§ Mr. Eric Deakins (Waltham Forest)On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this point with Mr. Deputy Speaker in the House on 22 December and I have written to you about it and a related point of order. Both points concern the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members in debates in the House. My principal point of order concerns the growing practice of both right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Back Benches reading speeches.
When I came to the House in 1970, I was assured by older, and presumably wiser, hon. Members who had been here a long time that, among the ancient customs and conventions of the House, there were some relating to the conduct of hon. Members in debates which also applied to Privy Councillors.
Prominent among those conventions was the practice that only Front Bench speakers from the Dispatch Boxes were permitted, for obvious reasons, to read their speeches. I recall an occasion late in 1970 when Mr. Speaker King rebuked an hon. Gentleman—it does not matter which side of the House he was on—who had patently been reading his speech. Mr. Speaker ruled clearly at that time that it was not in order for a right hon. or hon. Member speaking from the Back Benches to read his or her speech.
On 22 December I raised this issue with one of your Deputies, Mr. Speaker. However, I think that my point of order was brushed to one side. I did not pursue the matter then. A couple of weeks ago 22 hon. Members took part in the debate on overseas development. I think that all who were present and who tried to take part in it will agree that it was an excellent debate. However, no fewer than four right hon. and hon. Members clearly and obviously read their speeches from beginning to end. What is more, they did not try to hide the fact that they were reading their speeches.
It was noticeable that during those four speeches, however brilliant they were, the Members concerned immediately lost the attention of the House. Other hon. Members chatted among themselves and there was no attempt to make an intervention in any of the four speeches that were read. There were plenty of interventions in other speeches when hon. Members were speaking from notes. Obviously their speeches were not delivered in the same manner as those that were delivered by hon. Members who read their speeches. I did not raise the issue at the time because I thought that the situation was serious enough to warrant raising it as a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, having notified you of the point of order that I intended raising.
I do not wish to illustrate why it has been until now a convention that hon. Members who speak from the Back Benches should not read their speeches. If the custom or tradition is no more honoured in the breach than in the observance, which I think is the case, a major change is taking place in the quality of our debates. It may not be long, if we continue to proceed in this direction, before there is a demand for another Dispatch Box in the centre of the Chamber from which hon. Members can read their speeches much more comfortably than while standing in their places.
There are some admitted advantages in being able to read one's speech—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Perhaps I might rule on what the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) has said so far. I notice that he did not read a word of his point of order, and I congratulate him. This is a lively debating Chamber and we all greatly privileged to belong to it. We fight hard enough to stay here—at least I used to. We want lively debates, but the copious use of notes has always been allowed, especially if there is human frailty. It is not for me to suggest that it is human frailty if hon. Members cannot address the House in any other way. Sometimes hon. Members read their speeches because they are anxious to make best use of the limited time that they think is available to them.
The hon. Gentleman has done the House a favour by reminding us that we try to link our speeches with the speeches that have already been made. This is a debating Chamber where opinions are expressed freely.
§ Mr. DeakinsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief. I was assured also in 1970 by older and experienced Members that it was the custom in the Chamber for a right hon. or hon. Member—1 do not exempt Privy Councillors from this criticism—who had made his speech to remain in the Chamber to hear the following speech. During the debate on overseas development to which I have already referred, at least four right hon. and hon. Members walked out of the Chamber immediately after they had made their speeches. I ask you to rule upon that practice, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerAgain, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has done the House a favour. The courtesy to which he has referred has been part of our practice for as long as I can remember, and I believe for longer. Privy Councillors and those who are not Privy Councillors but would like to be should observe the common courtesy of listening at least to the following speech. It has long been a custom that if anyone speaks in a debate he should remain for the Front Bench replies. Attendance in the Chamber depends on the good taste and the good manners of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned.
§ Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed, Sir, that those who speak without the discipline of notes often take longer than those who have a note or two?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman often submits to us truths that are eternal verities.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter of regard for the traditions of the House has been raised—I, as you know, Mr. Speaker, have the warmest and sincerest regard for the traditions of the House—you may have noticed that there are some of us who still observe the old practice that when a Minister is in exchange with an hon. Member on the Floor of the House we regard the line of vision as something that should not be broken. Now there are a great many new Members who have never observed this because they did not know it existed. Would you care to rule also, Mr. Speaker, on the advisability and the courtesy of observing that particular tradition?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that this is the last matter of etiquette and good manners on which I shall have to rule this afternoon except on recognition of the Chair, which I advise hon. Members is a very old custom. To walk 755 between the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House and the Chair is a breach of a long-standing convention. Most hon. Members observe it and probably those who have not have failed to do so by accident or because of lack of knowledge. They can no longer claim that excuse.
§ Later
§ Mr. FauldsI return to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I am wrong—that is quite possible—but I had understood on the advice of older colleagues of mine when I first came into the House a few years ago that one of the observances was that one did not cross the line of vision between a Member—
§ Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)rose—
§ Mr. FauldsThat, sir, is the great transgression. I was not questioning that. I think that that is generally observed. I hope that most hon. Members generally observe that. I thought that there was an additional courtesy—that an hon. Gentleman did not break the line of vision of a Minister who was replying to an hon. Member on either side of the House while the exchange was actually in progress. I hope that I am right in that and I shall be glad to have your confirmation, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman may be right, but it is not something that I have looked upon as a convention of the House.