Points of Order (Hansard, 27 November 1986)

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. I wish to ask you three questions. Following the suggestions relating to the possible misuse of the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in which, under the cloak of privilege afforded to the tabling of early-day motions, he has made libellous allegations against all sorts of innocent citizens, including Lord Rothschild, who I think is a former Socialist, will you ask the Procedure Committee to reconsider urgently the rules for the tabling of early-day motions? Will you be making a submission strongly disapproving of the hon. Gentleman's activities and recommending an end to this misuse? Will you urge the Procedure Committee to report its views to the House as soon as possible so that this misuse is ended at the earliest opportunity?

§ Mr. Speaker
We had a long run on this issue this afternoon when I was asked about the Procedure Committee. I have already said to the House that, if the Procedure Committee asks me to give evidence to it, I shall be delighted to do so. As the House well knows, the Procedure Committee is minded to raise this matter and discuss it, and I shall be willing to give it my views.

§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Fulham)
On a point of order, of which I have given you prior notice, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for undertaking to consider the points raised on the Channel Tunnel Bill, which will be considered in Standing Committee next week. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper for a Bill to be committed to Standing Committee after it has had a Select Committee hearing and before that Select Committee's report has been submitted to and considered by the House. Surely there is a problem, in that hon. Members have no opportunity to consider the detailed issues covered by the Select Committee's Special Report and possibly to suggest amendments in Standing Committee. The present timetable does not allow that. Is that proper?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of his point of order, because I have been able to look into it. The Channel Tunnel Bill was reported by the Select Committee on Tuesday 18 November. Under the Order of the House of 4 November, it thereupon stood recommitted to a Standing Committee without any further proceedings of the House. How the Standing Committee now proceeds is, of course, not a matter for me, but I understand that the Special Report of the Select Committee will be published tomorrow. I listened carefully to the questions put to the Leader of the House on that matter and to his replies.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I warn the House that there is an important debate ahead of us and points of order are bound to take time out of it.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) raised a point of order in which he criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Will you confirm that it is a rule of the 462 House that, when criticism is to be made of a named Member, that Member should be given notice of it? Was notice given in this case?

§ Mr. Speaker
A number of references have been made this afternoon to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It is true that if unfavourable references are to be made to hon. Members that must be done by motion.

§ Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Increasing numbers of constituents are writing to hon. Members on both sides of the House asking whether they can bring parties through the House. That is to be encouraged. This morning, there was chaos at the Norman Porch. I seek your help, Sir, to ascertain whether the check-in can be speeded up so that our constituents do not have to wait outside for at least an hour, and sometimes longer, to get through the checkpoint. I cast no aspersions on any member of staff. Everyone is doing his best to accommodate Members' constituents.

§ Mr. Speaker
I share the hon. Member's view that it is a very good thing that there is such an interest in this place. I shall certainly look into that matter.

§ Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to my question on Tuesday on severe weather payments. I have heard that the Government have switched the weather stations which will provide the basis of the data used in determining severe weather payments. Is it likely that the Government will tell the House exactly what they are doing?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me, but the point has been made.

§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and guidance. Is it not a tradition and courtesy of the House that, apart from the practice of giving notice when naming an hon. Member, an hon. Member who intends attacking another hon. Member's borough council should give notice of that intent to the hon. Member concerned? You will be aware, Sir, that at least half a dozen Conservative Members have attacked the London borough of Brent at certain times, including today, without informing me. I sought the help of the Leader of the House who, with his usual courtesy, suggested that I needed no such help. Is it not a courtesy that an hon. Member who intends attacking my borough should inform me of that intention?

§ Mr. Speaker
The tradition of the House is that, if any hon. Member is to be mentioned, notice is, by convention, given to him. I know of no convention whereby, if an hon. Member's borough council is to be attacked, that practice would apply.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to the point of order about motions on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. When you meet the Procedure Committee and give evidence, if you are asked, will you bear in mind that all the motions now on the Order Paper have been thoroughly vetted by the Table Office and—because you are the head—by you? Is it not the case that any motion on the Order Paper is in order and that, as yet, no motion has been introduced which is an abuse of the Order Paper? Will you bear in mind also that any changes in that procedure would be unwelcome? As you might confirm, the early-day motions have been tabled principally 463 because we have not been able to obtain the right information from a Prime Minister who has been dodging the column at the Dispatch Box in answer to questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Member's point, but he has asked me a question that I can answer. Anything now on the Order Paper has been screened by the Table Office and is in order. As I pointed out yesterday, there is a distinction between abuse of the Order Paper and misuse of the Order Paper, which is what concerns the House.

§ Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)
I apologise for speaking further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be in order for you to say that you deprecate the type of personal attacks that have been made on me, and the many others that have been discussed today? From now on, you could prevent hon. Members from making such personal attacks and starting them by means of bogus points of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is a very heavy day ahead of us. May I say, as a final word on this matter, that I hope that we shall stick to the conventions of the House and to the decent standards of the House, which seem to be very much in jeopardy as a result of today's exchanges.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Not even briefly.