Points of Order (Hansard, 14 February 1990)

§ Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that, on 17 April last year I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate on the finances of the Mersey tunnels. I have in front of me a letter, dated yesterday, to Councillor Ingham, the chair of the Merseyside passenger transport authority, in which, in effect, the Secretary of State has ruled out any solution to the problems of financing the work on the Mersey tunnels. As my hon. Friends and I have raised this issue in the House, is not it wrong that the Secretary of State did not respond to the House but instead wrote a letter which Parliament has no opportunity to scrutinise?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must tell the hon. Member with deep regret that I do not immediately remember his Adjournment debate last year. I suggest that he tables a question, and perhaps he will get an answer.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Points of order will take time out of a very important debate.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I can ask for your advice before the debate on South Africa begins. I refer you to page 94 of a book called "How to be a Minister" by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in which he said: Do not waste your good lines on having"—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not a parliamentary book. I shall be very interested to read it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
If it were possible for me to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches in the coming debate on South Africa, I should do so. Indeed, even if it were possible to impose a five-minute limit on speeches, I do not think that I would be able to call all hon. Members who wish to speak. Points of order will take time out of that debate.

§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that it matters whether it takes up time. The liberties of the House are much more important than any debate.
Yesterday afternoon, we had, to quote you, Mr. Speaker, a particularly disagreeable exchange, in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an absolutely discreditable and disgraceful accusation, and he was allowed to get away with it. We had a build-up of pressure—in a pressure-cooker sense—because there was real outrage among my right hon. and hon. Friends about what was said on the Opposition side.
Is not it time for you again to examine the time when hon. Members may raise points of order? The idea that points of order have to wait until after however many statements there may be leads to more trouble, not less. Should not points of order, like any punishment or design, be made immediately after the offence, and not need to wait for hour after hour, as sometimes happens? On a most genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you look at this matter again—that points of order are raised before statements and immediately after Question Time is concluded, because—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have frequently been asked to look at this matter. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I have made numerous rulings on it. The proper time to raise proper points of order is immediately after private notice questions or statements. That is exactly what happened yesterday. If a matter needs the immediate attention of the Chair it should be raised as a point of order at the time. As regards yesterday, we cannot go back over that. I did not hear the remark of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

§ Mr. Beaumont-Dark
We all did.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in Hansard."] Of course it is in Hansard, because it was subsequently referred to, but I did not hear it. However, I have now had an opportunity of not only listening to it on the radio but seeing it on television. The remark appears to have been somewhat magnified on the medium. However, we cannot go back on it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, it was said from a sedentary position. It was not an unparliamentary expression, but it was certainly an offensive comment to make. It may be that we will have an opportunity today to put that right.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Many Opposition Members would want to go along with your ruling about the remark not being unparliamentary. The remark itself was very opportune, and most of us—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We shall not have a debate on that.

§ Mr. Skinner
Let me put the point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. The hon. Gentleman is always very helpful. Of course he has a lot of experience in dealing with—

§ Mr. Skinner
Let me put the point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has simply prefaced it in that way.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), Mr. Speaker. The observation by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not unparliamentary, but she had to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Speaker
The House should look at what I said in Hansard. I did not hear that remark, either. What I said was that if the Prime Minister had made an unparliamentary allegation, I am sure that she would wish to withdraw it. She did withdraw it. That is exactly what happened.

§ Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)
On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred to restricting speeches to five or 10 minutes. Many Back-Bench Members do not think that the quality of debate would be improved by a restriction of either five or 10 minutes, except perhaps in my own case.

§ Mr. Speaker
I subscribe to that view. It is a pity that the Chair does occasionally impose limits, because I am a believer in personal restraint. If hon. Members could limit their speeches today to about 10 minutes, we would be much better off.

§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you rightly followed precedent by saying that you could not pursue remarks made from a sedentary position that you had not heard. However, you were equally saying yesterday that we should have regard to the fact that the television cameras are now here. This afternoon, you said that, on reflection, having taken advantage of what the cameras picked up and of programmes this morning, you had heard something today that you did not hear yesterday. Is not there a case for you to reconsider precedent and, when you find something to have been offensive, to require it to be withdrawn the following day?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for the Chair to require offensive remarks to be withdrawn. Offensive remarks are, I fear, frequently made in the House. The role of the Chair is to ensure that unparliamentary expressions are not used here. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman concerned to decide what to do in relation to that, and perhaps today we shall hear something from him about it.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said some moments ago that it would not be possible to go over an incident that occurred in the House some time ago. Did you mean that? Surely we are constantly going over matters—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Yes, I did mean it.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Is it on a different matter?

§ Mr. Marlow
It is on a slightly different matter, Mr. Speaker. It is now in the public domain, as we all wearily 268 know, that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), a man who chooses his words carefully, said yesterday that the Prime Minister should have done 27 years—[Interruption.]—inside. For the right hon. Gentleman to have said that—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not certain that this is going to add to the quality of our discussions in the House. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order for me?

§ Mr. Marlow
The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that if the right hon. Member for Gorton has evidence for that remark, perhaps he should bring it before the House. If not, like any other hon. Member, he should do the decent thing and withdraw it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps he will.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that we might clear the matter up by putting the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the form of a motion? There were so many Tory wets laughing yesterday that we might just carry it.