§ Mr. BarnettOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that Questions put down late in the day would not be answered at Question Time unless you decided that you could call other Questions. You have, however, called Question No. 31, which, clearly, was put down rather late, rather than other Questions. 1503 May I ask whether you have now changed your Ruling?
§ Mr. SpeakerI regret that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I did not call Question No. 31.
§ Mr. BarnettBut you did, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled previously, however, that when Questions were put down late in the day you would not give them priority. I wonder whether you have changed your Ruling.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry, but I am still in the dark. I simply follow the order of Questions on the Order Paper. Questions received at the Table Office take their place chronologically.
§ Mr. BarnettPerhaps I can make my point of order clear, Mr. Speaker. You have pointed out previously that when Questions were answered together, if Questions were put down rather late you would not necessarily give priority to them and would call other Questions even though they had not been put down rather late. I wondered whether you had changed your Ruling.
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I understand the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). When a large number of Questions have been put down I have tried, as far as possible, to confine my Answer to those which might normally be expected to be reached on the Order Paper. I believe that this was the guidance you gave to the House some time ago.
But in the special circumstances of the House coming back after a long Recess, I thought it would be desirable to answer more Questions because they had accumulated over a period of time. In general, however, my colleagues and I would, of course, intend to follow the general guidance that you have given.
§ Mr. SpeakerI apologise. I understand the point now. There are two Questions numbered 31 on the Order Paper. I take it that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) is referring to Question No. 31 to the Prime Minister. I did not feel that it was within my previous Ruling that I should apply to it the rule I normally apply to 1504 Questions numbered 60, or 65 or 70 on the Order Paper.
However, there is some validity in the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. When we do have a number of late Questions within the Prime Minister's limited number of Questions something like the Ruling I have given before ought to apply. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I am sorry that I was not seized of the point at first, but there were two Questions numbered 31.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to inquire the reason for the disallowance of the Private Notice Question which I sought—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is utterly out of order.