§ Mr. SpeakerIt might be convenient if, at this point, I dealt with the point which was raised during Question Time by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), and which I dealt with in a cursory manner.
36 The hon. Gentleman was worried about the Answer to Question No. 7 containing an answer to his Question No. 32. If he looks at the two Questions he will see that they are almost identical. They differ in one substantial point, and that was why the Answer to the first Question included much of the answer to the second. I consider that it would not be right for a Minister to answer one Question and at the same time be answering another if he did not indicate that fact to the House.
As for the rule applying to anticipation, I might reinforce the fact that since an answer was given in reply to a supplementary arising from Question No. 22, which really arose out of Question No. 24, it is not in order to anticipate another hon. Member's Question.
§ Mr. Russell KerrI wish to apologise to the hon. Member concerned. The occurrence was entirely inadvertent on my part and I am genuinely sorry that it happened.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo reproof is meant.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonI am grateful for what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, but, with respect, I submit that if the substantial difference was the phrase "Royal Naval … personnel" compared with "Royal Marines", then it is not a substantial point because the Corps of Royal Marines, to which I belong, is part of the naval forces and—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to argue the detail of the matter to that fine degree. I have given my Ruling.