§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House will have heard the unsatisfactory exchanges between yourself and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), when the hon. Gentleman clearly and deliberately refused to abide by the rules of the House and make an apology in a form agreed with you, as the rules lay down, for his disgraceful action yesterday evening.
I think that the House understands that, confronted with such extraordinary defiance, it is right that you, Mr. Speaker, should have had a moment or two to reflect upon what action you could take to protect the dignity and authority of the Chair and of the House as a whole, but equally the House is now entitled to know what remedies lie in your hands and in ours, and how soon they will be proceeded with.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall take the point of order to be raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller).
Mr. Eric S. Heifer Liverpool, Walton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just consulted the Clerks of the House and understand that the attitude that you have taken is based on "Erskine May", which says that you have to give leave. you have just given leave to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) to present a ten-minute Bill. Giving leave does not mean that you have to agree with what she said or what is in the Bill. As far as I can see, we have now strayed beyond what is acceptable and understandable in the House of Commons.
I always understood, contrary to what some new Members might think, that personal statements were personal statements, not statements agreed with anybody else. If the statement was not acceptable, one had to decide afterwards whether it was acceptable. But it is a personal statement. In the House, are we now reaching the stage where personal statements are no longer acceptable? [Interruption.] Let me say to hon. Members who have just come in that some of us believe in the House of Commons and its procedures. The reason we do so is that—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The point of order is to me.
Mr. HellerThe reason is that we passionately believe in parliamentary democracy, which has been fought for over the years. I am asking how the interpretation of the paragraph in "Erskine May" means that a statement has to be agreed—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is outside the House, and he is speaking.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
Mr. HeiferI ask how a statement has to be agreed with Mr. Speaker before an hon. Member can make it, having accepted that he made a mistake in the House.
That is my point. I want an explanation. Perhaps I have been living in a fool's paradise—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is making his point of order to me, not to Members on the Government Benches.
Mr. HeiferIf one takes the example of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who lifted up the Mace and wielded it above his head, almost hitting hon. Members, I always believed that his personal statement was made by him alone and was not necessarily agreed with anyone else. Where does it say that Mr. Speaker must agree with a personal statement?
§ Mr. SpeakerI will deal with that matter at once. It has long been a tradition in the House, and certainly it was the case in the episode that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, that personal statements are also agreed with Mr. Speaker. It is Mr. Speaker who gives leave for a right hon. or hon. Member to make such a statement. I hoped very much that a personal statement would be made this afternoon, in the terms that had been given to me and that I had agreed. I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) felt unable to do that.
§ Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over the years, this House has been accustomed to recognising that things may be said or done in the heat of the moment that are regretted afterwards. This House has always been extremely tolerant in accepting apologies for things that happen in the heat of the moment. On this occasion, the Mace, which is the symbol of the dignity of the House, was thrown to the floor of the House and, I understand, severely damaged.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) had expressed regret for his action, I am sure the House would have accepted his apology. It is clear from what we have heard this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to express his regrets; he spoke in terms of "Grovel, grovel, grovel." That is not acceptable to the House.
Some of us view with increasing anxiety the way in which some hon. Members treat the House and its traditions with increasing contempt. The time has come to put a stop to it. [HoN. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] We regard a five-day suspension on full pay as inadequate. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the matter further and to inquire whether it is possible to ask for compensation in respect of any damage that may have been done to the Mace.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not believe that we can profitably pursue this matter by points of order. I am bound by the penalties that are described in "Erskine May". I call the Leader of the House.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)This is a very serious matter, made worse by the events in the Chamber that we have just witnessed. I will arrange for urgent discussions to take place between the usual channels with a view to tabling a Government motion later today.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that any further points of order can arise from the remarks of the Leader of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Maxwell-Hyslop.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)It is important that an incorrect statement of the practice of the House 686 should not be allowed to go unchallenged and therefore become the record. The reason why Mr. Speaker is required to give his agreement before a personal statement may be made is that the statement is neither debatable nor subject to interruption. That is why your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have always enforced the rule of no departure from that statement. For instance, in the case of the late right hon. John Stonehouse, when he three times endeavoured to depart from the agreed personal statement, each time Mr. Speaker Lloyd recalled him very firmly to the statement that he, as Mr. Speaker, had approved. It is important that the record in this matter be stated correctly.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman was entirely correct in what he said. He said in terms of explanation what I said as a matter of fact.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) is my parliamentary neighbour. I think that the House should understand that here is an hon. Member who has suffered an industrial injury such as most of us have been spared.
My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is succinct. I understood, having made a personal statement, that such a statement was a matter between the hon. Member concerned and Mr. Speaker. It would have been very much better if you had dealt with the situation than that my hon. Friend should be triggered off by noise. Some of us would think interruptions very vulgar and insensitive in such difficult circumstances. In all the consideration, could it be made clear that, when a personal statement is made, the whole House is silent, leaves this difficult matter to the Speaker of the House of Commons and does not start interrupting?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)They were hounding him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) had made his statement in the form that he agreed with me, it would have been heard in silence. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) that the House is always generous in those circumstances.
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the Mace is not the property of the House, but the property of Her Majesty? Is it possible for you to ascertain and tell the House how much damage was done to that extraordinarily valuable piece of property?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is entirely correct, and that assessment is being made.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the motion that the Government are proposing to put down will be debatable, and that it will be a three-hour debate? Can you also confirm that the time of the tabling of the motion will be displayed throughout the House on the annunciators, so that the Government do not try to slip it through the back door without hon. Members knowing?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that, in view of the business that is now before the House, I can deal with the matter finally by saying that, while of course I have not seen the motion that is to be put down, I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it will certainly be debatable. I shall ensure as far as possible that the timing is well known to every hon. Member in the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that I can take any more points of order. We are to have a debate tomorrow.