Parliamentary Expressions (Hansard, 8 February 1984)

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week in the House I referred from a sedentary position to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as a supercilious git. No doubt in an effort to protect me, you cocked a Nelsonian deaf ear and Hansard did not print the remark, but you were undone by the squealers from The Guardian who, if they are not shopping people who are leaking secrets from the Foreign Office, are shopping then-most loyal readers.

In the debates that have ensued throughout the week about that expression, it has been automatically assumed that it was unparliamentary. I have looked up "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" which defines "git" as "a worthless person". More important I have looked up Eric Partridge's "Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Colloquialisms and Catch-phrases, Solecisms and Catachreses, Nicknames, Vulgarisms and Americanisms as have been naturalised". That defines "git" as "a useless fellow". In my respectful submission, if I had said, "You supercilious useless fellow," or, "You supercilious useless person," that would not have been deemed to be an unparliamentary expression.

There is a more important point, which is why I have raised the issue. Today, Mr. Speaker, you rightly ruled that a Minister was out of order in using the noun "hypocrisy". He levelled the charge of hyprocisy against my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). It seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable charge, and I am sure my hon. Friend could have answered it. The dictionary of slang also says about git that it is essentially a cockney phrase. I think, seriously, that we should be allowed to use plain words and plain English and, in particular, cockney phrases in the House. If nouns like "hyprocisy" are rightly ruled out of order according to Erskine May, it will denigrate and take away from hon. Members' speeches.

§ Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman was not here when I referred to this matter on Monday. I genuinely did not hear the expression and I suspect that many hon. Members did not hear it either. Normally in Hansard one sees in brackets the word "interruption" but that did not occur. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening me on what the word means. I did not know what it meant.

As I have said before, and as I am sure the House will agree, the House is in favour of robust debate, but we do not want to level accusations against one another, and certainly we do not want to impute dishonour to one another. I do not think that the word "git" is one that we should hear too often in the House.