Points of Order (Hansard, 4 December 1986)

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to apologise for raising this matter, but I did not hear your answer to my earlier point of order. We are not under the same pressure now, however. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make a statement on Friday. He could not do that and he wrote a letter to you. It appears that it was a letter to you, because at the end of it he asked for your permission to circulate it elsewhere. As the Leader of the Opposition is writing to you and is in correspondence with you, Mr. Speaker, is it proper to ask you questions about that correspondence?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have dealt with this, and I did so the other day as well. There is no mystery about this matter. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me and I replied to him by telephone. I spoke to him on the telephone to say that there was no reason why he should not issue in the form of a press release the letter which he had written to me. No hon. Member should send to the press letters that he has written to Mr. Speaker any more than Mr. Speaker would send the press copies of his replies. Every hon. Member has the right to issue a press statement if he so wishes, and most hon. Members do.

§ Mr. Marlow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
What can arise on it?

§ Mr. Marlow
My further point of order concerns telecommunications from the House, Mr. Speaker. Can you say what phone calls there have been from the House to Australia, when they ceased—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot do that. That is an entirely different matter and not one for which I have responsibility.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to something that was said by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and reported in Hansard on 28 November, when he made an unpleasant comment about Miss Helene Hayman, who is an ex-Member. She has written to the hon. Gentleman asking him to apologise. He made a wounding statement and got the name of the person concerned wrong as well. The hon. Gentleman is known for his rather aggressive stand in this place. He has referred to me—this has been reported in Hansard—as a worm and I have referred to him—it is reported—as a witless moron. There is no love lost between us. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that an ex-Member of this place is entitled to an apology from the hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to withdraw.

§ Mr. Marlow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are aware of this situation. It is correct that I used the wrong name, and I apologise to the lady in question for using the wrong name. I think that you are aware that I have apologised for that, Mr. Speaker. My remark was based on wrong information. When Opposition Members make accusations against others without foundation, I wish that they too would have the guts and the grace to apologise to the House.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that many Back Benchers were pleased at the introduction of the ten minute rule. It enables more hon. Members to speak. But will you examine the length of debating time taken by Members on the Front Benches? Recently, we had a three-hour debate, over two hours of which were taken up by speakers from the Front Bench. It left little or no time for Back-Bench Members.

§ Mr. Speaker
The whole House is concerned about this matter. We proceed here by voluntary disciplines. I have no authority to limit the length of speeches made by Members on the Front Bench. It is a matter of sensitivity in a three-hour debate. We should all tune our speeches to the number of other hon. Members who may wish to speak. I have no control over it at the moment.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You helped the House a week or so ago on the subject of early-day motions. You said that, if the Procedure Committee were to examine the matter, you would be pleased to give evidence. Since then, the motions appearing on the Order Paper that have been referred to today make insinuations against an hon. Member. It is intolerable that this should take place. It should be within your powers to state that motions of that kind, if they appear on the Order Paper, should be debated forthwith, so that hon. Members who have put these motions on the Order Paper can tell the House what they have in mind.

§ Mr. Speaker
The only way in which it is possible to criticise an hon. Member is by way of motion. I am not certain that I can do anything about that at this time. It is true that the Procedure Committee is looking into this matter. No doubt it will bring forward its report, which will be considered by the House. If the rules are then changed, of course I shall apply them.