§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter with which you are concerned. I have read the Hansard report of your statement yesterday, for which the House is grateful, in which you said that you would call a conference of all the parties
to consider the outrageous way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is being ruined."—[Official Report, 1 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 144.]You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that that followed a point of order raised by me when I suggested that there could be a better way of distributing the opportunities to be called at Prime Minister's Question Time. Obviously, the most effective and fair method of doing so must be discussed, because it will always cause some controversy.I suggested giving priority to those who had taken the trouble to table questions to the Prime Minister. I hope that you can confirm that, when you call the conference with the parties, my original suggestion, made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), that a new method should be adopted and that we should eradicate the privilege that attaches to Privy Councillorship in this place, as is widely believed, will be considered by the conference in addition to the point that you made.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I can enlighten the House. I hope that the respective parties will meet in Speaker's House today. Of course, we shall discuss broad issues. I am not trying to bulldoze anything through the House, but I wish to know the will of the House. We shall not resolve the matter here with points of order—although if they are reasonable I shall not discourage them—but we shall meet later today and talk. Nothing will be done without the House being made fully aware of it, because the House's special pride is Question Time.
§ Mr. LewisFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your kindness in advising the House of this meeting. If the meeting is to take place today, although it may be difficult, would you take it amiss if an hon. Member were to pass a note or a letter into your office stating his ideas and suggestions? In the past, Speakers have not been so prompt in dealing with ideas and suggestions such as you have mentioned. Does that preclude hon. Members from going to your office even today and handing in a note or letter? Several hon. Members have come to me with ideas and suggestions and I have said, "Drop a note into Mr. Speaker's Office"— [Laughter]—Yes. "Drop a note into Mr. Speaker's Office, because if Mr. Speaker does not know, he cannot consider it."
§ Mr. Fauldsrose—
§ Mr. Winnickrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Before I take any further points of order, I shall answer the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who always makes reasonable points. Hon. Members will be very welcome to come to my Office one at a time or to put in their written points 303 of view, which I should be glad to receive. As for the hon. Gentleman telling people to write to me, from time to time, when I have received a flood of correspondence about the appalling noise during Prime Minister's Question Time, I have advised many people to write to their Members of Parliament.
§ Mr. WinnickFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that, whatever system is used, because of the number of hon. Members who wish to catch your eye at Prime Minister's Question Time, it will be very difficult for an hon. Member to be called. I hope that you will bear it in mind that there are advantages for Back Benchers in the open question as opposed to another type of question, and bear it in mind that we must table oral questions two weeks in advance. If we put down a question for the Prime Minister that is not relevant two weeks later, we are stuck with that question. There are advantages in the open question for those who are not Privy Councillors.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am much obliged to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. FauldsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has pointed out, you stated yesterday that you would convene a conference to discuss the "outrageous way" in which Prime Minister's Question Time was "being ruined". That was reported in c. 144 of the Official Report. That statement arose out of two points of order, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) on the abuse of their privileges by Privy Councillors. I am rising to ask—this is an extension of this matter—whether a related matter could be examined by the conference at the same time. Privy Councillors have the first call on catching your eye in every debate. Perhaps we ordinary Back Benchers must just learn to endure that.
When we have a series of debates, such as we had on the Falklands, and not just a single debate, is the practice fair of giving priority in every debate to Privy Councillors? The House had to endure during those debates a small bunch—it was a small bunch—of Privy Councillors who abused their privilege by speaking, some every time and most of them a number of times, in those debates, so effectively debarring a larger number of Back Benchers from being called.
Could the conference consider whether it is proper that a dreary parade of Privy Councillors should impose their predictable views on the House when there is a running series of debates on one issue? Some Privy Councillors seem so arrogantly self-important that they are incapable of a considerate self-denying ordinance when the opportunity presents itself.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that the hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion that is the feeling of a great number of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What I can do about it is another matter. I shall consider the matter. I think that it is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure rather than for me if we are to change conventions in the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall come to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I do not want to rush, because as a rule we do not rush deciding our conventions. That is why I did not want to take the decision on myself. I wanted to have the feeling of all the parties, which I shall do later today.
§ Mr. CunninghamMight there not be some difficulty if the so-called conference is made up primarily of Privy Councillors who would be dealing with the point that has been made. Could you throw light on this, Mr. Speaker? When the House makes use of a Speaker's Conference for other purposes, the result of that Speaker's Conference is normally put before the House and implemented by the House without going through any intermediary body such as a Select Committee. Indeed, the Speaker's Conference is seen as an alternative to putting a matter to a Select Committee. Is it not the intention of the conference that you are to begin today that it should make recommendations to the House for implementation without those matters being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure, which, of course, would have to be set up, because the present Select Committee on Procedure is not authorised to consider these matters?
§ Mr. SpeakerQuite right. It would be much wiser if the House awaited the informal discussions, whose title has been elevated into that of a conference, that I shall have later this evening with representatives of each of the parties. I shall come back to the House to see whether any action is proposed, but it will be a matter for the House itself.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify what you delivered by way of an obiter dictum in reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? When referring to the tiresome issue of noise in the House, you said that you advised correspondents who wrote to you in large numbers to write to their Member of Parliament? Could you say when you do so that you do not suggest by implication that the individual Member of Parliament is responsible? It is well known to the House that the source of noise is extremely limited and that very few are responsible for it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it right and proper for the House to know that the public is appalled by the noise in the House during Prime Minister's Question Time. The House might as well realise it. I have often told hon. Members that I am trying to get order. Therefore, it is to Members that the public ought to write. Every citizen of this country has a Member of Parliament of his own. I encourage people to tell their Members what they think of this matter and not to tell me. I know what I think about it.
§ Mr. Fauldsrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall hear the last point of order from the hon. Gentleman, because this is developing into a conversation.
§ Mr. FauldsI enjoy conversations, Mr. Speaker. Would the answer to the problem of noise in the House which so offends the public be very simply resolved if we were to decide as a House to get rid of these damned microphones?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is another question for the House.