§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that between 1 October 1988 and 1 April this year no restrictions have been placed on the number of research assistants or secretaries that Members of Parliament may employ and that any hon. Member who leads the general public to believe otherwise is doing the House a disservice?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe new arrangements covering the allocation of passes to Members' staff were debated a few weeks ago in the House.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWill you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that what I said was true?
§ Mr. SpeakerI suppose that is right.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw the attention of the House—and in particular of you, Mr. Speaker—to the incident yesterday which led to the naming and eventual suspension of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). As you know, my hon. Friend tried to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, at 3.30 pm. You said that points of order could be taken only immediately after Question Time and, because you had already called a private notice question, you could call my hon. Friend only after that.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that during Scottish questions on 21 December my hon. Friend raised a point of order and you called him. When your action was queried by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), you ruled that any matter that needed immediate action should be raised with you there and then. I can assure you that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan wished to raise yesterday needed immediate attention—it related to the abuse of the procedure of the House by the Leader of the Opposition. Why did your ruling change between 21 December and 14 March?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Lady was correct in what she said about the point of order which was raised at Scottish Questions. However, when her hon. Friend the Member for Govan rose yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition had not begun to ask his private notice question. When the private notice question began he had not said anything.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I raised this matter yesterday, you asked me to consult "Erskine May" to discover why the Leader of the Opposition could raise a private notice question, and why the 12 o'clock rule did not apply in this case. I have now done so, and "Erskine May" contains no provision exempting the Leader of the Opposition from the 12 noon rule. Page 346 of "Erskine May" states:
Questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance, or to the arrangement of business, may be taken after half-past three or at eleven o'clock on a Friday, provided that they have been submitted to the Speaker before noon on the day on which they are to be asked.Page 347 of "Erskine May" states that the Leader of the Opposition does not have to establish a factor of urgency.Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) contacted your office, Mr. Speaker, at 412 1.50 pm yesterday and was told that no private notice questions had been submitted, and given that no notice was placed in the Members' Lobby and no private notice questions was displayed on the annunciator yesterday, when did the Leader of the Opposition submit his question to you and what precedent was used to accept that private notice question without due notice?
§ Mr. SpeakerI must tell the hon. Gentleman that my office would not disclose whether any private notice questions had been submitted, because by definition such questions are private. I can tell him however, that I received notice of a private notice question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday morning. The notice was provisional on the proposed motion for a writ being opposed at 2.30 pm, and I accepted it on that basis. It would not have been appropriate to put such a notice on the annunciator, particularly as it related to a statement that the House was expecting in any case.
As is made clear on page 347 of "Erskine May", special considerations apply to private notice questions from the Leader of the Opposition. In my opinion, what happened yesterday was perfectly regular, as I was ready to explain once the private notice question had been completed. I do not think that we can pursue the matter further now.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the bottom line that anyone who enters into guerrilla activity in this place had better read pages 346 and 347 of "Erskine May" before doing so?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is useful advice.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I tried to ask the Prime Minister a question, about which I now raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. My question concerned the implications for women threatened with violence of the sentence imposed on my constituent Michelle Renshaw. When I had uttered only 16 words, Mr. Speaker, you interrupted to say:
Order. The hon. Member knows that the Prime Minister cannot answer questions such as that.With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that on the basis of 16 words you, the Prime Minister or anyone else could have known what I was going to ask.I have been helped by the Library, which has supplied me with five questions put to the Prime Minister on 11 February 1982, 14 December 1982, 20 December 1983, 5 February 1987 and, most recently, 10 February 1987. In all but one instance the Prime Minister replied at some length—and those questions dealt with sentences and their implications and asked her to take action.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reflect on the matter. If you think that I can be granted another go, perhaps I will be lucky enough to catch your eye tomorrow.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a handsome offer, or rather suggestion. I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's question to the Prime Minister. He referred to
the shameful decision of Judge Pickles to sentence my constituent".—[Official Report, 14 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 285.]That was clearly a preamble to criticism of the judge, which is not in order on a question, and I therefore had to stop the hon. Gentleman. Let me again appeal to all hon. 413 Members to be certain when they ask questions, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time, that their preamble is in order; then they will not be stopped.
§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Will your clarify exactly when you reeceived the private notice question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday? May I ask you to give a clear ruling on the precedent that you set in relation to private notice question procedure? Will you confirm that the Leader of the Opposition spoke for about 45 minutes, and that none of his questions was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Did yesterday's precedent decide the method by which private notice questions will be taken in future, or is it merely an example of the abuse of the private notice question procedure by the Front Benches?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I have said all that I am able to say about that. The House fully understands the situation.
§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to return to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Since the Budget was delivered under a private notice question, are we still operating under that procedure and will the vote on Monday be taken on the basis of the private notice question?
§ Mr. SpeakerWas the hon. Gentleman not here yesterday?
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. When the Leader of the Opposition had completed his question, I said that since the subject of the private notice question was debatable on the resolutions I would take no further questions. The Chairman of Ways and Means then took the Chair and put those resolutions to the House.