HC Deb 13 July 1972 vol 840 cc1848-50
Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Chair or the Table any power with regard to the practice of hon. Members tabling a series of identical Questions asking for a speech made on a certain date to be placed in the Library? Apart from this being a boring practice, it is against the best interests of Question Time in that 12 or 13 hon. Members get precedence over hon. Members with earlier Questions on the Order Paper. If it were known to the Table that the speech in question was in the Library before any Question was tabled could not such a Question be refused, so that the House might get back to the normal procedure followed at Question time?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member raises a real and important point. The grouping of Questions for answer is a matter not for the Chair but for the Minister concerned. As a working rule it might be considered whether there should ever be a case for the grouping of more than, say, five questions. It would then mean that after the first five Members in the group had been called to ask supplementary questions, the House could then go back and take the Questions as they appear on the Order Paper so that those hon. Members concerned would have a chance to question the Minister. I repeat that this is a matter not for the Chair but for the House itself.

Mr. William Hamilton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made it clear that you are not making a ruling on this matter. May I point out, Sir, that it is clearly laid down in Erskine May that this procedure is the only way in which hon. Members can question the Prime Minister on the speeches he makes. If 20 or even 50 Members choose to table a Question on a particular speech made by the Prime Minister, is there not a strong moral obligation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to answer all those Questions, even if it takes a couple of hours?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House should not get too excited about this matter. The Chair has complete discretion whether to allow any supplementary questions at all. The Committee on Procedure recommended that I should exercise that discretion. One way of proceeding would be to allow the first five Members in the group to ask supplementary questions and not allow them to the others. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Two points are involved. The first is that this method is accepted as the only way by which the Prime Minister can be asked Questions about the speeches, and I ruled on this point the other day. As for the grouping of Questions, that is a matter not for the Chair but for the House. But I insist on the right of the Chair to exercise its discretion whether to allow supplementary questions.

The Prime Minister

On the grouping of questions tabled for answer by me I should like to make it plain that clear rules are followed and that they are the same as those which were followed by my predecessor. In other words, when questions are tabled together on the same subject they are grouped, but when a similar question is tabled a day or so later, it is not included in that group.

Mr. Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why other than for reasons of political prejudice, did you deliberately exclude my question when the Prime Minister agreed to answer Q18 on the Order Paper.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think the hon. Member really meant what he said about political prejudice. I looked at him about four times and he did not rise to his feet.

Mr. Atkinson

I had the impression, Mr. Speaker, that you knew that I was waiting for you to call me to ask my Question. I noticed that those of my hon. Friends who put Questions did not stand up prior to you calling them. Therefore, why is some special treatment necessary for me?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think we can continue with this matter. Before I called the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) I waited a second or two for the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) to rise to his feet. He did not do so.

Mr. Molloy

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order for hon. Members who may not have tabled a Question to the Prime Minister on a particular speech also to have the opportunity of being called to put a supplementary question? Would it also be in order for Members who think that a speech by the Prime Minister is abominable and repulsive to ask for such a speech to be removed from the Library?

Mr. Speaker

I will consider that situation when it arises.