On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Disappointingly, the Leader of the House said that only one day would be available for the Policing and Crime Bill on Report. She admitted that that would result in scrutiny only of those clauses that the Government arrange in the programme motion. I understand that programming was designed to aid scrutiny, but it is being used to stifle it and, in effect, to impose the Government's selection of amendments and new clauses. I also understand that—perhaps for procedural reasons—you do not or cannot select amendments to order of consideration motions at Report stage.

Although in this case the Leader of the House has offered to consult on the programme motion, ultimately, the Government can impose their own, as they did with the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the Coroners and Justice Bill and the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is: will you consider how programming operates and—perhaps as a defender of Back Benchers' interests—how we can return to the original function of programming, which was to aid parliamentary scrutiny of Executive action? At present, the Government, not necessarily in bad faith, decide what parts of their programme we are able to scrutinise.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He will have heard the remarks made by the Leader of the House a few minutes ago. I understand that the Procedure Committee is starting an inquiry into the subject, and that is the best way for him to take his deep concern forward. I thank him for raising the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that any hon. Member underestimates the gravity of the revelations that have appeared over the past week. It is clear that individual Members will have to account for their own actions and that we as a House are responsible for the system within which they have operated. It is appropriate for the House to reflect on the judgment of those who, in recent years, have sought to block reform of the system and increased transparency. It is that last point that I want to ask you about.

I am in no doubt that Officers of the House are being bombarded with requests for information. They have the invidious job of trying to respond to those requests. Will it be possible to share with the wider House the advice that is given to Officers on how to respond to those requests, so that we as a House can take ownership of the appropriate response to requests for transparency and so that we are not put in the same position again? Officers must have clear guidelines within which they operate and the House must be assured that we are not inappropriately blocking requests for information which should properly be given to the public.

Those matters are being looked into by Committees of the House. It is not for me to agree to the hon. Gentleman's request. If he puts what he has just said on the Floor of the House in writing, I will reply, giving him a reasoned response.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I assure you that this point of order has nothing to do with Norman Baker?

Why not?

I think that the hon. Member for Lewes has done enough to himself.

Mr. Speaker, you have rightly drawn attention to the distinction between that information which has been released early and that information, such as Members' home addresses, ex-directory telephone numbers and bank account details, which has been stolen as a result of a criminal breach of the Data Protection Act. What guarantee is there that the same thing will not happen again with the next year's claim forms and receipts if the House insists on handling them in electronic form rather than in paper form? If the House had not handled that material in electronic form, it would have been impossible for people to steal the private data, which everyone, whatever they think about the claims—the substantive data themselves— must agree should never have been copied.

I have to be careful about what is said on the Floor of the House regarding hon. Members' private business and that of their staff. The Clerk of the House, as the corporate officer, felt that there was a criminal matter involved, and he took it up with the police. Perhaps some clarity can be given to the issue: the Clerk felt that there was a criminal matter and, he, as the corporate officer, took it up with the police. I endorse what he had to do. Now that we have called in the police, I have to be careful about my response to the hon. Gentleman and his point of order. I know that he will appreciate that.