asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that he has now been informed of all the occasions on which warnings of possible security risks were given to Ministers by members of the Civil Service or of the security services of which he was not apprised at the time.

I would refer the hon. Lady to the Answers which I have already given on similar Questions.

Why is the Prime Minister so evasive? Can he tell the House, simply and precisely for once, whether he is now aware of all those cases in which appropriate action ought to be taken, and that he has taken such action?

I think that the hon. Lady need have no anxiety on this account.

Can my right hon. Friend, equally, say what reports he has received from the security authorities about any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Hon. Members:

Oh.

I should not like to add anything more to what I have said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not a supplementary question of that kind, containing such an innuendo, completely out of order?

I should be greatly assisted in ruling on the matter had I in fact heard it. I literally did not hear it. Would the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) be good enough to repeat it?

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the innuendo in the Question—[Hon. Members:"No, repeat it."]—whether he has received any reports from the security authorities about hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

I repeat that I have nothing to add to what I said.

I was getting a"prompt" for the purpose of giving a Ruling. I do not see anything out of order in that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)"recapped" on the question, he did not give it in the precise terms, as Hansard will show. He attempted a cowardly withdrawal, because he knew—[Hon. Members:"Order."]—if I may say so—[Hon. Members:"Order."]—

Do not let us occupymore of Question Time than we need. Would the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) oblige me by giving his version, so that I may have both versions?

On a point of order—

I am on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister whether he would inform the House of any threat to security—[Hon. Members:"No."] It obviously Mr. Speaker, was a reflection upon the trustworthiness of hon. Members of this House, and I think that it calls for a withdrawal.

I am in a considerable difficulty because I did not in fact hear the supplementary question and I cannot get an agreed version. It is very difficult to give a Ruling without knowing what was said. I think that I shall have to postpone it until I can see the supplementary question in writing, as I cannot get an agreed version.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give a Ruling on some words clearly understood to be used when the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), on a point of order, referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as wanting to make a"cowardly withdrawal". Is not the phrase"cowardly withdrawal" out of order?

Yes, that is. But this is getting complicated. It is getting too confused with words. Accordingly, I must ask the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to withdraw the adverb from his submission on a point of order.

rose—rose

rose—

Hon. Members:

Order.

The right hon. Gentleman appears not to have understood the position.

Hon. Members:

Do not withdraw.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, as you are not prepared to adjudicate on the original statement, it seems to me reasonably fair that you should postpone any request for me to withdraw until such time as you have read it.

I do not think that is right. I want to find out what was the original cause of the trouble and I cannot. But on any basis that I can now conceive the adverb was wrongly used. The point is not whether it is true or untrue, which will turn on the form of the supplementary question, but whether it is in order to put it in that way. That is the point. So, if the hon. Member will oblige me.

Out of respect to you, Sir, I withdraw the word"cowardly", and I substitute the words"altered" and"evasive".

On a point of order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the word"coward", within the memory of the Prime Minister and certain other hon. Members, was used by the late Lloyd George in this House when he pointed to the Government and said,"There sit the cowards"? He was not asked to withdraw.

It is not for me to rule upon my predecessor's Rulings or absence of Rulings. In that form clearly there was no occasion.

Mr. H. Wilson:

Whatever the arguments about the admissibility or otherwise of the word"cowardly"—and I well remember the Ruling under your Speakership during the Finance Bill when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) objected to the use of the word"cowardly", which was a point on which he was sensitive because of certain legal actions which had happened—it was allowed. Surely we are getting Rulings on the minor issue and not on the major issue, and the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I respectfully submit, has not been dealt with. A suggestion has been made about hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House and we have had no Ruling about it. That is the important question.

The right hon. Member will clearly understand my difficulty. It was said on the one hand that it was and on the other that it was not. Since I did not hear the words and cannot get an agreed record on them until I look at the Official Report, I cannot see a way out of the difficulty.

I wish to withdraw any suggestion contained in my supplementary question which went beyond the suggestion contained in the original Question.

I am obliged to all the hon. Members concerned for getting us out of our current difficulty.

On a point of order. Before this matter is turned into a joke, is there not a serious side to this question? It may be very clever to make suggestions about my hon. and right hon. Friends without any foundation whatever, but would hon. Members opposite, perhaps the Prime Minister, realise that those who live in glass-houses should not throw that kind of stone?

What the Prime Minister should or should not recognise does not raise a point of order for the Chair.

On a point of order. I wish to make it entirely clear that I do not withdraw anything in my original Question, because I believe that the House ought to be apprised of any security risks which may have been discovered from whatever side they might come.