§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday when a question was raised about the Prime Minister calling my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a "crypto-communist", you said:
Allow me to reflect upon the matter to see what can be done."—[Official Report, 18 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1394.]Have you had a word from the Prime Minister about withdrawing that remark?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not had a word from the Prime Minister, but I have reflected upon the matter. I have discovered a specific ruling on this point. On 5 May 1948 the Speaker ruled that it was not out of order for one hon. Member to refer to another as a crypto-communist. However, he deprecated personalised attacks. As I said when the matter was raised yesterday, it appeared to me that the Leader of the Opposition was amused rather than offended by what the Prime Minister said and I took the precaution of seeing the action replay on television this morning. Perhaps we should leave the matter there.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. I have not yet finished. I must add that I do deprecate personal aspersions between hon. Members. For the benefit of the House I shall quote page 380 of "Erskine May" which states:
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known that in the House hon. Members comment about others and that on occasion hon. Members are penalised for making those remarks. I referred yesterday to the time when I was thrown out of the House for calling Doctor Death a pompous sod. It seems that the rules are changed according to who makes the remark. For example, what would your reaction be—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Skinner—If I called—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Skinner—the Prime Minister a crypto-fascist? Is that in "Erskine May"?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? I refer him to the precedents on this matter. If he looks up Hansard of 5 May 1948, he will see the exchanges that took place. Times have changed since 1948 and I repeat again—
§ Mr. SkinnerIt depends who says it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou dare not throw them out.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I again draw the attention of the whole House to the excerpt from "Erskine May" that I have just quoted. We should not cast personal aspersions on each other. I deprecate it. Hon. Members who saw the action replay on television this morning will have noted that there was a great deal of noise. The microphones amplify noise coming from the Back Benches on each side. It is not always possible in the Chair to hear remarks made in a soft voice.
§ Mr. OrmeThank you for your comments, Mr. Speaker. It might benefit the House if the Prime Minister reads what has been said today. I see that the deputy Prime Minister is present. The Prime Minister might reconsider her remark and let the House know accordingly.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sure that the matter will be drawn to the Prime Minister's attention.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that two days ago I raised a point of order because my name had been added in error to a number of early-day motions, including 1398 which is entitled "Massacre in Jerusalem". Some of my remarks at that time about the naivety or anti-semitic nature of the contents of the motion could have been taken as a personal remark about the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who shares my name. I should like to make it clear to the House that that was not my intention, nor is it my view. Naturally I withdraw my remarks so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is in the best traditions of the House, and I thank the hon. Member.