Points of Order (Hansard, 14 July 1987)

§ Mr. Speaker
I have a brief statement to make. Following the question put last Thursday by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and answered by the Prime Minister, an exchange took place which gave rise to points of order. I made reference to the supplementary question itself, which was disorderly in substantially inviting the Prime Minister to meet the Leader of the Opposition to discuss a matter that went beyond the Government's responsibility.
I undertook to reflect on the appropriate time for taking points of order, and in particular on whether my ruling of 12 February last on this subject needed amendment. Since then I have held some discussions and intend to hold others. At present, I am not minded to make any change and will make no final decision until after my consultations have been completed. In the meantime, I shall continue to deal with points of order in accordance with my ruling of 12 February.

§ Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising directly from your statement. Will you clarify two things for me? Although I appreciate the difficulty of determining in the heat of argument what is in and out of order, is it not the case that, as happened this afternoon during Question Time, you sometimes rule a question out of order immediately it has been asked? However, on Thursday, after I had asked my supplementary question, you did not rule it out of order and, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend had no alternative but to give a very full answer.
Secondly, would it have been in order if I had confined my supplementary question on Thursday to asking my right hon. Friend whether she would discuss with the Leader of the Opposition the possible referral to the Procedure Committee—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not prepared to go back over that. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who kindly wrote to me, that I did not appreciate the thrust of his question while he was asking it. Perhaps I should have done.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you were elected, you said that you would be the protector of Back Benchers. May I put it to you that a question of ministerial behaviour is involved when those, however exalted, who claim that they have given answers many times and are asked for references to those answers, cannot point in Hansard or anywhere else to where those answers appear? Is this not a matter of parliamentary behaviour and is it not against the traditions of the House for people to claim to have given answers when they have done nothing of the sort'?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid that I am in the dark about that. I do not know to which answer the hon. Gentleman is referring.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I think that the hon. Gentleman should come to see me, and I will try to deal with it.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker. I presume that it is in order to make a comment or to put a question to you—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will take Mr. Speaker's ruling. My 976 comment is that your present practice allows Ministers to get away with no questioning of their conduct until an hour, an hour and a half or two hours later. Some of us cannot hang about that long—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Faulds—or we may indeed have to hang around a long time.

§ Mr. Faulds
Some of us, Sir, take our responsibilities extremely seriously and have a whole range of other things to do. My question is simple: would you care to widen your discussions to invite me, the hon. Member for Warley, East, to give you my advice on this matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am happy to receive advice from any hon. Member, especially the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). But I think that the whole House agrees that attendance in the Chamber should take precedence over all other matters.

§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take Mr. Neil Hamilton's point of order.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I wonder whether you agree that, since the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) was not ruled out of order before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rose to reply last Thursday, she was perfectly in order to reply. In view of the fact that the memory of a former Member and member of the Conservative party was so comprehensively besmirched by a member of the Opposition, it was—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that we should go back over what occurred last Thursday.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Is it in order for the setting up of departmental Select Committees to be delayed because of the problems encountered by the SDP-Liberal alliance in resolving its problems outside this place—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a question not only of the time when points of order are put to you but of the nature of further abuses in the House. You will know that many of us on both sides of the House can be deeply offended by remarks made by hon. Members in the House under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. If you are prepared to rule on the timing of points of order, will you please make a ruling, for the guidance of all hon. Members, that the House enjoys freedom of expression but that, if that freedom is persistently abused by the Opposition, we shall be in grave danger of losing it? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a House in which many uncomfortable things are said. If they are in order, that is within the conventions of the House. All the conventions of the House exist for a good reason and the conventions about maiden speeches also exist for a good reason. The chair can enforce the rules but not the conventions.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take Mr. Banks' point of order.

§ Mr. Banks
We all appreciate the problems of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in his attempt to make a theatrical, or indeed political, comeback. The main problem with regard to your statement which I hope you will consider, Mr. Speaker, is that, when an issue is raised on which a point of order subsequently arises, one loses the context because of the delay. On one occasion, when I was grossly offended by a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, you would not allow me to raise a point of order at the time, but you subsequently allowed a point of order which was raised after Questions to appear in the Official Report at the point at which the Secretary of State had made the offensive remark. Perhaps, Sir, you might like to consider extending that practice, which might get us round our present problem.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. All this is what I think the whole House seeks to avoid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' As to points of order arising out of past events I have already said that I shall consider the matter further. I do not think that there is any profit in going on with it today.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take Mr. Walker.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully draw your attention to question No. 10 on the Order Paper. If you read that question, you will see that it deals with the ordering of a second Trident submarine. When you read the Hansard report of the questioning, including the question put from the Opposition Front Bench, you will see that it has nothing whatever to do with Trident but that it is to do with frigates and the equipment on them. When one gets into technical areas, it is difficult for those who do not understand technicalities to remain within order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important matter, which is that, so often, points of order are raised by those who, unfortunately, were not called at Question Time. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not called on question No. 10 today and his point of order illustrates what occurs if we take points of order arising immediately after Question Time. I made a careful analysis before I made my statement of 12 February. I found that virtually all points of order were raised by those who, unfortunately, had not been called during Question Time; they were not genuine points of order at all.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I first apologise to you for keeping you in the dark and, secondly, raise a matter that affects the House of Commons? The system of open questions has grown up. Frankly, with open questions, it is understandable why a Minister will not give references. I was lucky enough to have a closed question—a specific question. I asked—courteously, I thought—for references. The real answer to the question was, "Because I did not have the foggiest notion whether the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) would spill the beans on me." That is the truthful answer to the question that I 978 asked the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, with substantial questions, should not references be given to those hon. Members who ask specific questions? What on earth could have caused the Prime Minister to have said that she might not be Prime Minister by 6 o'clock? That is a matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can have no responsibility for the answers that are given to questions.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, M r. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will take Mr. Holt.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that, last week, in response to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), you ruled that if male Members appeared in the House without a jacket or tie you would not call them. If your rulings are to be flouted so quickly when you call hon. Members in that way, how can we have standards in the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman either was not here or does not read Hansard. I certainly did not say what he has put into my mouth. I said that I never give reasons why I call or do not call hon. Members in the Chamber.

§ Mr. James Marshall (Leicester, South)
On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to investigate whether the Prime Minister intentionally or unintentionally misled the House when—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has just been re-elected to the House, and he will know that no hon. Member intentionally misleads the House of Commons. In any case, answers to questions are not matters for me. I cannot help.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give the House some guidance on a matter that gave rise to most of this exchange but has now become important in the context of what you said? A moment ago, you referred to the conventions of the House which always have value. You know better than anyone that one of the great conventions of the House is that maiden speakers should be allowed to speak uninterrupted, but on the proviso that their speeches are uncontroversial or non-provocative or do not contain the sort of substance that would normally be subject to challenge from the other side, by way of interventions or, perhaps, points of order.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the recent controversial maiden speech in the House my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) sought to intervene precisely because the material in that maiden speech was not only controversial but offensive. The Chair did not allow my hon. Friend to make his intervention on a point of order.
If you, Mr. Speaker, allow maiden speeches to continue to be made which contain offensive or derisory material, but which cannot be challenged, it puts the House and yourself in a difficult position. It puts all hon. Members— particularly Conservative Members, because the offences have come only from the Opposition—in a difficult poisition, and gives rise to many of the difficulties that have arisen.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, give careful consideration to the basis upon which maiden speeches are made in the House, to their content and to the ability of other hon. Members to seek to challenge them while the speech is being made?

§ Mr. Speaker
I read in Hansard what occurred on that day and what Mr. Deputy Speaker said. Nothing out of order occurred. Mr. Deputy Speaker did not prevent the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) from intervening. It is true that the convention of making non-controversial maiden speeches has a good basis, but if they are controversial they stand to be challenged, and that is exactly what happened. I am certainly not prepared to ask hon. Members to submit their maiden speeches to me first.