HC Deb 05 July 1979 vol 969 cc1556-72
Mr. James Callaghan

Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 9 JULY and TUESDAY 10 JULY—Completion of Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

At the end on Tuesday, motion on the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) (Amendment) Order.

WEDNESDAY 1I JULY—Motions on Ministers' and Members' salaries, allowances and pensions.

THURSDAY 12 JULY—Remaining stages of the Education Bill.

FRIDAY 13 JULY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 16 JULY—Remaining stages of the European Assembly (Salaries and Pensions) Bill.

Debate on the 1980 preliminary draft Community budget, when EEC documents 7633/79 and 5528/79 will be relevant.

Mr. Callaghan

I have read a report that next week the Foreign Secretary will make an important statement in another place about Government policy on Rhodesia. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that a similar statement will be made in this House at the same time? I repeat the request that I made last week, that before the Prime Minister departs for Lusaka, in view of the important discussions that will take place and the danger of Britain's being isolated, we should have an opportunity to discuss the Southern African situation. I understand that a number of representations have been made by hon. Members to the Leader of the House relating to Wednesday's business on Ministers' and Members' salaries. Will the motions reflect the result of those discussions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I shall look into the question of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman raised. With regard to a debate on African affairs, I hope that I shall be able to meet his request. As for Wednesday's debate, I have had representations from right hon. and hon. Members. I realise that my last statement on the subject was received with something less than rapture. I hope that the motions will be received with greater satisfaction. They will be laid tomorrow. While sticking to the principles that the Government have enunciated, they will take into account the representations made.

Mr. Callaghan

I shall leave any comment on that matter until we see the motions. I revert to what the Leader of the House said about a statement, which is unsatisfactory. It is not sufficient for him to say that he will look into the question of a statement being made on Rhodesia next Tuesday. We believe that it is unfortunate that a Foreign Secretary should not be here to be accountable to this House. I must repeat my request to the Leader of the House and ask for an assurance that no statement will be made in the House of Lords that is not made in this House at the same time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

There are two questions. With regard to the debate, I cannot go further than I have gone. With regard to the statement, I believe that it is the custom that statements are made in both Houses. I shall see that it is done on this occasion.

Mr. Latham

In view of the continuing unsatisfactory situation over parliamentary papers, will my right hon. Friend at least assure the House that it will know as much about this industrial dispute as it knows about virtually every other dispute? Can we be told at least who are the parties to the dispute and what steps my right hon. Friend is taking to solve it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, but I am naturally keeping in close touch with the situation. It is a dispute involving the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which is in dispute about certain gradings of scientific employees. We are doing our best to see that it is settled satisfactorily, but in these matters there are difficult obstacles to overcome.

Mr. Stephen Ross

In view of the Secretary of State for Industry's announcement on Monday on the possible future of the Post Office, is it not time that the House was given a chance to debate the long-published Carter report?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I shall convey that view to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. du Cann

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government are coming forward with fresh proposals on the remuneration of Members of Parliament and Ministers' remuneration which reflect the advice that some of us have tried to give, in the interests of the House as a whole, that will be warmly welcomed? Is he aware that it would be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Members of this House that—however helpful may be the advice from the Government—a decision on these matters should be taken by Members of Parliament on a genuinely free vote? If he is to table motions, will they be tabled as soon as possible, so that we have the longest possible opportunity to study them?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful for the remarks of my right hon. Friend. The motions will be tabled tomorrow. That will give adequate time for Members to consider them. The ultimate decision in these matters is for the House of Commons. I have made that plain all along. They are not new proposals. They have evolved.

Dr. McDonald

In view of the increasing use of computerised information about employees, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that we have a debate soon on the report of the committee on data protection?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am aware of the importance of the report which the hon. Lady has mentioned. I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Dudley Smith

Following his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), will my right hon. Friend advise his colleague to make a statement to the House next week about the supply of parliamentary papers? It is intolerable that Parliament should be inconvenienced in this way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Nobody is more concerned than I am about the matter. It is clear that for Parliament to function fully we must have the necessary papers. We have made emergency arrangements. I hope that we shall make progress in settling this dispute, but it takes two to settle a dispute.

Mr. Coleman

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the report of the British Steel Corporation, and he will be aware of the concern about the steel industry. May we have an early debate on the steel industry before the House goes into recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It would be difficult to guarantee that. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. McCrindle

Will the debate on the restoration of the death penalty, promised in the Conservative manifesto, take place during the week after next?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend. It is not customary to announce business two weeks in advance, but I assure my hon. Friend that the debate will take place before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Mr. William Hamilton

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that although next Friday is a day for Private Members' Bills debates, there is an important and highly controversial Bill on the amendment of abortion legislation? The Bill has not yet been printed. This creates great difficulties. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the sponsors of the Bill to make sure that they take steps to see that hon. Members get copies of it in good time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I had noticed the subject of the Private Member's Bill. I shall consult the sponsors on the matter, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I had intended to keep away from them, for two obvious reasons.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Will my right hon. Friend revert to the important question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about statements made in the House of Lords by the Foreign Secretary? He will know that in the past, when there has been a Foreign Secretary in the Lords, it has been the invariable practice that statements are repeated in this House. In his reply to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) I am afraid that my right hon. Friend, perhaps inadvertently, said that he would ensure that this was done on this occasion. Will my right hon. Friend give a clear undertaking, so that there is no misunderstanding, that it will be the Government's normal practice to ensure that statements made in the House of Lords are made in this House at the same time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am grateful to him for enabling me to clarify the position and for providing suitable words—"the normal practice". I think that we are all rather nervous about using such words as "invariably" or "always" when we are in politics.

Mr. Leadbitter

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the urgent need for a debate on steel? Is he not aware that it is understood that the Government have reversed their policy on aids to the industry, thus allowing the Common Market to implement its code limiting aid and subsidies? The consequence will be to accelerate closures and cause greater hardship, making it urgently necessary that we have a debate before 23 July, when it is assumed that agreements will be made on those lines.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is an extremely complex subject, and an important one. I shall look into the matter to see what can be done.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

May I revert to the subject of parliamentary papers? Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week, and I think the week before, he led us to understand that an early solution to the present problem would be found? It has not been. The interruption of the supply of parliamentary papers is nothing new; it has been going on for years. How long must it continue before we investigate the possibility of taking the printing of the papers out of the hands of the Stationery Office and entrusting it to private enterprise?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

My hon. Friend has rather misinterpreted what I said. I do not think that I ever said that an early solution would be found. I said that our best endeavours would be directed towards that end. I note my hon. Friend's point about changing the printing arrangements. We should have to consider very carefully before embarking on that course, because we might make the situation worse rather than better.

Mr. Skinner

Instead of having a motion on the Order Paper next Wednesday to increase the pay of Ministers and Members, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw it and introduce another that allows old-age pensioners to have their increase brought forward to July, rather than having to wait until November? They need the money more than we do.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but if I were to follow the course that he recommends I might gain one ally but I should lose a number of others.

Mr. Gummer

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether we may have a debate on the pig producing industry? Although the farming community is very pleased with what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so far, the industry needs a great deal of help. There is an emergency, and urgent action is needed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the successes of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Rooker

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to make a statement next week so that he can tell the House by whose authority the updated copy of the Register of Members' Interests has been removed from the Library? This is an important matter. The majority of those on tire Register are still hon. Members.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I shall certainly pursue investigations. It may be that there is no sinister explanation. The Register may merely have been borrowed.

Mr. Garel-Jones

Is my right hon. Friend aware that early-day motion 17, calling for a ban on the import of whale products and urging the Government to work for international agreement to bring about the end of the slaughter of whales on the high seas, has now been signed by nearly 100 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to ban the import of all whale products and to work to secure a world wide ban on the slaughter of whales.]

As the International Whaling Commission is meeting in London on Monday and a statement of Government policy on the matter is expected, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that as soon as the statement is made we shall be given an early opportunity to debate it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I have seen the all-party motion on whales, tabled by my hon. Friend and others. It is a most important subject. I am a strong supporter of conservation, including that of animals. I am sure that the right course is for the Government to continue to work for the proper conservation of whales through the International Whaling Commission. We shall certainly note the conclusions of the important conference that is meeting in London on Monday.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to argue a case but to ask a question as briefly as they can.

Mrs. Renée Short

The right hon. Gentleman appears to have made no progress in the setting up of Select Committees since last week. When will he?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The hon. Lady is not quite correct. We have made considerable progress in the setting up of Select Committees. If the hon. Lady looks at the Order Paper today she will find that another Select Committee has been set up. If she is referring to the 12 new Select Committees, I can tell her that discussions are going on through the usual channels, and we hope to be in a position to table motions before the House rises.

Mr. Lawrence

Further to questions about the parliamentary papers, is my right hon. Friend aware that feeling, at any rate on the Conservative Benches, is very strong that the Stationery Office should be relieved of its monopoly in the matter? Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, we shall go on and on with the problem, year in, year out. Would not the best way of resolving the strength of opinion in the House be to have a debate on the subject?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It would be difficult to fit in a debate next week. I am well aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the House at being deprived of the full service of papers. But we are all grateful for the efforts that have been made by the staff to keep us supplied with papers.

Mr. Cryer

Will the proposals on Members' salaries be linked in any way with full-time membership of the House, or will hon. Members be allowed to continue garnering their parliamentary adviser-ships and directorships? Will the debate cover the updating and publication of the Register of Members' Interests, which seems to have fallen by the wayside over the past two or three years? Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage any time being given to debating Department of Trade reports which are now gathering dust, such as the report on Keyser Ullmann?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

That was a curious assortment of questions, all put together by the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman. The report in question is a matter for the Department of Trade. With regard to the Register of Members' Interests, I am considering what should be done, in the best interests of the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman would be over-optimistic if he considered that the question of employment outside the House would be the subject of the motions to be laid tomorrow. Members of talent can combine their duties here with employment elsewhere. It is not only individuals who may gain from that. I believe that the House as a whole benefits.

Mr. Wilkinson

As only one question at Prime Minister's Question Time on the last three occasions was on any subject other than listing the Prime Minister's business for the day, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the commitment that he made this time last week to discuss in the appropriate quarters the format of Prime Minister's questions? Many of us believe that an intelligent and informative primary question is just as important as a clever supplementary one.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It is a complex issue, which has already been considered by a Committee. Certain actions were taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister which were not entirely successful in resolving the issue. We have returned to the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do is to refer this matter to the new Procedure Committee when it is set up.

The practice of hon. Members themselves is important. If they are dissatisfied, they have the remedy in their own hands. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, by general consent is answering questions in such a brilliant fashion, has indicated that she is prepared to answer questions put to her by hon. Members.

Mr. Spearing

It has been announced that on Monday 16 July we shall discuss the further stages of the European Assembly (Salaries and Pensions) Bill, to be followed by a debate on the draft EEC budget proposals. As the proposals in the Bill—unlike the announcement at 3.45 a.m. on Wednesday about possible links between Assembly representatives and hon. Members of the House—are uncontentious, and the budget is a highly contentious and important matter, will the Leader of the House consider reversing the business so that we can consider the EEC budget first and the Bill second?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I understand the hon. Member's opinion, but I cannot give him the undertaking for which he asks. I hope that the remaining stages of the Bill will be dispatched reasonably quickly. There will then be more time to debate the important budget proposals.

Mr. Cormack

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the state of this building is causing considerable alarm? Will he make a statement in the near future about cleaning the building?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I assure my hon. Friend that he is safe. I agree that it would be a good idea to have the building cleaned, but perhaps this is not the most appropriate moment to increase expenditure in this way. It is a matter for the Services Committee, and I am considering it.

Mr. Hardy

I do not know whether any Conservative Member is safe. When are we to consider the Bill that the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to have promised, which will effect an astonishing transformation in the degree of control that central Government can exercise over local authorities' finances?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in this matter, and I thank him for it. Such a Bill will not be introduced before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, uniquely, I find that I am supporting the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) in pressing my right hon. Friend for the setting up of the new Select Committees? Is he aware that this is an urgent matter? Will he table a motion before the House rises for the Summer Recess so that the new Social Services Select Committee can continue its important inquiry into perinatal and neonatal mortality, which will save public funds and lives?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

We are proceeding expeditiously, and we hope that there will be developments soon. I am delighted to note the support that my hon. Friend is giving to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). I hope that it is a case of supply and demand.

Mr. Greville Janner

In the tradition of cordial relations, may I support the question by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) about the cleaning and restoration of this building? The Leader of the House said that the matter should be referred to the Services Committee. That Committee has recommended that the building should be cleaned because it will cost millions of pounds more if the job is left undone any longer. May we at least have a debate on the subject?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. It would be excellent if it could be done within the parameters of the public expenditure reductions to which the Government are committed. I recall the way in which Paris was transformed by M. Andre Malraux, who was Minister for the arts and was responsible for the buildings being cleaned. It may prove to be an economy in the long run if the Palace of Westminster, which is one of the finest nineteenth century building in existence, were cleaned.

Several Hon Member

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been trying to catch my eye, and nobody else.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Will the Leader of the House consider linking parliamentary salaries to the salaries of those who produce our parliamentary papers when they are not on strike? They receive good pay—rather better than ours.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

That would not be a suitable linkage, because hon. Members' productivity is much higher.

Mr. Christopher Price

Does the Leader of the House think that one all-night sitting is sufficient for the remaining stages of the Education Bill? Since that Bill is designed mainly to preserve the 11-plus examination in the constituencies of the Chief Whip and the Home Secretary, will the Leader of the House arrange for them to be on the Front Bench all night to listen to the debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is most assiduous in his attendance in the Chamber and the House generally. My right hon. Friends and I, like the poor, are always with hon. Members. I imagine that the possibility of an all-night sitting is more of a threat than a promise. I hope that since an entire day has been allotted to the remaining stages of this short Bill it will be possible to dispose of it before the dawn breaks.

Mr. English

May we he assured that the Select Committees that concern the House will be appointed before the Summer Recess? I am talking of those Select Committees on Broadcasting, the Register of Members' Interests and the House of Commons Commission.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

These matters are not entirely within my control, but I shall do my best to ensure that those Committees are appointed.

Mr. Canavan

May we have a statement next week about an investigation into the £2 million, Government-backed underwater training centre at Fort William, in view of the Glasgow Herald and BBC reports about inadequate safety and faulty design standards? Is the Leader of the House aware that the chairman of the operating company, who has pocketed £24,000 in the past couple of years, is a former Tory Minister—the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery)?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is chairman of that body, is earning his salary. I shall look into the other matter urgently.

Mr. Newens

Last week the Leader of the House intimated that he hoped to be able to make an announcement today on the rearrangement of Question Time so that more time could be devoted to foreign affairs, other than European affairs. Is he able to make good his promise?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am pursuing this difficult and delicate matter. Opinions and interests of different hon. Members and different Departments have to be reconciled harmoniously. I hope to bring the negotiations to a successful and happy conclusion and make an announcement next week.

Mr. Winnick

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 78—"Tory Inflation and the Building Societies' Interest Rates"?

[That this House considers that any increase in the present mortgage interest rates would be a further blow to living standards after the very inflationary steps undertaken by the present Government; and therefore calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to urge the building societies not to increase their interest rates.]

Should we not have a debate on this matter, which could adversely affect a large number of people who are struggling to buy their own homes? Since the Tories are supposed to be so keen on owner-occupation, surely the Leader of the House will provide time for a debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I agree that it is a most important matter for millions of people throughout the country, but since the Government believe that the building societies should be able to cope with the present situation without raising the mortgage interest rate, I do not think that it would be right to have an immediate debate.

Mr. Allen McKay

In view of the energy crisis, does the Leader of the House not feel that we should debate the situation with a view to bringing all energy sources under one umbrella, with a co-ordinated fuel policy, which would conserve fuel and give the country a lead?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about co-ordination, interesting though it is, is a matter for me, though I shall certainly refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I am keeping the situation under review, and we may be able to have a debate on the subject. However, there are conflicting claims by equally urgent matters.

Mr. Michael Hamilton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). Were you given notice of that reference, or was my hon. Friend given notice? If not, will you require that allegation to be withdrawn?

Mr. Canavan

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall give the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) an opportunity to speak in a moment. I listened very carefully, and as far as I could gather there was no reflection on the personal honour of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). If such a reflection was implied or meant, it would be required to be withdrawn. Mr. Canavan.

Mr. Canavan

I am quite happy to leave the matter there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I raised the point about Members' interests. It seems to me that there is a general rule that where certain Members of Parliament—mostly Conservative Members—choose to line their pockets with the proceeds of directorships and parliamentary advisers' posts outside, which are sometimes the subject of public comment in Department of Trade reports, newspaper reports and in other ways when their companies get into financial difficulties, other hon. Members have a right and a duty to comment on those affairs. The fact that some Members of Parliament choose not to devote their full time and attention to matters here—although their constituents generally have to in their jobs—should in no way inhibit an hon. Member from bringing to bear in the House of Commons full and fair comment on those hon. Members and their companies.

Mr. Speaker

I always deprecate personal references—[Interruption]—yes, I do, because I think that general arguments of principle can be pursued without personal references. However, if there is—

Mr. Skinner

Mr. Speaker is right.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cannot be quiet, perhaps he would like to leave.

It is very important that any reflection on the honour of an hon. Member must be withdrawn at once. I gather that there was no reflection on the honour of the hon. Member for Honiton.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the assurance given by the Leader of the House, reiterating the Prime Minister's undertaking that she was willing to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time on any subject of Government policy. May we have an assurance that the Table Office will note that undertaking and will not stop hon. Members from tabling questions to the Prime Minister on any subject?

Mr. Cormack

Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. Is it within your competence to instruct the Table Office that if it is selecting questions to the Prime Minister and it has selected a question asking about her engagements for the day it should not select another identical question to follow it?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Whatever questions are submitted are put into the general shuffle and if substantive questions come out early so be it. That is all to our advantage. However it seems that there are many more open questions and that they have been coming to the top in the shuffle.

Mr. James Callaghan

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for the sake of clarity may I ask whether you have been notified or whether the Table Office has been notified by the Prime Minister that what seemed to be a casual remark was really meant—namely, that she is prepared to answer questions on any subject? If that is so, it would clearly mean that hon. Members would be able to put down questions on a wide range of subjects and would transform Question Time into something much more interesting. Of course, what her Ministers would say about that would be another matter. Have you any information on this point. Mr. Speaker?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I add a little information to what I have said? I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was expressing her willingness to respond to a change in the manner of questioning her. She was not, however, saying that she would undertake to answer questions for all her Ministers.

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask the Leader of the House what he means?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The Leader of the Opposition may ask me what I mean, but may I suggest that he should address his remark to the Prime Minister?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If I may answer the Leader of the Opposition, I have not received any notification other than the statement made on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not trying to be tiresome, but may I ask what will be the practice of the Clerks if they receive such questions—as they may well do in the light of that remark and the failure of the Leader of the House to explain what it meant—over the next few days until the issue is cleared up? Will the Clerks be ready to accept any question that is put down on any subject that is appropriate to be put to any Minister?

Mr. Speaker

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Minister who is answering has a decision to take in this matter. He knows that well. He has been a Minister. The Clerks will accept questions that are in order to go on the Order Paper. I can say no more.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am prepared to take two further points of order, and then we must move on.

Mr. Rooker

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to avoid confusion and the wasting of time on Monday, may I point out now that another Minister is in the same position as the Prime Minister? I refer to the Paymaster General, who has a very wide brief. I tabled a substantive question to him asking whether he was satisfied with the co-ordination of Government information on social services. It came out as the first question for the five minute question session on Monday. However, that question was immediately transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security. We are therefore in precisely the same position with the Paymaster General as with the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the House may wish to bear that in mind, otherwise we shall waste time next week as well.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not simply a question of the Table Office, accepting questions that are in order. The important point is to discover what is in order. In the past the Table Office has indicated that it will not take questions on a subject on which the Prime Minister has indicated, through the usual channels, that she will not be questioned. As I understood the Prime Minister's statement the other day, she was removing that blockage. We are anxious to find but whether it is she or the Table Office that will block these questions. It therefore becomes a matter for the House if the Table Office is to say that it will take questions on any subject and then leave it to the Prime Minister's Office to decide on which subjects she will be questioned.

Mr. Skinner

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is most important that this matter is cleared up today. Hon. Members have only eight chances for oral questions in any given fortnight. They use them as they please, according to their taste. The possibility that an hon. Member may have his question transferred by the Prime Minister at the last possible moment means that he could lose his place in the queue. It is most important that this matter should be cleared up so that we know precisely what the bounds are. If one tables a question about the Prime Minister's official engagements, that will look inane on the Order Paper if it is repeated about 30 times, but an hon. Member has to do that to be sure that his question will get past the post. We are therefore now in a position where it seems that some questions can be accepted, but hon. Members cannot be sure which they are. Such questions might be all right by the Table Office, which will allow them to go forward, but the Prime Minister then has the option, when the question has reached a reasonable position, to throw it out. That means that some hon. Members can have their questions withdrawn. It is most important that the Leader of the House should make the point abundantly clear one way or the other.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Further to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I cannot reply wholly for the Prime Minister. Perhaps it would be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House if I were to convey to the Prime Minister the exchange that has taken place so that she can convey to me, and to the right hon. Gentleman, what it was she intended to convey by that remark.

Mr. James Callaghan

I think that that is the best way of proceeding. It would be very helpful, if I am still in order, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the House, could make a statement on Monday, for the benefit of the House, so that we can know what questions will be accepted. Let me add that it will be very difficult to define.