§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the past few days, hon. Members will have seen reports in the press that a journalist who works in the precincts of Westminster has been banned for 20 working days. Can you give us any useful background information regarding that matter?
§ Madam SpeakerI am sure that the whole House agrees that the press are an important element in the preservation of democratic freedoms, that their presence in the Palace of Westminster is welcome, and that they have the right to report our proceedings and to comment on political developments as they choose. Members of the Lobby are granted privileged access to Parliament so that they may exercise that right most effectively. But privilege is accompanied by responsibility. That responsibility includes a duty to take the advice of the security authorities of the House in relevant cases.
On 28 April, The People printed an article by its political editor about a current security threat. The article contained information which, unusually, he had been asked specifically by the security authorities not to publish. This is not the first time that the political editor of The People has published material that increases the security risk to Members and to their staff. He was previously given a warning about his activities here.
I have given very careful consideration to this entire matter. My conclusion is that the political editor's Lobby pass should be suspended for a period of 20 sitting days.
§ Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)As I was the hon. Member involved in that story, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) or anyone else is concerned about it, I shall be happy to provide further information in private.
§ Madam SpeakerI am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time and in answer to the private notice question about Westminster, can you provide guidance on what hon. Members can do when it is clear—at least to me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members—that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, either intentionally or unintentionally, misled the House about the law in relation to the district auditor's findings?
The report is available to hon. Members and makes it clear that the auditor announced his findings today, which were not provisional—they were decisions. He made three decisions that there had been unlawful behaviour, and he came to the conclusion that six people were guilty—his words—of wilful misconduct.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State either misled the House, were economical with the truth or were ill-informed, and clearly were advised in an extraordinary manner. There must be a way to get Government officials to state accurately the law when the law is absolutely clear.
§ Madam SpeakerThere may well be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who wish to pursue that line of argument in the debate that is planned for next week. That debate will no doubt provide an opportunity for all those matters to be examined.