I wrote to the Speaker.
This was the reply:
"Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for your email and to respond on his behalf.
Mr Speaker has asked me to explain that he is not responsible for Members’ contributions and would not seek to intervene unless something is said that is, in parliamentary terms, disorderly.
Nothing occurred on Monday that was, in technical terms, disorderly. That being said, Mr Speaker feels that allegations such as these should not be made lightly - especially in view of the guidance in Erskine May – the definitive guide to parliamentary procedure – about good temper and moderation being the characteristics of parliamentary debate.
Mr Speaker was far from satisfied that these comments were appropriate or helpful on this occasion, even if they did not fall outside the rules. He would like to see more compassionate and reasonable politics in the House of Commons, and these sorts of comments only enflame opinions and create discord.
However, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy or veracity of Members’ contributions, so long as the contents of their words remain orderly. Mr Speaker can only operate within the powers afforded to him by the House and it would not beappropriate for him to play the role of fact checker during, or subsequent to, debates.
If a Member feels that a Minister has been deliberately misleading, as opposed to inadvertently mistaken, they could table a substantive motion criticising the conduct of that Minister and seek to initiate debates on the detail of the Government policy in question, as well as tabling questions to pursue statements made at the dispatch box.
Members are not otherwise allowed to accuse each other of lying unless debating a substantive motion directly addressing the point. Erskine May says that this is to “preserve the character of parliamentary debate” and that “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 the imputation of false or unavowed motives; the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation; and charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.” (paragraph 21.24)
The Speaker takes all comments from members of the public very seriously and would like to reassure you that one of his principal concerns is to ensure that the highest standards of debate are maintained in the House of Commons. He always does his utmost to encourage Members to conduct themselves in a dignified and productive manner in the Chamber, and to remind them of the views of the public on this matter. He is aware that there is much to be done in this regard and will continue to press for improvements.
I hope that the above information is helpful. Thank you for taking the time to write and please accept our best wishes.
Kind regards,
Josh Ryder
Assistant to the Speaker’s Secretary
Speaker’s Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
parliament.uk