Greater London Council (House of Lords Judgment) (Hansard, 17 December 1981)

§ Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that there is widespread opinion, no doubt throughout London, that the recent House of Lords judgment will be considered by their Lordships to be an extra-parliamentary political instrument which they have used in order to further the politics of the Conservative Party—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is very difficult for me to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps I may say to him that I have had notice of an application under Standing Order No. 9, and I have listened to the exchanges during Question Time, and I have looked at the Order Paper in regard to the debate tomorrow. Therefore, it does not sound to me as if the hon. Member has a point of order on which I can rule within our Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Neil Carmichael (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It was not a point of order.

§ Mr. Carmichael
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
On a new point of order—Mr. Carmichael.

§ Mr. Carmichael
It is on the same point, Mr. Speaker, the point you made yourself—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There can be no point of order on that, as I understand it. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that our Standing Orders have been broken, perhaps he will draw my attention to the matter.

§ Mr. Carmichael
Perhaps I may seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I understand that tomorrow's debate is about London. Therefore, there will be opportunities to raise the question of the decision of their Lordships. But this decision affects many areas other than London. Would it be in order for hon. Members outwith London constituencies to contribute to the debate and still have—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall be making my position quite clear about tomorrow's debate later this afternoon, in a short while.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not completely out of order for an hon. Member to make the accusation that a judgment of the courts is politically motivated, as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has just done?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. In this House we try to respect the judiciary, as we expect the judiciary to respect us. I think that we can leave the matter there.

§ Mr. Norman Atkinson
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that we shall not pursue the matter of the judiciary and this House this afternoon, because it is the judgment that we are interested in. To criticise the motives of people in the judiciary would be as much out of order as it would be to accuse hon. Members of dishonourable or unfair motives.

§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the advice that you have given about the debate to take place tomorrow, in which many of us wish to participate. Obviously the point that has arisen today is bound to be of interest tomorrow. May we be guided as to whether the Government Front Bench will deal with not only transport and communications questions but also legal advice?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must ask the House to await the correct time, which will be when the application under Standing Order No. 9 is made. The hon. Member will then have his opportunity.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter on which I think you ought to rule, as you seem to want the House not to refer to the question of the Law Lords and their decision. I understand that, and the point that I want to make—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. To help the hon. Gentleman—and to save us having a clash—as long as he understands that he is not free to criticise the motives of the judges—

§ Mr. Skinner
I am not doing that, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Then it sounds as though we shall get on better than I thought.

§ Mr. Skinner
I think that the point that you should clarify, Mr. Speaker, is this. Whilst it seems that from the Opposition Benches a reference to the Law Lords' decision being politically connived is wrong, the Prime Minister, in an earlier contribution, laid great stress upon the way in which this matter was dealt with politically in the first instance by a Tory-controlled council and went out of her way to congratulate that council. I think that there should be even-handedness on both sides.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is always very important in this House to be even-handed, and I have no doubt that, if and when a debate takes place, there will be both defence and criticism of both local authorities involved. That is entirely different from an attack on the motives of judges in reaching their decision.