§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on behalf of myself and a number of my hon. Friends about what action Back Benchers can take when Ministers of the Crown lie to the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a word that I can accept in the House. He must withdraw it.
§ Mr. DobsonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word and rephrase his remarks.
§ Mr. DobsonCould we seek your advice, Mr. Speaker?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw the word "lie". Could we seek your advice about what action Back Benchers can take when Ministers apparently deliberately mislead the House? Is it more against our rules to call someone a liar than for them to lie in the first place?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This matter is frequently put to me. I used to have an interest in parliamentary tactics. I still have, but the hon. Gentleman will have to find his own methods.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that Question Time is central to the whole system of legislative control of the Executive? Is it not nonsense if the House of Commons condemns using the word "liar" but on the other hand condones the act of lying by Ministers who are supposed to be answering to the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is too experienced to try that one on the House. He knows perfectly well that for good order in this place we must not attribute dishonourable motives to each other in the Chamber.
§ Mr. WilliamsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can accept that entirely. It is utterly wrong to attribute dishonourable conduct to a Member who has not behaved dishonourably. The point that we now have to 762 face, which the rules do not provide for and on which we need your guidance if the situation is not to become worse, is what happens when a Member does behave dishonourably to this House. There seems to be no rule to cover that and we need your guidance for the protection of the House and of Back Benchers.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is a perennial question. Ever since I became a Member of the House I have heard charges of this kind. Our debates must be discussed in good order and I shall insist upon that.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a Minister was last found guilty of misleading the House, it was a resignation issue. I seek your guidance. If a Minister is found guilty of deceiving the House, whatever language he uses, should not those who carry the title of right hon. or hon. Member do the honourable thing and resign?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What arrangements can be made to see to it that the Prime Minister and other Ministers involved in this deception take a polygraph test, especially as they thought that was a wise thing to do to those at GCHQ?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We had better move on to the Prime Minister's statement.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt wastes time.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt is not a waste of time, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you ruled that to say that a Minister was deliberately misleading the House was an unacceptable term. I notice today that you did not rule when a similar statement was made. Some of us felt that yesterday's ruling was very fierce, but we accepted it. Do we take it from today's reply that some flexibility has entered into your views?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo flexibility at all. If the hon. Gentleman will read the record, he will see the adverb "apparently" before "misleading the House". That is what made the difference.