§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt relates to another matter concerning parliamentary questions and the rights of Members. According to Erskine May—and perhaps I can quote precisely what is said——
§ Mr. SpeakerPerhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to tell me the page so that I can look it up.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt is page 334:
The Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions. … The Speaker's responsibility in regard to questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House.It is those rules which I wish to refer to in my second point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerI must stop the hon. Gentleman there, because that is the very matter that I have already dealt with. I cannot say any more to him or to the House. I am bound by the rules of the House. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to change the rules, he has a very good opportunity. A Procedure Committee has now been set up. If he raises the matter with it and if it makes a recommendation, it will be for the House to decide.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)On a point of order, Sir, I understand the extreme delicacy of this matter. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is seeking to be helpful, I think.
§ Mr. FauldsI understand the extreme delicacy of this matter as it affects you, Mr. Speaker, and your office. But, I must make the point, although I can understand that there are limitations within which you can respond to the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), there is a grave danger that the public may interpret your interventions in these issues as protecting the Prime Minister——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is an accusation totally unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that total impartiality is demanded of the Chair and that I am, in all my rulings and judgments on these matters, totally impartial. I say again to him—and he need say nothing further—that I am bound by the rules of the House and I have no authority to change them.
§ Mr. FauldsI accept that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There is nothing more to be said on the matter.
§ Mr. FauldsYou are misinterpreting me, Sir——
§ Mr. SpeakerI must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
§ Mr. FauldsI am making no reflection on the Chair.
§ Mr. Peter Rost (Erewash)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, you will recall, you rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) halfway through a question to the Prime Minister when he was apparently seeking the opinion or views of the Prime Minister on a matter. As somebody who has on a number of occasions in the past sought the views of the Prime Minister on any number of issues for which he or she may not have had direct responsibility, I wonder whether I could have your guidance. I am thinking of the views of the Prime Minister on the matter of a regime in a foreign country, or something like that. Perhaps we could have your guidance on whether we are now establishing a new ruling as to what is or is not in order when it comes to seeking the views and opinions of the Prime Minister on any matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am glad to have an opportunity to answer the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House will agree that the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on matters for which she has responsibility. She can have no responsibility for the views of any other hon. Member.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was that not the case until the Leader of the Opposition—not the present one— became a paid office holder? Surely the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, has the ability to answer questions——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister cannot be put in the position of seeking to discover what is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, or of any other hon. Member.