Points of Order (Hansard, 17 February 1994)

§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which arises directly out of business questions. During business questions, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), an experienced and well-liked Member of the House, came in with the clear and deliberate intention of referring to remarks that he says were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who serves as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. The thrust of his question to the Leader of the House was that, somehow, the hon. Lady's views were at variance with the official policy of the Opposition.
Can you, Madam Speaker, confirm that it is a convention that, if a matter of this kind is to be raised, the hon. Gentleman should inform the hon. Lady that he intends to refer to what he thinks are her views, so that she can have an opportunity to be present and refute them if he is wrong?

§ Madam Speaker
That is the customary procedure here. When one hon. Member intends to refer to another, it is a matter of courtesy for that hon. Member to give notice to the Member who is to be mentioned, so that any statements that are made can be challenged.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

§ Madam Speaker
I do not think that there can be a further point of order. I have given a ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a different matter?

§ Mr. Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For most of my years in the House, it has been the convention for an hon. Member intending to attack another to give that person notice; but I did not think that it was necessary to give notice if one intended to repeat another hon. Member's remarks—in no derogatory sense—by quoting from the Official Report.

§ Madam Speaker
If the hon. Member who is to be mentioned might reasonably reply, I think that it is a matter of courtesy to give that hon. Member notice that he or she will be mentioned.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to pages 267–68 of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, particularly items 9 to 13? Between 44 and 50 hon. Members voted against certain motions. Two or three Conservative Members said that the Opposition had voted against pension and other increases, which is completely untrue.
There are 270 members of the parliamentary Labour party—not to mention the Liberal Democrats, the nationalists and the Ulstermen—and I understand that the 44 to 50 hon. Members who voted against the motions did so because the increases were not large enough. It is wrong for Conservative Members to pretend otherwise.

§ Madam Speaker
That is not a point of order for me. I cannot comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the Official Report; the record stands.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to try to assist in the conduct of business—which you, of course, manage so very well.
There were difficulties during Prime Minister's Question Time. This place is sometimes very noisy, which I consider right and proper: sometimes there is an outburst of anger that is very difficult to control, when hon. Members think that they are being abused by the Government. On this occasion, the Prime Minister made what amounted to a mini-statement during Question Time. Such action deprives hon. Members of the opportunity to ask questions about what has been said, and of what many regard as a good opportunity to question the Prime Minister generally: it destroys two opportunities at the same time.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it would help both you and the House if you made it clear to the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, that if they want to avoid causing difficulties for you as a result of anger in the House, they should make statements from the Dispatch Box about important issues such as the sending of troops to other countries, to make bombing raids and possibly kill people.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
No. I do not wish to take any more points of order. I appreciate the efforts of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to avoid creating difficulties for me; it is most unusual for any hon. Member to go out of his way to do that. I understand the frustration felt in many parts of the House, but the Prime Minister was perfectly in order today in answering the question that was put to him. I am always disturbed when there is so much noise: it takes up a great deal of time. The Prime Minister could not be questioned further about what he had said, because the time had been taken up by a great deal of noise—which, I must add, comes from all quarters of the House.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr.Spink) referred to a sex magazine; in fact, he described it as a sexy magazine. The Leader of the House replied.
Is it not conventional for a document referred to by a Front Bencher to be placed in the Vote Office? If that happens in this case, what action will be taken to control the queues?

§ Madam Speaker
If I understand the position correctly, only quotations from state papers appear in the Vote Office. As the magazine was not a state paper, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was perfectly in order simply to bring it to our attention.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers, you have observed, in your visits to Parliaments abroad, that they often have, especially in the newly democratised states, more subtle methods of voting than we have in our Chamber, whereby they do not have to vote yes or no; there are other possibilities, using sophisticated electronic systems. Last night in the Chamber, many of us spoke in the debate on the social security measures, and we wished to express a certain point of view. That point of view was to support pension increases but to be highly critical of what the Government were doing. The only method available for us to do that was to vote no. Will you consider other possible methods by which we can express that point of view?

§ Madam Speaker
Of course, abstention is always open to hon. Members. I think that if the hon. Member is seeking to change the method by which we vote, he ought to refer it to the appropriate Committee.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
As a matter of fact, there was another reason why we voted last night. I think we ought to draw it to your attention because sadly you were not in the Chair; you had other business to do, no doubt. There were five votes. There happened to be a meeting of the 92 Group across at Queen Anne's Gate, which was being addressed by the Secretary of State for Social Security. Prior to that, the leader of the 92 Group, the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), was in some trouble. He looked like being carved up by the left of the Tory party. We wanted to ensure that the Tory party remains divided. The only way in which we could do it was to stop that business taking place, so we had five votes.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Member for Bolsover is being as helpful as ever.