Speaker’s Statement Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lindsay Hoyle

Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts
Wednesday 2nd February 2022

(2 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I wish to make a statement about the House practices regarding accusing Members of lying or of deliberately misleading the House. I recognise that there are frustrations around the House’s practices.

First, let me say that there are means by which accusations of lying may be brought before the House, including by means of a substantive motion. The Scottish National party did so on its Opposition day in November. However, Members may not accuse each other of lying or of deliberately misleading the House unless such a substantive motion is under consideration. “Erskine May” is clear that it is

“to preserve the character of parliamentary debate”,

which I take to mean to stop it descending into fruitless cycles of accusation and counter-accusation.

It also says:

“Expressions when used in respect of other Members which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words, include…charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.”

It is important to stress context. Similar words said in different proceedings might attract a different response from the Chair depending on the subject being debated, tone and other considerations. In general, though, the Chair will not tolerate accusations of lying or of deliberately misleading the House. That is the long-standing practice of the House, as set out in “Erskine May” and followed by successive Speakers and Deputy Speakers.

Of course, long-standing practices may change—for example, if the House decided that it wanted a different approach, perhaps informed by a Procedure Committee inquiry—but it is not for me to change the practice unilaterally. Therefore, I ask Members to respect this approach. I know feelings run high on important issues we discuss, but there are plenty of ways of making strong feelings felt within the rules and without placing the Chair in the invidious position of having to order Members to withdraw or seeking their suspension.

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.