§ Mr. McNamaraOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you called Question No. Q4 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) you allowed him a second supplementary question. As I understand the situation, the decision is for you whether to allow a second supplementary question, based on the report of the Procedure Committee. However, in. view of the fact that many hon. Members were 214 seeking to put supplementary questions to the Prime Minister and that we are now limited to one question only, would you give some guidance to the House on how you will be operating your discretion?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it is something which should be done very occasionally at the discretion of the Chair in order that an hon. or right hon. Member who asks a question may endeavour to get a more satisfactory answer. That was the spirit of the report of the Select Committee, and I try to be guided by it.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister to dismiss a direct question with the assertion that it is irrelevant—as did the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping—and then to give a long answer proving that it is exceedingly relevant?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the hon. Gentleman knows very well, that is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. David SteelOn a point of order. The Minister for Aerospace answered Written Question No. 40. It is clear from the mark in the margin of the Order Paper that this question was tabled yesterday after a reply to myself and another hon. Member on the same subject. Had the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) sought to ask a Private Notice Question or had the Minister sought to make a statement, the House would have had notice through the usual channels and by means of the television annunciators. Would you consider this point, Mr. Speaker—that, when a Minister seeks to answer a Written Question in that way on an important matter, we should likewise have notice?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having raised that point. I will consider it.