§ Mr. LeadbitterOn a point of order. Many hon. Members are anxious about the 15 minutes of Questions to the Prime Minister. So far as we have been able to understand it, the custom of the House is that a back bench Member is allowed one supplementary question, whereas we are generally agreed that the Leader of the Opposition may have two.
§ Mr. WinnickNone.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. LeadbitterHaving regard to the possible importance of those supplementary questions, we are, nevertheless, anxious to have some protection. In what manner can the Leader of the Opposition be controlled as to the number of supplementary questions which he puts to my right hon. Friend?
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportOn a point of order.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am being addressed on a point of order. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport.
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportIs it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, during Questions to the then Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman was up and down from his seat the whole time like a yo-yo?
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have had enough of arguments and eloquence and metaphor to deal with the point of order now.
This is a difficult matter. The privilege of putting Questions to the Prime Minister during the quarter of an hour between a quarter-past three and half-past three is very precious to hon. Members. On the other hand, one has to balance that against the right of the Leader of the Opposition to seize on one of the Questions to the Prime Minister to wage on behalf of the Opposition what he regards as an important battle. It is not for the Speaker to impose a ration of one supplementary question, or two, on the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Mr. William HamiltonThree.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is a matter for self-discipline for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I can understand the anxieties of hon. Members about the issue which has been raised in this point of order. Indeed, if I may go a little further, I understand the disappointment of any hon. Member who never gets to put his supplementary question; I experienced it for 16 years.
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order. I understand the feelings of my hon. Friends, but is it not a material point that, by tradition, the Leader of the Opposition does not himself put Questions on the Order Paper, so that some degree of latitude is always allowed to the Leader of the Opposition to put rather more supplementary questions than would follow from putting a Question on the Order Paper?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe last thing about which Mr. Speaker would complain is Christian magnanimity. I am not concerned so much about the latitude afforded to the Front Benches as with the longitude which they take from time to time.
§ Mr. MolloyOn a point of order. Question No. 08 on the Order Paper today has very serious constitutional implications for every hon. Member. It asserts that any Government of this country can negotiate for reasons which would divide citizens into Welsh, Scots, Irish or coloured. Ought not the Prime Minister—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is not addressing me on a point of order. He does not like a Ouestion. but that is not a point of order.