§ Mr. William HamiltonOn a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about the manner in which the answer was given to Question No. 4 today relating to Dutch elm disease, a very serious disease no doubt and one which we should all seek to avoid. The Minister sought to answer the Question by asking permission to take with it—and the words "with permission" are quite meaningless—Questions Nos. 16, 41, 54, 61, 62 and 66. Only one of the hon. Members concerned was absent. All 1088 the Questions were down in the names of Conservative Members.
It may well be that the Dutch elm disease is an important problem but when the Minister of Agriculture is top of the list for Questions, by far the most important matter for him is the Government's betrayal of its election promises on food prices. It may well be that the Ministry deliberately sought to answer seven questions on Dutch Elm disease in order to avoid answering much more vital questions on food prices. You, Mr. Speaker, often state that the fact that a Member has a Question on the Order Paper does not automatically entitle him to a supplementary question. Various reports from the Select Committee on Procedure have indicated that you should try to protect backbench Members who have Questions on the Order Paper, because it is their principal opportunity of questioning the executive.
One of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, said that he would not ask hon. Members to put supplementaries when their Questions were beyond a certain number on the Order Paper. Clearly, if Question No. 4 is answered together with Questions numbered in the sixties, that prejudices the chances of hon. Members who have Questions numbered in the twenties, which is what happened today. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take this into consideration if on a subsequent occasion a Minister says, "With permission, I want to answer Question Nos. 4 and 195 together."
§ Mr. SpeakerI will take into account what the hon. Member has said.
§ Mr. John WellsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 31 was not reached this afternoon and it is widely expected that there may be a reply to it floating about which is extremely hostile to the British fruit growing industry. If that is true, it would be most deplorable that it should be given as a Written Answer.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is trying very hard, but that is not a matter of order.