§ Mr. John MendelsonOn a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order concerning the consequences for hon. Members of a transfer of Questions. I have never raised such a matter in the past, when, for instance, a Question has been transferred from the Prime Minister to a departmental head, but there arises here a matter of principle, in my submission. I do not want to go into the matter, so I shall refer to it only in general terms.
A Question concerning—as is the established practice in the House—a responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, for approval of the export of military transport or any other means to be used in warfare, which I put down, has been transferred, after having been accepted by the Table, to which I submitted the usual reputable evidence, without which they would never have accepted it in the first place, to the Minister of Technology.
This has removed it from the list of Oral Questions to those which will have Written Answers, but, more important—this is the only reason that I am raising the matter—it is an accepted rule that, if a Question has once been answered, it cannot be put down again in exactly the same terms. Has a back bencher any remedy after such a transfer, which has ruled out his questioning the Foreign Secretary in the House, when, at the same time, he will be precluded, if the Answer is not satisfactory, from resubmitting the same Question to the Foreign Secretary?
This is surely a decision of an administrative transfer, which should be the subject of debate in the House, with the public listening in.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am seized of the point of order and it is an important one. It has not been unknown before. It is for a Minister to decide whether he wishes to transfer an hon. Member's Question to another Minister. I cannot intervene in that; nor can the Table. It is courteous for the Minister to inform the hon. Member if such a Question is transferred. If he did so, I do not think that the eventuality which the hon. Member has mentioned, of its being transferred from an Oral to a Written Question, could have arisen.
§ Mr. MendelsonFurther to that point of order. Perhaps I may say immediately that I received a letter from an official at the Foreign Office informing me about this in good time. But can you not give us some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of principle, whether a Question can then be resubmitted if the answer is unsatisfactory? Otherwise, a back bencher has no remedy at all.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am in great difficulty. I should have to consider the particular case to find why it emerged as a Written Answer and not an Oral one.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We do want to get on.
§ Mr. PagetOn a point of order. May I seek your guidance in a matter concerning points of order, Mr. Speaker? I refer to the practice whereby longish statements are made from both Front Benches on points of order which you have previously held not to be points of order. Should that serve as a precedent for future occasions?
§ Mr. SpeakerI thought that I had indicated my attitude to that, but I am glad to have the reinforcement of the hon. and learned Gentleman.