Points of Order (Hansard, 5 May 1988)

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to raise a point of order before the Standing Order No. 20 application and you said to me, "In a minute." That is normal and it is what we have come to expect, but during business questions two Conservative Members rose on a point of order and you did not say to them, "In a minute." You heard the point of order.
You have come up with a rule under which, in effect, points of order will not be taken until business questions, applications under Standing Order No. 20 and statements have been dealt with. We have accepted that. We simply ask that the rule should be applied equally to both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not allege such things. I dealt with those points of order because they 1034 appeared to require my immediate intervention. If the hon. Gentleman had risen at that time, he would certainly have been heard in the same way. There is no change at all. In our debates, the points of order raised are dealt with immediately.

§ Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that 35 hon. Members wish to speak in the following debate, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

§ Mr. Fallon
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect further on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about the standard of language that is acceptable in early-day motions. Unless a ruling is made soon, the Table Office will have an increasingly difficult position forced on it by the growing tendency of hon. Members to table early-day motions that express strong and often controversial views and describe events or policies in highly tendentious language. Some weeks ago the word "mongrelisation" was used. Last night, the events in Gibraltar were described in a highly prejudicial fashion as "assassination". Will you reflect on the standard of language acceptable in early-day motions?

§ Mr. Speaker
If there is any doubt about the submission of an early-day motion, it is always brought to my attention. That motion was not brought to my attention, and therefore it was considered to be in order by the Table Office.

§ Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am genuinely confused. I listen carefully to your rulings, and—

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I took the point of order during business questions because I thought it arose out of something that had been alleged during business questions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if something happens in a debate which requires the immediate attention of the Chair, it is raised as a point of order. That is the normal procedure, and that is what I did. If it is a point of order that requires my judgment on a general matter something not requiring immediate attention, it is taken in its proper place, which is after the applications under Standing Order No. 20. There has been no change.

§ Mr. Cook
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you and I accept what you are saying. The problem is that I recall clearly a lengthy exchange on just these issues, fronted by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It seemed to me that at that time you were ruling in a different way.

§ Mr. Speaker
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. That was a matter of points of order arising out of Question Time. It was completely different from a point of order that calls for immediate attention. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman saying that any point of order that requires the immediate attention of the Chair should be deferred?

§ Mr. Cook
With respect, Mr. Speaker, that was the reason why I could not understand the ruling in the first place.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you help Northern Ireland Members? 1035 Important events are occurring in our Province, and we have only this Chamber in which to speak. Now we are not permitted to discuss anything that is happening in Northern Ireland. We do not have debates. Matters are announced by radio and television, and that is all we know about. Surely there must be more help. What is the use of our coming here when we cannot speak? When we did not come, it was said we should come, and when we do come, you do not let us speak.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman wishes to take part in today's debate, and no doubt he will raise Northern Ireland matters, but as I told the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), who made an application under Standing Order No. 20, I must have regard to the criteria laid down in the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)
Further to the point of order about early-day motion 1053, Mr. Speaker. You told the House that the Table Office had not referred this early-day motion to you, and it is just possible that you had not had an opportunity of looking at it until the matter was raised with you on the Floor of the House today. That being so, would you undertake to consider the wording of this motion, and let the House have your advice on whether, if the allegation which relates to Gibraltar had related to somewhere within the United Kingdom, you would have allowed a motion such as this to go on the Order Paper?
Will you also bear in mind that some of those who signed the early-day motion are members of the national executive of the Labour party? In the opinion of many of us, a motion of this kind is deeply prejudicial to the proceedings that will take place in Gibraltar during the coroner's inquest, and are a gross abuse of the right of hon. Members to table early-day motions.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it would be an intolerable imposition on the Speaker if he had to look at every early-day motion. I have to rely on the judgment of those in the Table Office. I have already ruled that this early-day motion was considered to be in order or it would have been brought to my attention and I would have had to adjudicate upon it.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be an irksome duty if you had to read the more than 1,000 early-day motions right through to the bitter end. You would, for instance, recently have been reading about the success of Hamilton Academicals, Wigan rugby football club, Bristol rugby club, which I believe lost, Sunderland and Lincoln, which, for some obscure reason, has been supported by the SDP. About the only sporting success that has not been delineated in an early-day motion is Steve Davis's success at the Crucible last week—and there must be a reason for that.
If you had to look at all the motions, you would not have time to notice in the House points of order that arise on spec and cause you trouble and worry. To conclude that little episode, I remind you that I told you about two years ago that it would be difficult to sustain the process for long, and today, you had to break that ruling. In the case of further interruptions by my hon. Friends—it probably will not be me—will you allow them the same privilege?

§ Mr. Speaker
If a matter requiring my attention arises during a debate or during Question Time, I would hear it. That is the doctrine of first opportunity, well enshrined in "Erskine May".

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may inadvertently have said something that you may wish to correct in a statement tomorrow. If I understand what you have said today, you have propagated a new doctrine—that, although Mr. Speaker is not inerrant or incapable of error, the Table Office is inerrant and incapable of error and that anything that is accepted by the Table Office cannot subsequently be challenged with Mr. Speaker. That must, with the greatest respect, be wrong, Mr. Speaker. It must be open to every hon. Member to challenge ad hoc decisions by Clerks in the Table Office and for you to apply your own judgment to matters that have not been referred to you. I do not believe that you would wish to live with a situation where, if something out of order has inadvertently been accepted by the Table Office, you are thereby debarred from subsequently ruling that it ought not to have been accepted.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that I did not say what the horn. Gentleman has suggested. Of course, if something is plainly out of order, then it is correct that it should be challenged. I am saying that early-day motions—there are thousands of them—are screened by the Table Office. If there is any doubt about them, they are brought to my attention. It happens with very few, but plainly if any of them subsequently turned out: to be out of order, it would certainly be in order for hon. Members to challenge them and bring them to my attention.

§ Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already dealt with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I will hear the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder).

§ Mr. Kilfedder
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions, I raised a point of order because I was provoked by what I had heard. I apologise to you because I believe that your ruling was absolutely right, and I should have waited until after business questions. I know that now and I wish to apologise to you for any difficulties that I may have caused you.

§ Mr. Speaker
On that happy note, may we finish?

§ Mr. Tony Banks
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who constantly seeks to take part in our debates.

§ Mr. Banks
I do not get much of a chance.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will have to bear that in mind, but a large number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate today. It is a rare opportunity to debate agriculture, and I think we should proceed.