleagues if they intend to visit another Member’s constituency, except for purely private purposes. I expect Members on all sides of the House to show that courtesy to their colleagues. Whether they are Front Benchers or not, it is a courtesy, and I expect it to be done that way. I hope that those Members who have failed to do so will apologise to the Members concerned. It is election fever time; we do not need any more of it, so please observe the courtesies of this House.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in her place, said that 1.5 million extra people were on universal credit. She will know that this is a deeply misleading number, because it is largely a consequence of the transition from legacy systems to universal credit—her background is in IT, so she should know how it works. In fact, more people are in work now than under the Tories, so given—

Order. I am not quite sure that that is a point of order for me—[Interruption.] You are trying to correct the record on a matter of political judgment. If somebody has inadvertently misled the House, it is for them to correct the record, not me, and I certainly do not want to reopen the questions that we have just closed. Thank you for bringing that matter to the attention of the House—it will now be in Hansard.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How do I gain your advice on a point of order that is inadvertently misleading about what the Leader of the Opposition said? The Leader of the Opposition—

Order. That is danger with what I have started. We have had some very serious points of order; let us leave it with those serious points of order. We do not have the time to play around.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on two matters relating to the completeness of ministerial answers to this House. On 24 April, in answer to a written parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), referred to an attached spreadsheet that was not provided. This is the third time in recent months that this has happened. In addition, I wrote to the same Minister on 2 March, seeking clarification of an earlier written answer in the light of remarks he made in Westminster Hall on 27 January, and I have yet to receive a reply. Could you advise me on how Members can secure timely and complete information when matters referred for answers are—

Order. I think we have both grasped the nature of your question. You know the answer better than I do, Mr Holden. As a former Secretary of State and Minister, you know very well how these things happen.

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that I am not responsible for ministerial answers. However, all Members should receive full and timely answers. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, and I hope that they will be passed on to the relevant Minister. I also note that the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, and he shares my concerns about the time it is taking to answer letters. It is not good enough. It is not acceptable. We are entering a period of calm, and hopefully when we come back, we can get all the outstanding questions answered.