§ Mr. Michael FootOn a point of order. It frequently occurs at this stage of our proceedings that hon. Members on either side of the House may ask whether a Minister has asked leave from you, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement in reply to a particular Question.
May I ask, according to that precedent, whether you, Mr. Speaker, have had a request from the Leader of the Opposition for him to make a personal statement to the House today on his pitiful surrender to Powellism, a statement which has caused widespread disgust among decent people throughout the country both by its actual nature and by the weasel words with which it has been defended?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must know that I have not had a request from the Leader of the Opposition to make a personal statement.
§ Mr. PeytonOn a point of order. Have hon. Members no remedy against points of order such as that raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)?
§ Mr. FauldsThere is always the Chiltern Hundreds.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon. Gentlemen must contain themselves.
§ Mr. PeytonI was seeking to ask whether hon. Members have no remedy against such a point of order as was raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, addressed in no way to a matter concerning Ministerial responsibility, but merely seeking to make a wholly unjustified onslaught upon what my right hon. Friend has been endeavouring with honesty and courage to put forward upon a difficult topic.
§ Mr. ShinwellFurther to that point of order. In view of the attack made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale on the Leader of the Opposition, surely the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to reply.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have already passed from the realms where a point of order was a real point of order.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsFurther to that point of order. As it was quite clear after the fourth sentence spoken by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that it was not a point of order, but a low-down political attack, why was he allowed to continue to the end?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Heat does nobody any good. The Chair must be responsible for the acts of the Chair.
§ Mr. RidleyFurther to that point of order. May we now take it that hon. Members are entitled, under the guise of a point of order asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received an application from any Minister or hon. Member on the other side of the House to make a personal statement, to launch a bitter and unjustified personal attack on another hon. colleague in this House, and that they will not be impeded by any of the rules of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI share the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members should not use the guise of a point of order to make attacks upon other hon. Members—[Interruption.] Certainly, noise is a point of disorder.
§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order. In view of the rebuke which you, Mr. Speaker, have administered to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), should he not be called upon by the Chair to withdraw the wholly unjustified attack upon my right hon. Friend?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. For the second time, the House must allow the Chair to act as Chairman of the proceedings.