HC Deb 19 May 1971 vol 817 cc1271-3
Mrs. Renée Short

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point in connection with the reply given to my Question No. 17 by a junior Minister. He told me to seek the information I requested from my local authority, indicating that he—

Mr. Speaker

Is the hon. Lady's point of order by way of being a complaint about the nature of the Answer that was given by the Minister?

Mrs. Short

I was about to refer to the answer that I received to a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Lady to proceed with this point. The content of an answer, either to a main Question or a supplementary question, however unsatisfactory it may seem, is not a point of order for me. The Chair has absolutely no control over the content of speeches or answers, provided they are in order.

Mrs. Short

Further to my point of order—

Mr. Speaker

I have pointed out that the hon. Lady has so far not raised a matter that is a point of order.

Mrs. Short

I was really raising the principle concerned in this issue. I was not necessarily referring to the content of the reply. May I continue to address you? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

The junior Minister concerned clearly gave the House to understand—he certainly gave me to understand—that he had no information on the subject. While that was not surprising, it turned out from his reply to my supplementary question that he in fact did have some information about numbers in connection with Wolverhampton staffs. [Interruption.] My point of order is to ask whether it is really right for a Minister first to give a rather impertinent brush-off to an hon. Member and then to disclose that he in fact had some information that could have been divulged—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady is concerned with the content of the answer and is not raising a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McNamara

Further to that point of order raised by my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On a point of order of my own. I would be grateful if you would direct me about the principle involved when an hon. Member asks a Question and is given an Answer which is not satisfactory and then, in reply to a supplementary question, is given an answer to the original Question that was asked. Is this not an abuse of the House and a waste of our time? Further, is it not an abuse by Ministers of their position in relation to backbenchers?

Mr. Speaker

This is a matter which the House should get clear. Repeated references have been made in the past to what have been called "bogus" points of order—

Mr. Renée Short

What about bogus answers?

Mr. Speaker

—and one of my predecessors referred to "fraudulent" points of order. Every hon. Member knows that the Chair has no responsibility for the content of answers or for what a Minister says and how he says it. These sorts of points or order are, therefore, fraudulent.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whereas all hon. Members wish to prevent fraudulent points of order from being raised[Interruption.]—is it not a fact that it is perfectly in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) or any other hon. Member to raise the question of whether Ministers in their replies are seeking to avoid their responsibilities in the sense of suggesting—[Interruption.]—that a Question has been improperly placed on the Order Paper?

Is it not a fact, therefore, that this is a matter which directly constitutes a point of order? If a Minister persistently said in reply to Questions which had been accepted by the Chair that he would not be responsible for replying, then that would be a matter which could legitimately be raised by hon. Members in any part of the House as a point of order; and if such matters were to be excluded from being raised as points of order the Minister could escape from answering Questions which the Chair had accepted. I therefore suggest that the matter raised by my hon. Friend is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I will rule upon each matter as it arises. I have no doubt that in my Ruling today there was no breach of order by the Minister in the nature of his reply. I am doubtful about the general proposition that the hon. Gentleman has put forward. I will.consider it. As for today, I am satisfied with the Ruling I have made.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a derogation of the rights of Members of the House who try to keep within the rules of order for other Members persistently to raise fraudulent points of order so as to put their point of view? Should not some means be found of protecting the rights of the majority who abide by the rules?

Mr. Speaker

I am open to suggestions on the point.