§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish not to raise any particular or specific incidents but to ask for your general 736 guidance. If a Minister replies to a question—I am not identifying a particular question—by saying that it could not be answered because it would be available only at disproportionate cost, and it could be proved that the answer was not available only at a disproportionate cost and therefore the Minister had set out to misrepresent the position, would that constitute contempt?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman does not specify any particular case, and the phrase has been used in ministerial answers ever since I have been here, and no doubt for many years before.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There is a heavy day in front of us, and to start the day with points of order that have no basis is a waste of time.
§ Later—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it fair to use precedent, in so far as Ministers may historically have used the reply of disproportionate cost, as a justification for that reply? Surely it is for you, as Mr. Speaker, to put the justification to the House if you are asked to do so.
§ Mr. SpeakerI say to the hon. Member—and I am sure that the whole House will agree—that this is a hypothetical matter.