§ Mr. MartenOn a point of order. I would have raised this during Question Time, Mr. Speaker, but I did not wish to take up time then. When I asked the Prime Minister a direct question about federalism in Europe, he referred, without answering my Question, to speeches made on the South Coast. As he forgot to ask me to his party conference, is it right for answers to be given in the House which refer to conferences at which we were not present?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Member for raising his point of order at the end of Questions, since raising points of order during Questions 952 prevents someone from getting to his Question. However, there is no point of order in this for me.
§ Mr. BlakerOn a point of order. I delayed raising my point of order for the same reason as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), but it is a different point.
I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement that he is about to make, intends to answer five separate Questions together, with permission. Two are in my name and deal with totally different and distinct matters. I suspect that, if I had attempted to put them in one Question, the Table Office would have ruled it out of order.
It appears to me that it cannot be for the convenience of the House, nor for that of many people in the country who are interested in these two very important Questions, that this course should be adopted. My point of order is to ask whether it is possible for the House, in a flagrant case of this kind, to refuse permission.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Chair has enough worries without interfering with the kind of replies which Ministers give to Questions. Ministers may, from time to time, group Questions. They ask permission of the House, but that is a matter of form; permission is always given. When the hon. Member puts his supplementary question, he should be able to manage to satisfy himself.