HC Deb 16 December 1969 vol 793 cc1135-6
Sir Harmar Nicholls

I wish to pursue the point of order that I made, with reluctance, during Question Time. The Prime Minister answered Questions Nos. Q1 and Q3 together. They are two different Questions and the answers were quite different. The effect was that there was no further discussion on the supplementaries on Question No. Q1 where the point of principle was involved. All the discussion was on the other Question, No. Q3, which was a technical, administrative matter.

Your Ruling at that stage, Mr. Speaker, was that the matter was in the hands of the Minister. I should have thought that the convention of the House is quite clear and the only way that is fair to back benchers. It is surely only acceptable for Questions to be answered together if the answer is identical to all Questions, but if the answer is different then they ought to be treated as separate Questions.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has pursued a little more lengthily the point which he put in exactly the same way during Question Time. It is for a Minister to decide which Questions he groups together.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. The whole convention of the history of the House is not in accordance with that Ruling, Sir. It is not for the Minister to decide, according to my experience over nearly 20 years. Questions are only answered together where the answer is identical. I submit this as a point to be considered separately by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker

As far as order is concerned, the point is exactly as I have ruled. It is for the Minister to decide not merely whether Questions are identical, but whether they are akin. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with what the Prime Minister did, that is not unusual.

Mr. Wyatt

When the Prime Minister says "With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. Q.1 and Q.3 together", whose permission is he seeking and who is giving the permission?

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman turns up HANSARD, he will find that over and again the Speaker has ruled that this is one of the courtesies of the House.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. If it is one of the courtesies of the House, and we welcome the use of that word by you, Mr. Speaker, would it not be right that the Prime Minister should refrain from abusing it?

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter of opinion, not of order.

Mr. Hirst

On a point of order, further to the same matter. The problem here involves the protection of back benchers and does not involve any questioning of your personal Ruling, Mr. Speaker. How far is this to be allowed to go? If, as in the case here, the first Question was not answered at all, although I am not accusing the Prime Minister in this case, this could be a way of avoiding an answer in the House.

Mr. Speaker

Possibly it could be. It was not so in this case.