§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of the point that I wish to raise. I did not do so because I had hoped that someone else would raise it. As a member of the Committee of Privileges I am naturally concerned that parliamentary privilege should at all times be defended. I submit that it is difficult to defend it if there are signs that, on occasions, it is abused.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to two questions that appeared on the Order Paper today. They named a retired public servant and asked for further inquiries to be made into his activities. Presumably the questions must be in order or they would not have appeared on the Order Paper. If we feel that something of this nature requires to be investigated we have a duty to use our considerable powers to pursue it privately and to be careful of bandying about names, even in the Chamber. It is an extension of the use of privilege not to name a person in the Chamber but to use the Order Paper as the means of doing so. I suggest that that creates a dubious precedent of which we should be very careful.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I did not have notice of the point of order. However, like other hon. Members, I studied the Order Paper with special care because of the publicity that had preceded the questions. The House is also aware that the privilege of free speech and protection that we enjoy in the House is our most cherished possession. It gives real significance and power to the House. Therefore, there is a special obligation on us all to ensure that we never abuse that privilege.
The questions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were technically in order, otherwise they would not have appeared on the Order Paper. I can say no more than that.