HC Deb 28 November 1972 vol 847 cc239-42
Mr. Speaker

Mr. Spearing, point of order.

Mr. Spearing

During Questions on 23rd November, as reported at col. 1505 of the Official Report, I asked the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science a question, to which she replied. She then added some further information to a question which I did not ask. The next day the Guardian newspaper misunderstood what the right hon. Lady said and in a report suggested that she had said something which I believe she had not. In accordance with Standing Orders, may I ask the right hon. Lady to make a personal explanation to make it quite clear that on 20th October she did in fact request the Burnham panel of employers not to make an offer and that this had nothing to do with what happened on 3rd, 4th and 5th November afterwards?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman's remarks appear to me to relate to the content of a ministerial answer. That is not a point of order.

Sir D. Renton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to Prime Minister's Question No. Q4, and a good many other Questions on the Order Paper containing exactly the same phraseology, out of a total of 24 Questions to the Prime Minister today. Those Questions asked whether a copy of the speech which the Prime Minister made on 13th November could be placed in the Library. The Prime Minister in his original reply said that a copy was placed in the Library on 14th November. The date of 14th November was the earliest date on which these Questions could have been tabled and they could not have appeared in print on the Order Paper until 15th November. By the time the Order Paper went to press on the night of the 14th, it could have been easily ascertained that a copy of the Prime Minister's speech had been placed in the Library. In those circumstances, does it not seem rather extraordinary that this well-worn gambit should have been used on this occasion? I do not detract from the interest aroused by the supplementary questions put to the Prime Minister or from the pleasure given by his replies, but it appears to be quite unnecessary, when so many Questions to the Prime Minister appear on the Order Paper, for such a gambit to be used.

Sir Robin Turton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you, in making your ruling, take into account the fact that the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions dealt with this particular point and made certain recommendations, which have not yet been debated in this House, and on which the Government have not given their opinion.

Mr. Duffy

Further to that point of order. Will you also, Mr. Speaker, take account of the fact that in the first eight minutes of Prime Minister's Questions only three hon. Gentlemen were able to have their Questions dealt with, but that in the next eight minutes another seven hon. Gentlemen had their Questions dealt with?

Mr. Speaker

I think that rather more than seven hon. Members had their Questions dealt with.

Mr. Tebbit

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In giving your ruling would you be prepared to say whether it would have been in order, whatever had happened over the matter of placing a copy of the speech in the Library, for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to ask the Prime Minister why he had put that speech in the Library? Therefore, is this not rather a non-point?

Mr. Speaker

This is a serious House of Commons matter and I would ask hon. and right hon. Members to read the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions. In that report it was stated clearly that there are very few ways in which a Question can be put to the Prime Minister. The present method is one of the recognised ways of doing so which accord with the customs of the House. In fact, on this occasion ten Questions were grouped, but it is not for me to say whether that is proper or improper. At present this is the custom of the House and nothing out of order occurred. However, I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be well advised to consider the point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) that the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions should be considered by the House because there are many very unsatisfactory features about Question Time at present.

Mr. Kaufman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to Questions Nos. 28 and 11 and the manner in which the answers were linked? In answer to Question No. 11 the Minister of State to the Treasury linked Question No. 28 but did not link Question No. 41, which stands in my name, and Question No. 46, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) even though they were identical.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must be firm and tell the House that this is not a matter for the Chair. This is not a matter of order. If an hon. Member is dissatisfied with what happened, he must proceed in some other way.

Mr. Kaufman

I am not dissatisfied with what happened, Mr. Speaker. because I did not have much of a supplementary question ready. The point I wish to submit is that in view of the fact that early Questions are linked with late Questions, the linking of Question No. 37 with Question No. 28 is clearly a matter of caprice of Ministers and it would be much more satisfactory to everybody if there were a clear rule by which Ministers had to decide how to link Questions, rather than that the matter should be left to their own individual choice.

Mr. Speaker

It seems to me that this would be a suitable matter to be included in a debate on the Report of the Committee on Parliamentary Questions.