PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Government Announcements - 2 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

We now come to the urgent question. I call the shadow Leader of the House.

(Urgent question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government announcements outside the House of Commons.

I hear your statement, Mr Speaker. I responded to an urgent question on a similar matter on 14 May. I reiterate the commitments I gave then. The “Ministerial Code” is clear:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

That is an important principle that the Government stand by and uphold.

Since that last urgent question on 14 May, the Government have made a number of important oral statements to the House, on the infected blood inquiry, on the cross-Government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement, on the charging of individuals under the National Security Act 2023, and on the legal aid cyber-security incident. The Prime Minister has updated the House on the three trade deals that we have struck in the national interest, the Foreign Secretary has updated it on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Justice Secretary has responded to the sentencing review, and the Defence Secretary has made a statement on the future of the Diego Garcia military base.

This afternoon, the full conclusions of the important strategic defence review will be published and laid before this House first, with a significant statement from the Defence Secretary to follow. I am satisfied that this Government are coming to the House regularly to keep Parliament informed. [Interruption.]

Order. I am not satisfied, and I think that is the key. Back Benchers on both sides should rightly hear it first. I do not care how many announcements have been made in the House; it is those that have not been made here that we should be talking about.

As I have said, the Defence Secretary will make a statement this afternoon, and I am satisfied.

I recognise that there are times when we make a judgment on when an oral statement is needed, balancing that with the rest of the day’s business and other factors, but in nearly all instances a written statement is also made, and that is an appropriate mechanism for updating the House. As well as making 153 oral statements during the current Session, we have made 673 written statements.

As I said before the recess, the ministerial code makes it clear that when Parliament is in session, announcements should be made to the House. Let me gently point out that we have only just returned from the recess—as of an hour ago—and before the recess we were at pains to ensure that the House was updated on the subject of the Diego Garcia military base before it adjourned.

The Government and I take our obligations to Parliament very seriously, Mr Speaker, and I will continue to work with you and colleagues throughout the Government to make certain that important announcements are made to the House, and that Members from across the House have ample time to consider issues and ensure that the Government are scrutinised effectively.

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Is that really the best that the Leader of the House can do—an “I speak your weight” autocue recitation of points that she has made in her three previous attempts to deal with occasions when the House has been embarrassed and disregarded over the last three weeks alone? It was a hopeless miscue of a response that bordered on a contempt of Parliament itself—yet another attempt to change the subject, blame others and distract attention from the latest fiasco. Evidently the defence of the realm is not important enough to merit making its way up the list of priorities in the Government’s media handouts. Lord Robertson himself, as you have said, Mr Speaker—and I am amazed that you had to intervene on the Leader of the House during her own remarks—would be ashamed and embarrassed to think that this was being done in his name.

Just three weeks ago, the Leader of the House had to be dragged to the House over the Government’s briefing on the immigration White Paper outside the House. That came just days after they had done the same in respect of prisoner recall, the UK-US trade deal and, of course, the Chagos islands. That followed instances involving tuition fees, planning reforms and even the fiscal rules, on which you, Mr Speaker, had to reprove and chastise the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we have seen the unhappy sight of the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, extensively briefing the media on the decisions to deploy airborne nuclear weapons and build the next generation of submarines, before coming to the House. Perhaps, as I have said, they were not important enough to merit a mention beforehand.

Journalists have been able to read the strategic defence review since 10.30 am, while the Opposition were prevented from seeing the document until five minutes ago, precisely in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. All this is manifestly in breach of the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and, of course, Labour’s own manifesto, demonstrating the Government’s arrogance and complacency and their disdain for the House and for democratic accountability, and this from—the clue is in the title—the Leader of the House, whose job is to protect and safeguard the House and its Members. Unfortunately, her obvious floundering just now made the point far better than I can.

When did the Leader of the House know about these announcements, and what steps did she take to prevent the media briefings and ensure that the announcements were made to the House of Commons first? Will she now apologise for yet another high-handed Government decision for which she alone is fully responsible, in this instance, to the House?

It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place and respecting Parliament today—that is not always the case.

As I have said before, I believe strongly that the Government should be and have been making the most important announcements to the House when Parliament is in session. We have made more oral statements than the previous Government did in their entire last Session—we have made 154 statements in 140 sitting days, compared with their 72 in 101 sitting days—and we have made many written statements and answered parliamentary questions. We had the statement on Diego Garcia on the day that the deal was signed, despite difficulties with the timing. We had a statement on the US economic deal on the day that it was signed, and the Prime Minister updated the House after the EU trade deal.

As I have said, the SDR has now been given to the Opposition and is being laid before the House. There will be time for colleagues to scrutinise it and to question the Defence Secretary on it this afternoon. The Government responses to the sentencing review and to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on the women’s state pension age, as well as many other major announcements, such as the upgrade in defence spending, were all made to the House first.

I am curious to know whether the shadow Leader of the House raised these important issues with the previous Government when he was a Minister or a Back Bencher, because I remember many, many occasions when they disrespected this House, and I do not remember hearing his voice at the time. I remember when the Procedure Committee, I and many others wanted the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, to be accountable to the House of Commons. The previous Government did nothing about it, and I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman saying anything about that. I recall the then Culture Secretary announcing the end of the BBC licence fee and, separately, the privatisation of Channel 4 on Twitter, with no intention of coming to the House to explain those major policy changes.

The previous Prime Minister, on the first day of a very long recess, announced that he was scrapping the Government’s net zero targets—he did not come to the House to explain that. He also announced the scrapping of High Speed 2 during a conference recess and never came to the House to account for it. During covid, one of the Conservatives’ many Prime Ministers announced major changes to our way of life to the media and not to Parliament, such as the 2020 winter lockdown—he did not come here to talk about that—and the covid vaccine roll-out. When he closed the borders and then reopened them, he announced it to the media and not to Parliament. Let us not forget that the Supreme Court found that Parliament was illegally prorogued by the previous Government. Do you remember when the former Prime Minister was found to have misled Parliament? There is no greater disrespect to Parliament.

Rather than upholding the ministerial code, the previous Government ignored breaches of it time and again, with reports sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk and nothing being done about them. We, by contrast, have strengthened the ministerial code. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) laughs from a sedentary position, but we have given the independent adviser on the ministerial code the power to instigate his own investigations. Therefore, we have strengthened it.

Not only did the previous Government disrespect Parliament; they did not have enough for Parliament to do. They had a threadbare King’s Speech, with banning pedicabs the pinnacle of their ambition in their last year in government. Now that they are in opposition, they seem to be carrying on the same and hardly turn up for work. They could have used any one of their Opposition days to raise these issues, but they did not. They have many other parliamentary devices at their disposal, and they do not use them. They were a zombie Government, and now they are a zombie Opposition. The next time they bring forward an urgent question, they might want to check their own record before giving us lectures.

Order. May I thank the Leader of the House for reminding me of the mistakes of the previous Government in not coming to the Floor of the House? I would have hoped that this Government had learned from the mistakes that have just been highlighted. To try to defend what you criticise is not a way forward.

I am trying to ensure that Members on both sides of the House are allowed to question Ministers first, rather than watching announcements on Sky News. It is interesting that the SDR has been offered to journalists but that the Members here have not had the chance to see it. I agree with the Leader of the House, and I thank her again for reminding me, but let us now see the Government treat this House in the way that I expect.

Will you take a point of order now, Mr Speaker?

No, I will not, because we have to wait till the end, as you well know, Sir Roger, as one of the most senior Members.

I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right to remind us of the many breaches of this rule by Her Majesty’s Government when the Conservative party was in power. However, in the middle of this mud-slinging, let me raise a still small voice of calm. The current Prime Minister pledged to be more transparent, open and proper in government. Will my right hon. Friend go back to the Cabinet and remind it that proper scrutiny in this House first, with untrammelled questions for an hour or more at a time, is more scrutiny than the Government would get in a press conference and is the proper place to do this? I hope she will take that message back, so that statements such as the one we are about to hear are given on the Floor of the House first.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As she will know from the many times I have said it before, I do regularly remind the Cabinet that this is an important aspect of being a Cabinet Minister, or indeed a Minister. We are doing our very best to make sure that there are regular oral statements to this House on important matters and that they are brought here first. In the absence of an oral statement, there is a written ministerial statement, of which notice is given the day before so that colleagues have ample time, as she says, to properly scrutinise all these announcements.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is incredibly disappointing to find ourselves here to discuss this issue yet again, but this time on the vital matter of national security and defence.

There was a remarkably similar urgent question before recess, and it was disappointing then, as it is now, to hear the Leader of the House attempt to justify not bringing major announcements to the Floor of the House first by citing the number of statements the Government have already given to Parliament. The ministerial code is clear: the Government do not get to pick and choose which significant statements they do or do not make to the House; whenever possible, they should be doing it every single time. While I agree with the premise of the question from the shadow Leader of the House, I must say that it is a bit rich given the Conservatives’ appalling record of doing exactly the same thing when they were in government. However, that does not let the current Government off the hook.

Will the Leader of the House please confirm that the Government will comply with the ministerial code, or shall we expect to do this little dance every week? Surely this time would be better spent making a statement to the House.

I thank the hon. Member for that. I will make no apology for the fact that we are doing lots of things—we are making lots of announcements, and we are delivering the change the country voted for—and that does bring with it competing demands. As I say, when the House is in session, statements and updates will be made to this House first. Sometimes that will be via a written ministerial statement and sometimes it will be by an oral statement—it depends.

We also have to balance statements with the rest of the day’s business. I would point out to colleagues that we have an important Second Reading debate today, with dozens and dozens of Members down to speak. We are now having two urgent questions before a very important statement and then other business as well. We do have to balance these things in the House’s interests, but the statement is being made to the House today. The Defence Secretary will shortly be in his place, and I am sure he will spend a long time answering questions on it.

I am sure that criticism was not aimed at me for granting two UQs. The reason I have granted two UQS is that the Government did not come here first with the strategic defence review. If they had, we would not be having the UQs and there would be no pressure on time.

Trust, integrity and transparency must be the watchwords of our politics, but those principles were worn extremely thin under the previous Government. What steps is the Leader of the House taking to redouble our commitment to trust and integrity, because our constituents expect no less?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I do find it slightly strange that Conservative Members seem to think that they are somehow now the upholders of parliamentary democracy and standards in Parliament. I am afraid that some of us have much longer memories. We are taking steps to raise standards, behaviour and the culture in this House, and indeed to make sure that the House is respected.

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

I think the word the Leader of the House was looking for was “sorry”. There is much in this place which, as we know, is complicated and arcane, but the ministerial code is crystal clear on this point. The job of the Leader of the House is to represent this place and Back Benchers of all parties around the Cabinet table to make sure that this place hears things of such vital importance first. As important as public transport is, may I suggest that the defence of the realm is a little more important than the Government’s buses Bill, which will have no Divisions this evening? Will the Leader of the House please tell us why she thinks No. 10 is getting this so wrong and what she is doing to try to put it right?

I am certainly sorry if members of the media have been given sight of the SDR ahead of Members of this House. My understanding is that it is being published for the first time in this House today. As I said earlier, we have put on a statement; that was always our intention. We were always going to have a major statement today on the SDR and that is indeed what we have done. Even though there is other important business today, MPs from across the House will have ample opportunity—I am sure they will take that opportunity—to scrutinise the Defence Secretary not only today but on future occasions via Select Committees and elsewhere.

I declare an interest, as a member of the Modernisation Committee. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for standing up for us Back Benchers and for granting so many urgent questions—I say that as someone who speaks in most of them on behalf of the people of Harlow. Does the Leader of the House agree that part of the Government’s remit is to modernise and to bring back trust in politics? Will she outline what she has been doing to that end and the work that the Committee has been doing to make this place more accessible?

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does on the Modernisation Committee. He will know that one of the remits we have set out for the Committee is to ensure more time for Back Benchers to scrutinise Government business. That is a key part of modernising Parliament, and it will ensure that this Chamber is, and will be in the future, the real crucible of national debate that we want it to be. I am sure we will see that today and on other days.

Knowing the Leader of the House to be a decent person, I suspect that behind the scenes, when events of this sort happen, she probably argues quite strongly that announcements should be made to this House first and to the press afterwards. Does she think the reason that is not happening is that the Government genuinely think they will get less publicity to hold a press conference after there has been scrutiny in the House, or is it that they just have no confidence that they can stop their people leaking things in advance?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question. He is absolutely right that part of my job, which I take incredibly seriously, is to uphold this House in Government, and to ensure that the rest of the Government respect this House, come to this House to be scrutinised, and are open, transparent and available to this House. It is a message that I relay very regularly and I am sure I will relay it again later today. I say gently to him that Government announcements do happen outside of Parliament sitting, and that has long been the case. Managing announcements over the course of a few days can often be a challenge, but I reassure him that on the strategic defence review, we were always going to make the statement to the House today, with the publishing and the laying of the 150-page document to the House first. I reiterate that there is a balance to be struck. People want time to read and digest before they can question the Defence Secretary. That is always a balance, too.

It is not just the House as a whole; the Defence Committee also was not given advance sight of the report. Committee members were left texting journalists over the weekend to find out what was going on. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Defence Secretary committed to the Defence Committee that he would be more open and more transparent, and reset the relationship with the Committee. Does the Leader of the House think that the Secretary of State is living up to his commitment to be more transparent, after what has happened today?

My understanding is that we offered to brief the Chair of the Defence Committee, but I will stand corrected if that is not the case. I hear what the hon. Member says, and I think that across Government, Ministers, civil servants and everybody else must take their responsibilities to Select Committees incredibly seriously. Select Committees are a very important part of accountability to this House. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence—someone I speak to regularly—takes his responsibilities to the House incredibly seriously, and I am sure he will look forward to coming before the Committee to be questioned and scrutinised at length about the SDR and many other matters.

May I say to the right hon. Lady, whom I have known for a little while, that normally when a Speaker upbraids the Leader of the House, the first response of the Leader of the House is to grovel and apologise? That is standard, because she has to take it for the party that she represents in government. I simply suggest that I am a little surprised that she did not make peace in that way with Mr Speaker.

Notwithstanding that, I say gently to the Leader of the House that it is not just a case of not having brought the review to the House. We know now that journalists were given scrutiny of it. When I was leader of the Conservative party, I remember that Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, offered me advance sight of documents that were a bit delicate or needed security clearance. The Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity to look at such documents so that they were fully informed of developments. Was such an opportunity offered to the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Liberal party?

I do apologise to Mr Speaker regularly, I have to say—usually in private, but I am happy to extend that apology to him today if he has not heard me apologise. I have the utmost respect for Mr Speaker, who I work very closely with, and I totally respect his job in upholding Back Benchers’ rights to question and scrutinise Ministers and Government policy. That is what he is there to do, and he does it brilliantly.

I do not know what Privy Council briefings were offered to whom, but I can inquire for the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I will make sure that he gets a reply.

I know this is a matter of great concern to the hon. Lady, and something that she raises often in this House. I will ensure that she and the House are updated on the timings for the child poverty taskforce, and that Ministers come to this House regularly to update on its progress.

As we have this knockabout, what troubles me is that the House has a very important job to do. We are talking about the expansion of nuclear weapons—we assume, because we have not actually read the review, even though journalists, and members of the public through the newspapers, have been given briefings on this—and we wanted to analyse the review so that we could ask sensible questions. We will be in here for this urgent question, for the next urgent question and for the statement. When does the right hon. Lady expect the House to get a chance to digest this 130-page report before we ask questions following the statement? Everybody else in the country seems to have been able to do so.

I was on the Opposition Benches for many years—many more years than the right hon. Gentleman has been—and I recognise that it is a challenge to properly scrutinise big reviews that are laid before the House not long before a statement is made. It is the same with Budgets. I will ensure that today is not the only opportunity, but the first of many, to question the Government about their strategic defence review, which will last for many years to come. I know the Secretary of State will also want to ensure that as further questions emerge today, next week and in months to come, Members of this House have ample opportunity to put those questions to him.

Integrated care boards had their budgets cut by 50% via a phone call from the interim head of NHS England to ICB leaders, and that announcement was only made formal in response to a written question that I put to the Secretary of State. Half of NHS targets were cut without a statement in the Chamber, and although there was a statement in the Chamber on the abolition of NHS England, it has been carrying on at pace without so much as a White Paper, a Bill or any opportunity for effective parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to look at and scrutinise this fundamental reorganisation of the NHS, which is so far going under the radar?

Issues relating to decisions about ICBs and NHS reorganisation are regularly raised with me at business questions. The hon. Lady is right to say that there was a statement in the House on NHS England, and I can reveal to her—this will probably not be a surprise—that getting rid of NHS England will require primary legislation. There will be ample time to consider those issues through the passage of that legislation, but I hear what she says.

It is not just by giving statements to the media that this Government disrespect the House. Just before we went into recess, we had a farcical situation where the shadow Secretary of State for Education had to bring forward an urgent question asking for a written statement to be made earlier in the day. The Government very clearly decided to make a written statement later in the day, and sent a Minister to come here, not answer hon. Members for the whole urgent question and refuse to say what the content of the written statement was—a statement that the Government had already written and intended to publish later that day. That was done simply to avoid scrutiny. What representation did the Leader of the House make on that day to ensure that information was given to the House in a timely fashion so that it could be scrutinised, rather than the Government hiding away?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue; I think she is talking about the pay review recommendations and the Government’s response. They are issues that I take incredibly seriously, as is ensuring that this House has ample time for consideration, so I went back and looked at the usual practice regarding pay review settlements. The settlements went across a range of Government Departments and a number of sectors—not just schools and education, but the NHS, Ministry of Justice, Cabinet Office and a number of other Departments. It is usual practice—it was under her Government as well—that such settlements are announced by written ministerial statements simultaneously in order that they are all put out at the same time.

I am sure the Sunday papers would like to thank the Government for advance sight of their upcoming statement. I am a member of the Defence Committee and I ask the Leader of the House to acknowledge that this urgent question is actually wasting all our time. Mr Speaker is quite right in granting it, but if procedure had been followed and we knew about the statement, we could have got on and debated the rest of the day’s business. Does the Leader of the House agree that there are few announcements to be made in this Parliament that are as important as our defence strategy?

If we were not doing a statement today, I would agree with the hon. Member, but we are doing a statement on the strategic defence review. The review is 150 pages long and will be laid before the House in time for the statement, as is usual practice. There were trails of the statement ahead of time—during recess, on the Sunday—but the full document and conclusions will be laid before this House, as I have said. I am sorry that members of the media were given advance sight of it—as I understand, it was in a closed reading room—but publication of the report will be to this House this afternoon.

To read about our nuclear defence strategy over the weekend, ahead of the SDR, is quite alarming—just as it is to see this morning that journalists have received all the information and the Opposition still have not had sight of it. The Leader of the House is saying that she is speaking to No. 10 and Cabinet members about the importance of this matter, but did she raise concerns over the weekend when she saw the leaks in the paper?

Some aspects of the SDR were trailed ahead of time, but not the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers; that was not something that the Government were designing to put into the public domain over the weekend. That is normal practice these days. I know we all like to speak about a time when we just did things when the House was sitting, but things are sometimes given to the media ahead of time, although not the nuclear issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We will have a further urgent question on that, and we will have the full strategic defence review statement shortly, at which he can ask the Secretary of State for Defence a question.

The Leader of the House has just told us that the document was “trailed” to journalists, but at 10.41 this morning The Daily Telegraph published a long article in which its authors clearly set out that they had read the entire document. At the same time, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was refused an advance copy of it, even under Privy Counsellor rules. Why do the Government appear to trust journalists with national security, but not the shadow Secretary of State?

As I have said in previous answers, I am sorry that members of the media were given a reading room space to look at the SDR before it was laid before the House. That should not have been the case. Other people have asked me about Privy Council briefings; I know which ones I have offered, and I understand that they were offered to members of the Opposition, but I will get Members the full details of who was offered Privy Council briefings and who was not.

I fully respect the role of the Leader of the House in this place, but I am shocked, although in a way not surprised, by what has happened. The Government Benches are very quiet today, which is unusual on such occasions, so I think Labour Members must feel the same way we do. I would like to ask the Leader of the House two questions, and perhaps offer her a way to dig herself out of what is an increasingly big hole. First, will she offer a full apology to you, Mr Speaker, and to Members of this House? Secondly, will she seek reassurances from the Prime Minister that this simply will not happen again?

I think I have made all those things clear. We are doing a statement today on the SDR; we were always doing a statement today on the SDR. We are laying the report before the House, as is the tradition. That is the convention, and it is the right thing to do. The Secretary of State for Defence will shortly be here, and I am sure that he will be here for a long time answering all the questions that people have. I do not need to ask him this, but I will ensure that he regularly comes to this House to update it on aspects of the SDR and how it is rolled out. It is a document for a long period of time, not just for today.

It is very helpful that in the last few minutes the Leader of the House has confirmed that the media were briefed directly, before the House, on the content of the review. I am grateful to her for being so honest, but I do not think that it is enough for her to promise not to do it again. Will she order an inquiry in Government about how the decision came to be made and who authorised the briefing of journalists? Whoever it was needs to apologise directly.

I think I was responding to suggestions that they were briefed, and to some articles and so on that were read out. As I say, these matters should be coming to the House first; that is why we are having the statement today, shortly. It was always our intention to do the full statement today and to lay and publish the full report in this House first. I regret it if members of the media were given advance sight of it before Members of this House.

The people of Eastbourne deserve to have Government announcements scrutinised on their behalf by their MP in this Chamber before release to the media. To compensate for the Government’s shortcomings on this front, will the Government commit to announcing statements in this House first? Will the Minister also commit to inviting local journalists from the Eastbourne Herald, Eastbourne News, Eastbourne Reporter and Bourne Free to Government press conferences of particular interest to Eastbourne, so that they can hold the Government doubly to account on our town’s behalf?

It is vital that MPs, whether they are from Eastbourne or from elsewhere, are able to question and scrutinise Ministers on major Government announcements. That is exactly what we seek to do; although this Session is not even yet a year long, we have already given almost double the number of oral statements that the previous Government gave in their last year in office. I am also very conscious that where announcements have a particular interest for a part of the country, we should make sure that local MPs are told about them in advance.

Given the essential lead-in time required for organising and protecting the Prime Minister’s visit to Glasgow, where he spoke extensively about these issues, is it not clear to the House that the Government made a deliberate decision to pre-empt the statement to the House and show contempt for the processes of the House?

I am sorry, but I do not accept that. There is a big announcement today. We are making a statement to the House this afternoon. As I said earlier, the House was in recess until nearly two hours ago. We are laying the document before the House and are not in any way trying to shirk scrutiny, questioning or anything—we are incredibly proud of this document, which is the first SDR in a long time. It will set out the future of our defence sector for many years to come. We are really proud of it and proud to lay it before the House this afternoon.

My constituents will wonder about a Government who promised to do things differently. They said that they would be transparent and be whiter than white—then they behave like this. One almost feels sorry for the Leader of the House, because she is trying to defend the indefensible.

It is not enough to express regret that journalists were given access to the document in full before Privy Counsellors, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, or that this trailing in full went on days ahead. What we need is action. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), will the Leader of the House commit to looking into the issue, whether through a formal inquiry or not? Secondly, will she meet one to one with the Prime Minister to express her clear opinion that what has happened is not acceptable? I would like specific answers to both those questions.

To reiterate—the Minister for the Armed Forces is sitting next to me—Members from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were offered briefings this morning. [Interruption.] That is what I understand. These questions can be put later. I am also hearing for the first time that reading rooms were made available for members of the press during previous SDRs as well.

We do take our responsibilities to the House incredibly seriously. We are coming forward with more statements than the right hon. Gentleman’s Government did. We are raising standards in the House when it comes to MPs’ behaviours and the code of conduct for Members. He and I have talked about this before: his Government tried to change the rules when one of their MPs was found to have flouted them. His Prime Minister was found to have been in contempt of Parliament by proroguing it and—one of the most serious offences that a Member can commit—to have misled Parliament. We are turning the page on that era; the right hon. Gentleman might not agree with me, but we are. We do our very best to uphold and respect the House whenever we can.

The Leader of the House will be aware of my complaint, at times, when matters pertinent to Northern Ireland are announced in the media. Strangford businesses contact me for details that it is my role as an MP to provide—it is the role of all of us—yet I am unable to provide them, as the media seems to know more than the House. I acknowledge that sometimes embargoed reports are uploaded too quickly, but there is clearly more at play. This is a political venue, but we must never play politics with the rules of the House, which solidified our role as the mother of all Parliaments and the home of democracy rather than a propaganda wing. How will the Leader of the House assure Members that their position will be considered rather than letting the timings of the news cycle take precedence?

The hon. Gentleman is one of the most formidable constituency MPs in the House, never missing an oral statement or opportunity to raise matters on behalf of his constituents. I applaud him for that. I want to ensure, as I try to do, that he and every other Member has ample opportunity to do that, whatever the issue of the day is; that statements are brought; and that we have time for Government business and all the other important business of the day. I continue to look forward to working with him to ensure that we do that.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on the following, as I seek to set the record straight. At the weekend I became aware of an email sent to a group of journalists from the Ministry of Defence, which stated:

“We will have a reading room open for you from 1030 to Horse Guards”

on Monday.

“You will have the opportunity to read through the full embargoed SDR publication”.

After seeing that, I emailed the Secretary of State’s office on Sunday afternoon and asked whether, given that journalists would see the publication at 10.30, we could be sent a copy at 9 am. They refused. They told us we would get a copy of the statement—that is, the oral statement to the House—in the usual way. I then repeatedly asked the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is present in the Chamber, if we could get a copy of the SDR. He refused. I have now been told something else, which is that representatives of industry were allowed to see the SDR at 10.30. This is a multibillion-pound industry that is highly market-sensitive.

Mr Speaker, can I ask your advice on this point? As I understand it, the Vote Office has multiple physical hard copies of the strategic defence review, which I have not read at all, my colleagues have not read and no other parliamentary colleagues have read. It was given to me only as I came into the Chamber, so obviously I have not been able to read it. Journalists have had five hours. It is unacceptable. Can I ask if the Vote Office could, exceptionally, be asked to release it now?

I am going to come to that, but there are a couple more points. I am very disappointed. If the industry has seen this strategic defence review when Members of this House and members of the Defence Committee have not seen it, something has gone fundamentally wrong here. I really believe we need the answers. It is up to the Leader of the House, and I do not want to press her, but it might be worth her going away and getting some answers and coming back to the House. The fact that journalists, as well as defence people who have skin in the game, have been allowed to see it before MPs makes me very concerned.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have noticed that I briefly exited the Chamber to see whether copies of the SDR were available in the Vote Office, and I was told, quite rightly, that no, they would be made available immediately after the Secretary of State had made his statement. If we were to have the press conferences the day after statements—not the day before, or on the same day—everybody would have time to read the report, we would have an initial stab at it, with very little sight of it on the day, and then we could go into it in more detail subsequently, as we usually do.

I am sure that that is a good point of clarification on the way forward.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just seen the headline in The Telegraph that dropped at just after 10 o’clock this morning which says, “I’ve read the Defence Review”. This journalist must have been fully briefed and handed a copy of it, long before anybody else. Surely that is an abuse.

I call Helen Maguire.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister wants to correct the record because, yes, I was offered a private briefing this morning, but it was absolutely clarified that I would not receive the SDR until the Minister stood up. I received it 40 minutes ago.

I call Simon Hoare.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the seriousness of the issues—the defence of the realm is the first duty of Government, as we know—is there any merit in you, sir, considering suspending the House to allow those who are to be called to speak on behalf of their respective parties at least the courtesy that has clearly been extended to industry leaders and journalists? I believe that there is a precedent for that.

I call Stuart Anderson.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way we can have a list of the commercial companies who have had sight of the review ahead of anybody else, because commercially sensitive decisions might be made that impact the defence industry and give people a market advantage?

You make the point that I was hinting at before. I am very concerned that people who have skin in the game may be able to take advantage of what is in the report. I hope that no trading has been done on the back of it, because that would be a real concern. I find it quite appalling that Members still do not have the report. The Leader of the House could, if she wishes, suggest that we allow the report, so that Members have the chance to read it. It is totally out of order that we know the report is sat there and could have been made available, but nobody has been given the chance to read it. Rather than my suspending the House—time is tight—people could go and collect a copy of the report now, and could be reading it before the next urgent question. Does the Leader of the House agree?

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding—I will check with the Defence Secretary—is that these things are normally published when the Secretary of State sits down; it is a bit like the Budget. I understand that the Opposition Front Benchers have a copy of the report now. The Defence Secretary is here; I do not know whether he is happy for it to be published earlier.

I was offered a briefing this morning, but I had already read it all in The Times; the only thing I was not offered is a copy of the strategic defence review. Business and the media have seen it. Who else might come out of the woodwork who has seen it? It is only right that Members of this House should now have an opportunity to see it, so that their questions can be informed by what is in the review. Secretary of State, are you happy to ensure that?

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have followed—[Interruption.] You want an answer from me, Mr Speaker, and I will certainly give you this: we have followed the procedure from the last defence review, when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was a Defence Minister. I was the shadow Defence Secretary at that time. We had no advance copy of the defence review. We were not offered a briefing, which I have offered him and the other Front Benchers. I am really concerned to ensure that the House has proper access to the report, but we have been following convention. You are quite right, Mr Speaker, that copies of the defence review are in the Vote Office, as is established procedure. They would normally be made available when I sat down after my statement. In these circumstances, following your encouragement, I suggest that Members of this House be given access to them in advance of my statement.[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 903.] (Correction)

I thank the Secretary of State for that, and I am sure that Members will receive their copies as we speak.