Points of Order (Hansard, 31 October 1995)

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are a defender of the liberty of individual Members of Parliament, and I also agree with your advice that hon. Members on both sides of the House should show each other more courtesy. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that during the recent by-election certain representatives of the Labour party were very beastly to the—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. What is the point of order for me? I am not involved in by-elections; I need to know the Standing Order and the procedure with which the hon. Gentleman wishes me to deal.

§ Mr. Fabricant
The point of order, Madam Speaker, is that people have been very beastly to the Liberal Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), and have been questioning his recommendations that people should use cannabis and that it should be legalised. Is that not very unfair, as the Opposition Front Bench is now making the same recommendations?

§ Madam Speaker
That is a total abuse of the House's time. I shall take no similar points of order; points of order must relate to questions with which I can deal, as Speaker of the House.

§ Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House may be aware by now that, after what has been internationally condemned as a show trial, Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa, the international environmentalist and social campaigner, has today been sentenced to death with no right of appeal. That is a matter of great concern. Has there been any indication, Madam Speaker, that a British Minister may respond, bring pressure to save the lives of Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues and make a statement in the House?

§ Madam Speaker
I have not been informed by any Minister that he or she is prepared to make a statement today.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate a ruling on what is said in "Erskine May" about the abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. Page 287 clearly states: Questions which seek an expression of an opinion, or which contain arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, controversial, ironical or offensive expressions, are not in order. In recent weeks, Conservative Members have asked an increasing number of questions that should really be addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. Many of my hon. Friends would approve of the idea of a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time, but we do not have one. Prime Minister's Question Time should be precisely that, but the Prime Minister is increasingly dodging legitimate questions by employing dubious devices originating from the Whips Office to ensure that questions are addressed to the Leader of the Opposition which only the Prime Minister can answer.

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I cautioned a Conservative Member that questions put to the Prime Minister must not relate to the Opposition. All Ministers are responsible to the House 102 for the workings of the Government and Departments, not for the attitude of the Opposition or any of the minority parties. I hope that my words will be noted by all concerned and that, in future, questions will be put to Ministers on matters for which they have responsibility and accountability to the House.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A Member of the House receives £5,500 from ASLEF in sponsorship and has booked a room in the Parliamentary Estate on Thursday to meet a number of my constituents in connection with the £5,500 that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) receives. Is that not corrupt use of House of Commons facilities and should not it be stopped because it is a Labour party meeting for the benefit of the ASLEF sponsorship that the Member receives?

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I think what the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise is further to the point of order. Serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I ask him to put them in writing to me so that I may respond properly because I am not quite clear about what he is insinuating. Such points of order must be put in writing so that the allegations are clear.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
It is not true.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. It may or may not be true. I wish to see the evidence supporting the allegations so that I may deal with them.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any representations from the Deputy Prime Minister who has now been geared up with a £150,000 machine with which he is wired up to every Cabinet Minister? Has there been any request for him to answer questions for every Minister? He has a spy in a cabin over there and the taxpayers are having to foot the bill for £150,000 desk diary. In Derbyshire, that would buy a desk, a diary, a roof to put over people's heads, five rooms which could be stuffed full of furniture and a Rover Sterling car to put in the garage. It is an abuse of taxpayers' money and it ought to be condemned by all of us.

§ Madam Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, all hon. Members are aware, this matter will appear in the estimates. When they are debated, no doubt Members will notice it. In the meantime, there may be opportunities for an Adjournment debate on the matter. The estimates will come before the House for debate.

§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in the House on the alteration of her policy, which clearly shows that the Labour party is now soft on the greatest cause of crime? Have you received any such request to show that the Leader of the Opposition proposes to dispense with that shadow Secretary of State 103 following his demotion of her predecessor? To lose one shadow Secretary of State may be a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. This is a totally disgraceful abuse of the House's time. I will not take the trouble to respond to questions such as that which do not come near a point of order.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have observed from the remaining Orders of the Day that there are no fewer than five pages of closely printed amendments to Standing Orders, most of them amending matters that are not contentious, such as Wednesday morning sittings and those which save the time of the House. However, you will recall that, when these matters were debated a year ago, there were three or four Divisions on matters of principle because some hon. Members believed that even the experimental orders permanently removed the powers of private Members as against the Government. In addition, the one that slipped through was for the removal of the opportunity for private Members' ballot motions to be debated in the House, and I understand that that is something of an historic privilege.
I have given notice to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House suggesting that, due to the importance of those amendments, which are to be permanent, the time given on Thursday, prior to an important debate that the whole country wants to watch and know about, will be inadequate for a proper consideration of the amendments, that we should take the precedent of a Bill and have at least a weekend before we can debate them, and that we should therefore debate them early next Session, rather than in a hurried and controversial manner on Thursday.

§ Madam Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman says and that he has given notice to the Leader of the House on this matter. If he wishes, however, to alter our practice concerning the period of notice before motions are debated, I suggest that he asks the Procedure Committee to consider the matter. As to the timing of the debate on the motions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may I remind him that, on Friday last and without objection, the House ordered that all necessary questions to dispose of procedures on the motions should be put after two hours' debate on Thursday 2 November.

§ Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. After all the attention over the summer given to the spread of the Internet, have you had any requests to install in the Chamber computers linked to the Internet, not least to ensure that Opposition spokesmen know the line from their party leader and the spin doctors, rather than being encouraged to speak their own minds?

§ Madam Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you establish whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that he intended to raise in this House an issue that he knew not to be true?

§ Madam Speaker
I take it that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) did give notice, as is usual in the House, but he is here and can now speak for himself.

§ Mr. David Shaw
The facts with that information came through immediately before I came into the House. May I point out to Opposition Members that the hon. Member—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I take it from that that no notice was given.

§ Mr. Shaw
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Did the hon. Gentleman conform with the courtesies of the House is all I am asking.

§ Mr. Shaw
On that point of order, Madam Speaker, you will recall that I wrote to you to make the point that that particular hon. Member did not inform me before visiting my constituency.

§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, Monday and Tuesday, we will debate the important questions relating to Nolan. Before each of those three debates, will it be in order for you to say to all Members that they should declare what consultancies and directorships they have and, in particular, what moneys they earn from outside businesses?

§ Madam Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the House yesterday. [Interruption.] Is he listening—he has just put a point of order to me. Perhaps he was not present in the House yesterday when I made it clear that, in any debates of that nature, I expect all hon. Members—that is, Members on both sides of the House—to declare any pecuniary interests.

§ Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify then and say that hon. Members must name each specific interest that they have, rather than—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I am going no further. Hon. Members know precisely what is expected of them when they declare an interest.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has become abundantly apparent in recent months that points of order are used to name hon. Members in a way which, if broadcast outside and found not to be true, would give rise to substantial libel damages. The courtesies of the House also require that, in every case, notice is given to an hon. Member who another Member proposes to name. Clearly, that has not been done in many cases. Might not this be an opportunity for you to reconsider the rules of the House and to make giving notice mandatory?

§ Madam Speaker
We have a great many privileges in the House. What disturbs me enormously is that responsibility is not matched with the privileges that we have. Members of Parliament choose special times of the day and special days of the week in which what they say across the Floor of the House will be highlighted by the media. I deprecate very much many of the exchanges that are not at all genuine points of order which take place across the Floor of the House to attempt to seek publicity. I hope that Members will reflect on what I have said, and in future will put to me only real points of order that deal with our Standing Orders, proceedings and other matters with which the Speaker of this House can properly deal.