Points of Order (Hansard, 19 January 1999)

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Foreign Office questions, the Foreign Secretary—perhaps inadvertently—gave an entirely wrong answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on the question of the return of Senator Pinochet to Chile. The Foreign Secretary said that Senator Pinochet could not be allowed to return to Chile without setting aside the rule of law. It has never been in dispute, and was expressly—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished Member of this House. However, he knows that this is an argument that he must have with the Government, and not by means of a point of order. He must find other methods through the Order Paper and through debate in this House to pursue this matter.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
On a wholly different point of order, of which I have given you prior notice, Madam Speaker. In column 631 of yesterday's Hansard, you will see that I made some critical comments of the former Paymaster General. The then Deputy Speaker in the Chair intervened and said: We should remind ourselves that, unless there is a substantive motion before us, we should not criticise other Members of the House."—[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 631.] If that rule were to be implemented in the strict way expressed by the Deputy Speaker, there would be no political debate. I suspect that the Deputy Speaker went 714 somewhat further than he may have intended. Perhaps, either on this or some subsequent occasion, you might care to clarify the position.

§ Madam Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, and I have read the ruling of my Deputy to which he has drawn attention. There is a fine line to be drawn between criticism of a Member's political action and their personal conduct which was not crossed in the exchanges yesterday. I am satisfied that, following the remarks made about the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), it was appropriate for my Deputy to caution the House. I believe that it was a caution that Members should not reflect on the personal conduct of the former Paymaster General. As the House well knows, the personal conduct of hon. Members can be discussed only on a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms. This protection, which is afforded to all right hon. and hon. Members, is set out in the current edition of "Erskine May", pages 384-5. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for letting me put this on record.