HC Deb 31 January 1978 vol 943 cc246-9
Mr. Ridley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has become apparent during Prime Minister's Question Time that the right hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly interested in asking questions of the Opposition rather than answering our questions. In view of his rather morbid interest, would it not be possible to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the possibility of our allocating a quarter of an hour between 3.15 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on Wednesdays during which the Prime Minister could put down Questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker

That is not for me to decide.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the ruling you gave during employment Questions that both questions and answers should be speeded up could also be applied to Prime Minister's Question Time? I am not complaining because I had Question No. Q3 to the Prime Minister, but we dealt with only Question No. Q1.

Mr. Speaker

We always allow a little extra latitude to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I know that they would not take advantage of that fact.

Mr. Faulds

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, while my right hon. Friend was discussing the numbers already settled in this country, the 16,000 who had been allowed permanent settlement last year, he asked the Leader of the Opposition—and she gave a negative shake of the head in reply—whether these people should be put out. The right hon. Lady did not have the courage to get to her feet to make that reply.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should like to hear a point of order and not an argument that is continuing from Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Faulds

Since the Leader of the Opposition did not get to her feet to make clear that she did not want those people put out and as she agreed—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House very well. He must not continue Prime Minister's Question Time by raising a point of order to score points. Let us have either a genuine point of order or none at all.

Mr. Faulds

Since the right hon. Lady made clear only by a negative shake of the head that she was not prepared to have these people put out, can you, Mr. Speaker, instruct the Editor of Hansard to make a note of that physical gesture?

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and hon. Members will know that no Member has the right to demand a reply of a Minister and that a Minister is fully entitled to reply or not to reply as he thinks fit.

However, when, as was the case with the Prime Minister, a Minister accepts a Question—as my right hon. Friend did yesterday—and says that he will answer it and give the information requested and then declines to do so, is that not a matter that you could consider? I am referring to the general principle rather than the specific case. If a Minister says that he will give information—as my right hon. Friend said yesterday—and then fails to give it, is that not treating the House with contempt? I am raising a general question and not a particular case.

The Prime Minister

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend is raising a general question, I do not know why he refers to the Question put to me. My hon. Friend asked me to publish in the Official Report a detailed list of persons and their designations and salaries and so on at No. 10 Downing Street. I replied: I am ready to continue the normal practice of answering Questions from hon. Members about the numbers of staff in various grades employed at 10 Downing Street, and the total cost of their salaries."—[Official Report, 30th January 1978; Vol. 943, c. 70]

Mr. Lewis

I am glad that the Prime Minister has done that. You will note. Mr. Speaker, that he said that he would do it and then refrained from doing so—[Interruption.] That may be funny, smart and "slick Jim ", but that is not how the House should be treated. I am not concerned with "slick Jim". If a Minister says that he will do something, surely it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to say "If you say that you will do it, you will do it". In my Question I asked my right hon. Friend to do something. He said that he would but he failed to do it.

The Prime Minister

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I answered the Question that my hon. Friend tabled. If, inadvertently, he did not put his Question in a form that demanded the Answer that he required, I suggest that he tables another Question. As in the past, I shall answer all my hon. Friend's Questions. I receive a daily letter from him and he receives a daily reply. I would miss it if a morning passed without a complaint from him.

Mr. Tebbit

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that the Prime Minister undertook to reply to all the Questions put to him by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Surely it was wrong, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to offer to do that for an individual hon. Member. Is it not right that that facility should be extended to all hon. Members?

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a long established tradition that hon. Members may question the Prime Minister about the speeches of members of the Cabinet. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has now come out with the dictum that he does not read those speeches and, therefore, does not answer questions about them. Once again, that underlines the need for a further reference of Prime Minister's Questions to the Select Committee on Procedure so that we may find better ways of questioning the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker

The content of Ministers' replies is nothing to do with me.