Correcting the record

1 Background

1. The importance of the accuracy of contributions by Ministers to the House has long been accepted. This session’s fourth report of the Committee of Privileges explains why:

The expectation is that when the House hears from Ministers, what it hears is the truth as far as the Minister knows it. The House considers legislation and scrutinises government activity on the basis that what it is told is accurate. Parliament expects and requires proactive candour and transparency. This is what is necessary for the House to do its job properly. If a Minister makes an inadvertent error they are expected to correct it at the earliest opportunity. Mistakes inevitably happen and corrections are made routinely. There are, every year, roughly 100 corrections per year by Ministers who have inadvertently misled the House. The more important the issue, the more seriously the House will take any question of misleading.¹

2. Before 2005, there was no consistent way of making corrections to inaccuracies in contributions to the House. The informal methods in use were:

• A letter to the Editor of Hansard pointing out a minor error which did not alter the meaning of a passage, and which was then corrected in the Bound Volume of Hansard.
• A pursuant answer. This method (which could only be used to correct an error in the answer to a parliamentary question) required the agreement of the Table Office and was restricted to ‘relatively inconsequential matters of fact (figures and dates).
• An ‘inspired’ question, tabled on behalf of the Minister and which provided an opportunity to correct an answer previously given or a statement previously made.
• A letter to the Member to whom the original incorrect information was given explaining that an error was made and giving the correct information. A copy of the letter would also be placed in the Library. The correction was recorded in the Library information system (PIMS), but there was no record in Hansard.
• A Written Ministerial Statement. This was the most immediately transparent method of correction, although at this point it did not provide a clear link between the original error and its correction.²

3. There was no authoritative guidance on which procedure would be appropriate for each category of error. Furthermore, because there were several available options, there was no simple way of discovering whether a correction had been made.

Impact of the Procedure Committee’s 2007 report

4. In December 2005, the then-Procedure Committee received correspondence from Andrew Selous MP regarding the creation of a corrections system. The Committee took up this proposal and launched an inquiry on the subject. The rules under which Ministers currently correct the record stem from the then-Procedure Committee’s inquiry into Corrections to the Official Report. The Committee’s report was approved by the House in 2007.³ The report recommended measures to improve the clarity and visibility of corrections.as follows:

19. We recommend that a dedicated corrections page be introduced in the Official Report (Hansard). It should be used for all corrections to inadvertent errors of fact made by Ministers and other Members who provide information to the House in an official capacity. Very minor corrections which do not alter the meaning of the original text may continue to be made editorially by Hansard. The corrections page should have its own column numbering and suffix.

20. This procedure should replace the use of letters placed in the Library, pursuant answers, ‘inspired’ questions and Written Ministerial Statements. As with Written Ministerial Statements, all corrections must be made in the name of a Minister (or other Member, as appropriate).

21. The corrections page should be used for corrections to errors made in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in general committees, where there is no opportunity to correct them during the proceedings of that committee.

22. Corrections should be published at the earliest opportunity.

23. The Member who asked the question or made the speech or intervention which gave rise to the error should be informed of the correction before it is published.

24. Each correction should be free-standing. It should set out what the original error was, in what circumstances it was made (e.g. in reply to a written question), and how it is being corrected. There should be a clear cross-reference to the error itself. It should not be used to provide new information or to continue an argument. The Table Office should check all corrections before publication for compliance with these rules (which are set out in more detail in paragraphs 12 and 13 above).

25. As well as cross-references from the correction to the error, there should be, wherever possible, cross-references from the error to the correction. These should be by hyperlink in the electronic version.

26. This procedure should be introduced from the start of the 2007–08 parliamentary session.⁴

5. Following the report, each day on which a correction has been made, an additional page dedicated to the correction, or corrections, is accessible through Hansard. The page details the original statement (with the error) and a link to the proceeding, as well as additional text detailing what the correct response should have been.

Our inquiry

6. We launched our inquiry in June 2022 to review the operation of the system since our predecessor’s 2007 report. We wanted to assess the process by which Ministers and backbench Members correct the parliamentary record, including whether arrangements allow them to provide information to Parliament efficiently and clearly.

7. In this report, we first detail the current ministerial corrections system. In Chapters 3–5, we then look at some of the contemporary challenges of the current system: visibility and accessibility; the procedural opportunities for challenge; and finally, the scope of the system. We would like to thank everyone who gave evidence to our inquiry.

2 The ministerial corrections system

8. The flowchart below describes the current corrections system:

Figure 1: Current corrections system

9. As the flowchart above illustrates, the current corrections system is disjointed, with very different end points depending on who made the correction and in what form they decided to do so. Non-substantive errors, for example correcting simple facts and figures, made by Ministers are added to the ministerial corrections section of the Official Report’s corrections page. The date of the original proceeding is included at the top of the page. Each page includes the corrections submitted, as well as the inaccurate statements they are correcting and links to the original proceeding. Substantive errors including new information are corrected through Written Ministerial Statements that are accessed in the Written Ministerial Statements section of the Official Report.

10. When a correction is made through this process, the system appears to work well, as shown in this Hansard extract from 21 February 2022:

Figure 2: Extract from Official Report

Source: HC Deb, 21 February 2002, col 1MC [Commons Chamber]

The link provided (Official Report, 9 February 2022, Vol. 708, c. 944.) is reciprocal. In the above extract, it directs the reader from the correction to the original statement. Additionally, in the extract below the reader is directed from the original statement to the correction:

Figure 3: Second extract from Official Report

Source: HC Deb, 9 February 2002, col 944 [Commons Chamber]

11. The formal ministerial corrections system does not extend to backbench Members. If a Shadow Minister or a backbench Member were to make an inadvertent error, they are currently unable to correct the record using the formal mechanisms outlined above. Nevertheless, there are some limited opportunities for correction by backbench Members–rapid self-correction of simple factual errors by clarification directly with Hansard or alternatively a clarificatory point of order after the fact. We explore this issue in more detail in Chapter 5.

12. The option to correct through a point of order is also available to Ministers who choose not to use the formal ministerial corrections system. On 8 March 2016, Alun Cairns, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales, corrected a claim he had made several days earlier. This is illustrated in that day’s Official Report:

Figure 4: Extract from Official Report, Point of Order

Source: HC Deb, 8 March 2016, col 137 [Commons Chamber]

Athough the Minister corrected his previous statement on the floor of the House, the visibility of the correction is significantly decreased. There is no correction shown in the Official Report on the original debate, and unless the reader happened upon the above exchange, they would have no way of knowing that a correction had been made at all.

13. When a correction is made speedily during the course of or immediately following a debate the argument for a cross-referenced link is weaker, as was the case in an example from 26 June 2018:

Figure 5: Second extract from the Official Report: Point of Order

Source: HC Deb, 26 June 2018, col 793 [Commons Chamber]

14. The nature of healthy debate means that less formal references to contributions are made frequently. However, where a correction by a Member is made substantially after a mistake is made, a hyperlinked cross-reference is essential for reader understanding. Currently, when a cross-referenced link is not provided, there is no indication in the Official Report of the original debate that an inaccurate statement had been made, nor that the Member had tried to correct it.

Correction of fact versus opinion

15. Ministerial corrections only relate to corrections of facts or accuracy as opposed to clarifications of meaning or changes of opinion. Erskine May describes what is and is not suitable for a Ministerial Correction:

Such corrections are required to be free-standing and should not be used to provide new information, however closely related to the original proceeding. Nor should they be used to rehearse the arguments which may have given rise to the original erroneous answer. When Ministers wish to make a correction in terms which would not comply with the criteria relating to written ministerial corrections, they may do so by means of a written statement.⁵

16. On 25 May 2022, we asked the then Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Mark Spencer MP, about the difference between corrections and clarifications:

I think it’s quite an important distinction. If you make a factual error and you correct that, there should be the ability to link that back: “The Member corrected the facts of this later”—three days later or whenever—“for the records.” What you mustn’t be able to do, though, is—to be blunt—correct stupidity. If you say something stupid in the Chamber, you shouldn’t be able to go back and say, “Oh, actually, I didn’t quite mean that.” […] you should not be able to recontextualise your argument in the light of public reaction or political scrutiny.⁶

Use of the ministerial corrections system

17. Since its inception in 2007, one or two ministerial corrections have been published every sitting day. This number has remained stable in recent years. This is reflected in the chart and table below:

Figure 6: Chart of ministerial corrections

Source: Scrutiny Unit, House of Commons.

Figure 7: Table of ministerial corrections and sitting days

Source: Scrutiny Unit, House of Commons.

3 Visibility and accessibility of corrections

18. The Official Report, also known as Hansard, produces a comprehensive account of what is said in the House. It is not a verbatim transcript but rather a substantially verbatim report with repetitions and unnecessary words removed. It does not omit, or insert, content that would alter the meaning of what has been said. Ministerial corrections can be located though the ministerial corrections page of the Official Report.

19. Since our predecessor Committee’s 2007 report there have been significant changes in the ways in which people consume parliamentary information. As Dr Alice Lilly, senior researcher at the Institute for Government, told us:

The most recent data I could find from the Parliamentary Digital Service was from 2017, and that was already showing that almost half of people consuming Hansard were doing so either via tablet or by a phone. Also, the average time people spent on Hansard was one minute, so people are looking through this stuff really quickly. What that means is the system needs to be updated, so that it is incredibly clear when people are looking through this that a correction has been made.⁷

20. The Committee on Standards in Public Life also raised a concern that the current corrections system is not accessible to members of the public:

For the corrections system to function effectively, members of the public and MPs should be able to check Hansard to see whether and where any corrections have been made. It should also be easy for the public to search for corrections online, which is not presently the case.⁸

Clarity of hyperlinks

21. When a correction has been made, the original statement is published in Hansard followed by a link to the correction. The correction is labelled as an ‘official report’ followed by the date, volume number, and the abbreviation “MC”. These links are cross-referenced, allowing readers to switch between the original proceeding and the corrected text. Although the links are effective when used, we have heard evidence to suggest that the links themselves are difficult to identify.

22. When asked about the visibility of corrections signposted through links, Robert Hutton, parliamentary sketch writer for The Critic, explained:

There is a link, but the link is in code, literally. I think it says “CM” or something, or “MC”, and then there is a number. You would not know; there is nothing that says, “We corrected this bit.”⁹

23. We asked Jack Homer, Editor of Hansard, whether he felt the current labelling of corrections in the Official Report were clear to a non-expert. He responded:

Having looked at it and having been prompted to look at it in some detail by this inquiry, I think one thing we could definitely improve is the reference to where a correction has been made. […] it would be a relatively easy and quite helpful change to be more explicit that that link is actually to a correction.¹⁰

24. Although corrections made through the ministerial corrections system are provided with cross-referenced links, corrections made through points of order are not. This makes it extremely difficult for a reader to identify that an incorrect statement has been made, or that it has subsequently been corrected.

25. Cross-referenced hyperlinks in the Official Report allow readers to switch easily between original contributions and their subsequent correction. However, the way in which they are displayed is insufficiently clear, particularly for the general reader. Cross-referenced hyperlinks provided in the Official Report should be improved. This could be achieved through replacing the existing code with wording clearly stating that the link directs the reader to a correction.

26. It is currently very difficult for a reader to identify corrections made through points of order. There is no link provided with either the incorrect statement or the point of order making the correction, which could lead to readers believing that Ministers have not corrected the record when they have made the effort to do so. Cross-referenced hyperlinks currently used in the ministerial corrections system should also be added to corrections made through points of order and other oral contributions.

Corrections page

27. We have received evidence to suggest that finding the ministerial corrections page for a specific correction is difficult, particularly for non-experts. Henry Dyer, investigations reporter for the Guardian, explained problems with the corrections section in the following extract:

I have seen examples in Hansard where you click the link and it takes you to the ministerial corrections column for when the correction was made in Hansard two weeks later or whenever, but that is a blank page that says “Ministerial Correction”; you have to click on the next column to actually get to the correction. You have to know that that is what you are looking for. You need to know that you are looking for 1MC; that the website is not broken and is showing you what it is meant to; and to click “next column”. It then might not actually be the correct ministerial correction—I have used “correct” a lot of times there. It may be a different ministerial correction also made on that day.¹¹

28. As each type of correction is made differently and subsequently recorded in different locations in the Official Report, it is difficult for a non-expert to know where and how to access them. However, this could be resolved if every type of correction were recorded in the same way and place, in an expanded version of the corrections section of the Official Report. We propose a new system where all corrections are ultimately accessible from a central corrections page:

Figure 8: Proposed corrections system

29. The creation of a central page would allow corrections to be as transparent and accessible as possible. An example of one such page is that used by the Scottish Parliament, as Alice Lilly, senior researcher at the Institute for Government, explained:

[The Scottish Parliament] have one page that offers a list of all the corrections that have been made, with links to all of them. On that same page, there is also all the guidance for Members and for their staff, both about how they can correct the record and how they can challenge any other inaccuracies that they might feel have been made.¹²

30. The creation of a central corrections page featuring all corrections in chronological order could increase accessibility and remove current difficulty in finding separate ministerial corrections pages for each correction made. It would also enable corrections made through Written Ministerial Statements and points of order to be accessed in the same place. Existing links are helpful and could be transferred.

31. The information supplied on each ministerial corrections page is useful to a reader who understands the system, but is unnecessarily difficult to navigate and does not include all corrections such as those made through Written Ministerial Statements. Corrections should be easier to access. This should be achieved through the creation of a central corrections page. The page should include all corrections that have been made, including through Written Ministerial Statements and points of order, in chronological order, with the topic and link included.

4 Procedural opportunities for challenge

Mechanisms for challenge

32. Some Members are unhappy with opportunities to challenge inaccurate statements. Sir Stephen Timms MP detailed his attempts to persuade the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, to correct claims made in the House of Commons on levels of employment:

The former Prime Minister repeatedly gave answers in Parliament which–as our discussion at the Liaison Committee confirmed–he knew to be untrue. The record has not been corrected in any clear way. I do hope the inquiry will conclude that ministers should correct the record of an incorrect statement through a ministerial correction in Hansard rather than randomly answering an unconnected parliamentary written question. I also think, even though the former Prime Minister has left office, there should be a way to flag the factual inaccuracies in the Hansard record of his twelve incorrect statements.¹³

33. In May 2021, a cross-party group of Members wrote to us to express their belief that—

There are not suitable objective mechanisms for instances where Ministers or MPs have deliberately misled Parliament and refuse to retract their statements. Nor is there a means to address occasions when Ministers and MPs wilfully repeat misleading statements.¹⁴

34. There are, however, numerous avenues through which Members can pursue corrections to inaccurate statements made in the House. One of the most widely used are written parliamentary questions, often to identify the source of statistics, suspected to be incorrect, cited by the Government. Additionally, Tom Goldsmith, Principal Clerk of the Table Office, told us that:

There are actually quite a lot of ways Members can pursue this if they want to, and very experienced and very tenacious Members probably do use most of them… Members could seek to initiate debates via the Backbench Business Committee or, if they are an Opposition Member, they could seek to convince their Front Bench that there should be an Opposition day debate on the issue. They can table early-day motions. If they really think a Member has behaved very badly and deliberately misled the House, they can even table an early-day motion about the conduct of that Member and make that claim in a way they couldn’t just off the cuff in the Chamber. They can raise points of order, of course. If it is very serious—although the bar is very high for this—they can write to the Speaker and make a claim for the matter to be pursued as a matter of privilege.¹⁵

He also told us that Members did not use the mechanisms available as often as they might, and that some may be unaware of these mechanisms at all.¹⁶ We have noted that a strong understanding of existing procedural mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions can be extremely effective, as set out in Box 1:

Box 1: Mechanisms for challenging accuracy

Alternative procedural mechanisms

35. We received evidence calling for new mechanisms to force Ministers to correct inaccurate statements or face sanctions. However, the only substantive alternative mechanism suggested to the Committee was for the Speaker to act as a referee. In its written evidence, Full Fact recommended this new process be followed when Ministers do not correct the record:

This new system would include an enhanced role for the Speaker, both to act on failures of MPs to correct misleading statements on the record, and to act as a check on attempts to politicise the process.¹⁷

36. As we have emphasised above, it is of upmost importance for Ministers to correct the record at the earliest opportunity to eliminate the risk of bringing the House into disrepute. However, we are not persuaded that is it necessary to make the Speaker, or any other figure, a referee in this process as there are clear mechanisms for challenge already available. It is also the case that some disputes regarding accuracy are often more concerned with what should or should not have been included in a measure, or a difference of opinion. When the existing mechanisms to challenge accuracy are used effectively, as set out in Box 1, they can result in a range of outcomes including debates, divisions and even severe sanctions such as suspension from the House. We note that the House of Commons Committee on Standards will be undertaking work to examine the entire landscape of bodies and mechanisms that provide oversight of Members’ conduct. We look forward to seeing that Committee’s findings.

37. The procedural mechanisms of the House provide numerous avenues through which Members can challenge the accuracy of contributions. A thorough understanding of these mechanisms can assist Members in effectively, and creatively, challenging the accuracy of contributions. We believe that existing procedural mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient. We do not believe the introduction of new procedural mechanisms to be necessary and instead encourage Members to take advantage of existing mechanisms available to them.

5 Broadening the scope of the corrections system

Differences between Ministers and backbenchers

38. There is clearly an appetite to extend the ministerial corrections system to include backbenchers. HM Government made clear that it supported formal corrections mechanisms for backbenchers:

The Government thinks that there is merit in considering whether it would be worth extending the formal process for Ministerial corrections to all Members. All Members have a responsibility to provide accurate information and the Government believes this could improve clarity and transparency of corrections. The lack of a formal mechanism for backbench MPs means there is no clear way of identifying and linking an original statement to the correction given and the public should not have to work their way through Hansard before finding the correction.¹⁸

39. Currently, the only mechanism available for backbenchers to correct the record is through a point of order made in the Chamber. When a point of order to correct the record is made directly after an incorrect statement, the informal method is satisfactory. However, if time has passed since the incorrect statement had been made, the point of order is less effective. This is because no cross-linked reference is included with the incorrect statement or the subsequent correction making it impossible to know that a correction has been made.

40. Full Fact argued that:

The inefficient system leaves senior high-profile backbenchers, and the Shadow Frontbench and Leader of the Opposition, who have a formal role in holding the Government to account, unable to correct the record. Given the visibility and reach of prominent MPs like this, their comments have the potential for false claims to spread far beyond the House of Commons chamber.¹⁹

Will Moy, Chief Executive of Full Fact, explained how options currently available for backbenchers to correct the record are insufficient:

To take your point, what I mean by saying there is no mechanism to correct the record is that all of the options available to Members add to the record, but they leave the inaccurate record there […] Raising a point of order […] or possibly writing to other participants in the debate and that kind of thing, are ways of trying to fulfil that basic thing of: when you make a mistake, you try to correct it. But they still leave the mistake on the record with all the official panoply of Parliament behind it.²⁰

41. There are differences between the status of Ministers of the Crown, their Shadows and backbenchers. While all Members are personally responsible for the accuracy of their own contributions, only Ministers are accountable to the House. Henry Dyer, investigations reporter at the Guardian, made the following point:

The public interest lies more toward the activities of Government than it does toward the activities of Members who are not in government. That even goes for Back Benchers. There is more scrutiny on Ministers than on Back Benchers, because if Ministers get something wrong, that has a greater impact, generally speaking, than if a Back Bencher gets something wrong.²¹

42. Written evidence from the Clerk of the House made clear the differences between expectations on Ministers and backbenchers:

[backbench] Members are not governed by the same commitments to the Ministerial Code and are not required to respond to Questions, Urgent Questions or debates on legislation before the House, or to make statements to the House, the contexts in which most formal corrections are sought by Ministers.²²

43. In his oral evidence, Mr Goldsmith reiterated this point, but made clear that action could be taken to improve the corrections process for backbenchers if needed:

There would be quite a resource implication to having a system of corrections for Back Benchers or non-ministerial Members akin to the one for Ministers. All that said, it would not be impossible. Obviously, the Scottish system does allow that to happen. If that was the direction that the Committee wanted to go in, we would look very carefully about how we could make that happen.²³

Changes to the corrections system

44. We first considered if limited changes could be made to improve the way in which backbenchers correct the record. The most significant problem with the corrections system for backbenchers is that they are limited to using points of order. Hansard has not been instructed to link between the point of order and the original mistake, which means that it is extremely difficult to see whether a correction has been made at all and leaves the original information in the Official Report with no identification that it is incorrect. One of the ways in which this could be improved would be if points of order to correct the record could generate links.

45. The creation of a new mechanism to allow backbenchers to correct the record more effectively, for example through personal statements, was also considered. While we accept that there are significant differences between those Members who are Ministers and those who are not, ultimately, we do not believe that distinction justifies the difference in the means by which non-Ministerial Members may seek to correct themselves when they discover that they have made an error.

46. The current opportunities available to allow backbenchers, including the Official Opposition and shadow front bench spokespeople, to correct the record are not fit for purpose. The most effective option to improve opportunities available for backbenchers to correct the record is to incorporate them fully into the existing ministerial corrections system. This means that corrections by backbenchers would feature on corrections pages generated by the Official Report and would be cross-referenced for maximum transparency. They should also be required to adhere to the same standards as set in the ministerial corrections system, including not being provided to continue an argument or present new information and should be vetted by the Table Office.

Conclusions and recommendations

Visibility and accessibility of corrections

1. Cross-referenced hyperlinks in the Official Report allow readers to switch easily between original contributions and their subsequent correction. However, the way in which they are displayed is insufficiently clear, particularly for the general reader. Cross-referenced hyperlinks provided in the Official Report should be improved. This could be achieved through replacing the existing code with wording clearly stating that the link directs the reader to a correction. (Paragraph 25)

2. It is currently very difficult for a reader to identify corrections made through points of order. There is no link provided with either the incorrect statement or the point of order making the correction, which could lead to readers believing that Ministers have not corrected the record when they have made the effort to do so. Cross-referenced hyperlinks currently used in the ministerial corrections system should also be added to corrections made through points of order and other oral contributions. (Paragraph 26)

3. The information supplied on each ministerial corrections page is useful to a reader who understands the system, but is unnecessarily difficult to navigate and does not include all corrections such as those made through Written Ministerial Statements. Corrections should be easier to access. This should be achieved through the creation of a central corrections page. The page should include all corrections that have been made, including through Written Ministerial Statements and points of order, in chronological order, with the topic and link included. (Paragraph 31)

Procedural opportunities for challenge

4. The procedural mechanisms of the House provide numerous avenues through which Members can challenge the accuracy of contributions. A thorough understanding of these mechanisms can assist Members in effectively, and creatively, challenging the accuracy of contributions. We believe that existing procedural mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient. We do not believe the introduction of new procedural mechanisms to be necessary and instead encourage Members to take advantage of existing mechanisms available to them. (Paragraph 37)

Broadening the scope of the corrections system

5. The current opportunities available to allow backbenchers, including the Official Opposition and shadow front bench spokespeople, to correct the record are not fit for purpose. The most effective option to improve opportunities available for backbenchers to correct the record is to incorporate them fully into the existing ministerial corrections system. This means that corrections by backbenchers would feature on corrections pages generated by the Official Report and would be cross-referenced for maximum transparency. They should also be required to adhere to the same standards as set in the ministerial corrections system, including not being provided to continue an argument or present new information and should be vetted by the Table Office. (Paragraph 46)

Formal minutes

Wednesday 8 March 2023

Members present

Karen Bradley, in the Chair

Aaron Bell

Jack Brereton

Patrick Grady

Nigel Mills

James Sunderland

Proxy voting: Review of illness and injury pilot

Draft Report (Correcting the record), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 46 read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134)

Adjournment

[Adjourned until Monday 3 July.

Witnesses

The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Wednesday 19 October 2022

Alice Lilly, Senior researcher, Institute for Government; Will Moy, Chief Executive, Full FactQ1–24

Wednesday 23 November 2022

Esther Webber, Senior UK correspondent, Politico Europe; Henry Dyer, Investigations reporter, The Guardian; Robert Hutton, Parliamentary sketch writer, The CriticQ25–55

Monday 30 January 2023

Tom Goldsmith, Principal Clerk, Table Office, House of Commons; Jack Homer, Editor, Chamber and Participation Team, House of CommonsQ56–78

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

CTR numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1 Committee on Standards in Public Life (CTR0009)

2 Full Fact (CTR0003)

3 HM Government (CTR0004)

4 House of Commons (CTR0006)

5 Office for Statistics Regulation (CTR0002)

6 Russell, Professor Meg (Director, Constitution Unit, University College London) (CTR0008)

7 Timms MP, Rt Hon Sir Stephen (CTR0007)

8 Thomson, Alan (CTR0001)

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.

Session 2022–23

Session 2021–22

Session 2019–21

Footnotes

1 Committee of Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2022–23, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson, HC 1203, para 8

2 Corrections to the Official Report published 23 May 2007.

3 Votes and Proceedings. 19 June 2007. Paragraph 9.

4 Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2006–07, Corrections to the Official Report published 23 May 2007., HC541

5 Erskine May para 22.23

6 One-off evidence session with then-Leader of the House Mark Spencer MP (Q38)

7 Q2 [Dr Alice Lilly]

8 Committee on Standards in Public Life (CTR0009)

9 Q28

10 Q60

11 Q32 [Henry Dyer]

12 Q7

13 Sir Stephen Timms MP (CTR0007) In evidence to the Liaison Committee on 30 March 2022 the then Prime Minister said had earlier corrected the record on his statements relating to employment

14 Correspondence to Chair of the Procedure Committee from Caroline Lucas MP. 4 May 2021.

15 Q69 (Tom Goldsmith)

16 Q69 (Tom Goldsmith)

17 CTR0003

18 HM Government (CTR0004)

19 Full Fact (CTR0003)

20 Q5 [Will Moy]

21 Q46 [Henry Dyer]

22 Clerk of the House of Commons (CTR0006)

23 Q74