§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is a sartorial one, which I hope you will feel well qualified to judge. I make no complaint this afternoon of the attire of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not'?"] Because I will refer the House and yourself Mr. Speaker, to the rules and conventions which appertain in the House. The other day, during this heatwave, I read that some judges had decided to remove their wigs in court. If you were to remove your wig, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we could go on sitting; there is no rule about it, but I would feel that a convention had been broken.
Your deputies, Sir, wear an almost unsuitable rig for a hot day but this place is air-conditioned. They wear a tailcoat or a cutaway—and they do bring dignity to the Chamber, as of course do you, Mr. Speaker.
We have no rules or conventions about dress but I once asked your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, whether he could see an hon. Member who was not wearing a tie and he said that he had some difficulty in doing so. This afternoon I thought you had some difficulty in seeing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
§ Mr. SpeakerI had no difficulty in seeing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As to dress— —
§ Mr. Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am dealing with the question of dress, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). As the Chamber is air-conditioned, and as it is a long-standing convention that we treat the House with respect, I think that, in tune with what goes on outside this place these days at dinner parties and so on, Members should come into the Chamber wearing a tie. I would not object if Members came in shirtsleeves in this hot weather, but I think that ties should always be worn.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before takes place, may I ask whether it has ever happened in your experience that a succession of senior Whips, junior Ministers and now the Secretary of State for Defence have signed the ballot for private Members' motions? Can we take that, if the Secretary of State wins, his motion will be one of total confidence in the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to F111s, the Falklands and Westland?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he is aware that it is perfectly in order for Ministers to sign a ballot in the name of someone else. That has always been the case.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order on the application under Standing Order No. 10 and you rightly said that all points of view would no doubt be heard, as they were today, on the South African issue. However, this is an honourable House and some hon. Members have interests which have led to their making 846 free trips and so on. I have been to the Library and checked and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has not concealed the fact that he went to South Africa as a guest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) also went, partly sponsored by South African Airways. I am not talking about an ordinary Question Time, but when there is an important statement such as we have had today, surely it is not too much to ask that hon. Members should declare clearly that they have gone on such free trips so that the House will accordingly be able to assess how far one can accept what they say when they put forward their point of view, always in favour of the South African regime.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman well knows the conventions and rules that hon. Members should declare such trips in the Register of Interests. It has never been a rule here that they declare an interest when asking questions or supplementary questions.
§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention a significant abuse of the House by hon. Members representing the Liberal party. I regret that so few of them are in their places. There is only the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As reported in yesterday's Hansard at column 368, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had asked a written question that has been answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, which relates specifically to the disappearance of a handgun from Gillingham police station in my constituency.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I do not often rise on points of order—I am no whiner—but this is now the third occasion on which members of the Liberal party have asked questions which relate specifically to my constituency.
On 11 June 1986, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked a question which was generally accepted locally as relating specifically to a piece of land in my constituency — the Great Lines in Gillingham and that appeared at column 187.
On 27 November 1985, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in an oral supplementary question, asked a question relating to Chatham dockyard, even though I was in the Chamber at the time.
That seems to me to be an abuse of the House. Those hon. Gentlemen have obviously been set up by their colleagues in my constituency to ask those questions. If that is not an abuse of the House, it is at the very least a discourtesy and against the conventions of the House, and I shall have only one recourse and that is to become very interested in the affairs of Montgomery, Orkney and Shetland and Yeovil.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. It has long been a convention that we do not take up individual cases in constituencies of other hon. Members. It is perfectly in order to ask a question of general interest in a constituency, but we should stick to the convention of the House that we do not interfere in each other's constituencies, because that would lead to chaos.
§ Mr. Simon HughesMay I deal with the two points of order that have been raised? [HON. MEMBERS: "What do you mean, deal with?"]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I want to hear this.
§ Mr. HughesI hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) will be aware that the questions asked by my colleagues, who are not here to answer, were asked in their capacity as spokesmen for the party [Interruption.] More specifically, a question about handguns is perfectly appropriate for a spokesman on home affairs of any party to raise, no matter where it arises. I hope that the House will accept that that too is a convention which has always been accepted. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your modern and sympathetic ruling earlier on dress. When I stood in for my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) at short notice, out of courtesy to the House, I borrowed a tie from a member of my Whips Office staff so that I could be properly dressed.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe fact that a member of a minority party happens to be a spokesman has no relation to our conventions in the House which, as a general principle, should be observed by everybody.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned me in his point of order a moment or two ago. Will you confirm that the procedure of the House is that hon. Members do not have to declare any form of interest at Question Time, but should declare an interest if they participate in a debate? Is there any difference between going to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Poland or Czechoslovakia and going to the Republic of South Africa, whether as a guest of the Council of Churches or the Government of the Republic of South Africa? Is there any reason why I should have declared that in my supplementary question earlier today?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already answered that. It is not necessary for hon. Members to declare an interest when asking supplementary questions.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Prime Minister's statement it will be within your recollection, and it will be recorded in the Official Report, that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rose, like a bullet from a gun, to deny that he had supported the sale of arms to South Africa, whereupon the Prime Minister gave chapter and verse supporting what was common knowledge, that he had favoured the selling of arms to South Africa since 1968, you said that you would call him at the end of the statement, but you did not do so? Would you be willing to tell us why you did not do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerI thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was rising because he wished to be called at the end of the Prime Minister's statement. In the event, he did not do so.
§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you about business late at night? It says on the Order Paper at page 4096 that at ten o'clock a motion will be moved stating:
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.Those of us who have grave reservations about guillotining a constitutional Bill with such severe and far-reaching implications as this thought that it was an excellent idea to have an open-ended debate later tonight on whether the guillotine should or should not be imposed and the timetable introduced. But page 4101 of the Order Paper says:Mr. Speaker will put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the above Motion not more than Three hours after their commencement, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46.Am I right— I hope that I am not—in assuming that there is a chance that you may possibly, when three hours have elapsed after the commencement of discussion on the time-table motion tonight, put the question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I should make it plain to the House that the ten o'clock business motion does not affect the length of proceedings on the allocation of time order. It enables the debate on that motion to be proceeded with after ten o'clock. I have a separate duty under Standing Order No. 46 to put any Question necessary to dispose of such proceedings not more than three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. That interpretation of the Standing Orders is well precedented.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have an important debate. It will take up valuable time.
§ Mr. MarlowWe were discussing earlier on points of order the Register of Members' Interests. We all know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) went to South Africa to posture but we did not know that he went to take photographs for The Sun. I am not saying that this is the case, but if he received any money from The Sun for taking those photographs, would it be necessary for him to declare that?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the debate that we are due to have.