§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) rose on a bogus point of order and made certain allegations about the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who had attended a function at which the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not present. The allegation was completely untrue but was widely reported. Subsequently, the hon. Member for Amber Valley went into the Members' Tea Room and was told in no uncertain terms by a number of my hon. Friends how unacceptaable such conduct was. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Are you going to be him up?"] That would not be very difficult, would it?
The following day, certain newspapers carried reports of the second incident in the Tea Room, quoting extensively the hon. Member for Amber Valley and one of his hon. Friends, who I understand was not present for that or for the previous incident.
You, Mr. Speaker, will remember when it was possible for hon. Members to disagree with each other away from the Chamber—occasionally using industrial language—without the more sneaky Conservative Members running to the press.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What is the point of order?
§ Mr. SnapeWill you, through the usual channels, draw the attention of the more senior, and perhaps responsible, members of the Conservative party to this conduct and warn them that, if it continues, it will provoke widespread retaliation from this side?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, I am dealing with one thing at a time.
This happened last week. I have drawn the matter to the attention of the usual channels. Time was —not very long ago—when conversations in dining rooms, here and outside, and in tea rooms were not brought into the Chamber. I hope that we can get back to those days. It is not necessary to use such ammunition in arguing our policies.
§ Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and for the avoidance of doubt. As the person ultimately responsible for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' dinner, may I make it plain that, when it became known to me after the dinner that the hon. Gentleman had left—so little disturbance did his departure cause —I made inquiries about what had taken place. I found out that, because of late changes, the seating plan in the reception room did not correspond —
§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)You did not do that with me, Mr. Speaker.
§ Sir Hal Miller—with the menu which had been printed earlier. I therefore caused the president to send an apology to the hon. Gentleman the following morning. When I read the erroneous reports in the press, I made a statement about the correct position, which is that the hon. Gentleman had left the dinner making the least fuss possible, even though there had been a place available for him.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that that disposes of the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerI would not normally go back to something that happened last Wednesday.
§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a new point of order. May I seek your guidance on the application of a convention of the House and, for that matter, may I ask you to look at written question 126, which you will find on page 662 of the Order Paper? The question concerns the future of Craigtoun hospital, which is in my constituency, and it stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
If the terms of the question seem familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, it is because I tabled a question in precisely the same terms last week, but it was met with a reply to the effect that a statement would be made shortly. Is it a convention of the House that, when an hon. Member raises an issue about his constituency, it is then appropriate for the Government to plant a question in the name of another hon. Member, who has probably never seen or visited the hospital involved, in order that the Government may have the benefit of introducing into the public domain the necessary information which is of great importance to my constituency?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
I am not responsible for answers that are given, but, as I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman had a holding answer. Therefore, it seems to me that a further question on the same issue should not be on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. SpeakerSince the hon. Member for Amber Valley has been mentioned, I shall call him, but then we must end the matter.
§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) left the dinner as quietly as is consistent with his character. However —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That sort of comment is inflammatory. The sadness of present-day politics is the lack of the courtesy that we used to have in this place.
§ Mr. Oppenheimrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that we can deal with these matters courteously.
§ Mr. OppenheimAn attack was made on me by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), whose claims about what happened in the Tea Room were completely untrue. I am the one who should receive the apology, because when I went into the Tea Room I said nothing but was attacked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East who uttered oaths about me and my mother. I did nothing in the Tea Room to provoke him, but it was he reported the conversation to the press, not me.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is not a prep school. Let us get on.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order, and I am sure that it is one which you will take seriously, as will all members of Opposition parties from Scotland, especially as we have just had to listen to comments about seating arrangements at a dinner table somewhere and about who behaved or did not behave.
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the sense of anger and frustration during the hour allocated to a very serious issue affecting the national health service in Scotland.
We have no opportunity other than such statements to question the Secretary of State on those matters. We have no Select Committee on Scottish affairs, to which such a matter would rightly have been referred. Scottish legislation—for example, the Education (Schools) Bill and the council tax legislation—is being shoehorned into United Kingdom Bills, and Scottish Members are not being allowed the facility to represent effectively the views of their constituents in a Parliament in which Scottish business is increasingly being demoted.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt seems to me that the hon. Lady is criticising some action of the Government. What is the point of order for me in this? I am aware of the strong feeling on the subject—who could be unaware of it?—and that is exactly why I allowed every Member who wished to ask a question to do so, even those who were not present for the statement.
§ Mrs. EwingThe point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is your responsibility to protect the interests and rights of Back Benchers. Scottish Members are being attacked by people such as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who did not even listen to the statement but who says that we are constantly whingeing, whining and carping. Yet we are denied the democratic right to express the views of our constituents.
§ Mr. SpeakerThese are not matters of order to me. [AN HON. MEMBER: "She has a grievance."] She may have a grievance, but it is with the Government, not with me.
§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member who raises a point of order about the behaviour of other Members not to practise what he preaches? It may be acceptable to some Members of this House that we should have to put up with industrial language in the Tea Room and in the Members' Cloakroom—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said to me last week —but I agree that it is not appropriate for such Members to run to the press. I was prepared to ignore the insults of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) but he went to the press. Is it not a gross 166 discourtesy for an Opposition transport spokesman to make it so clear to me that he disapproves of women drivers?
§ Mr. Speakerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet. I think the trouble is that such matters were raised in the Chamber, when they should not have been. If they were not raised in the Chamber, they would not be reported to the press—or, if they were, nobody would take any notice of them.
§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the submissions on the South Ayrshire trust, may I help you by pointing out that, although all the Labour Members made submissions, as did every Labour party association in Ayrshire and every prospective Labour candidate, no SNP association or candidate did so? Does that not make the words of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) ring hollow? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Why don't the two hon. Members go and have a cup of tea?
§ Mr. SpeakerAnd I must say that I do not want to hear anything more about what happened last Wednesday.
§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a ruling a few moments ago, you referred to the tradition of the House that private conversations between Members should not be the subject of tittle-tattle to the press. I seek your guidance on whether the conversations that you have in mind are exchanges less in the nature of conversations than of foul and abusive language. Surely language appropriate to a ship's galley is not appropriate in the precincts of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am responsible for language here in the Chamber, not anywhere else.
§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that you felt that it was important that courtesy and good manners should govern our behaviour. I accept that absolutely, but does it not seem a little ironic that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should speak here on behalf of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), since on Thursday evening, although totally unprovoked, he swore at four of my colleagues?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have had some bloodletting on this matter. Let us leave it there. I hope that we can deal with one another as men and women of honour —as, indeed, we are—return to the old traditions of the House which are admired all over the world, and keep up our standards here.