§ 3.31 pm
§ Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should welcome your guidance on a matter relating to rules of order in respect of parliamentary questions. I had always understood that there must be some ministerial responsibility in order that a question could be addressed to a Minister. This afternoon, oral question No. 9 related to the action of the Soviet Union in respect of a Soviet citizen. Therefore, I find it a little odd to see how any ministerial responsibility can arise, in respect of a United Kingdom Minister, with regard to this case.
However, it may be argued, and I should support this contention if it is so argued, that this is a general matter of human rights that ought to concern the House, and which arises from international treaties on human rights to which the British Government are a party. If it is so argued, may I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it would be in order for myself and my colleagues to raise questions about the maltreatment or imprisonment, for example, of Africans in South Africa, Chileans in Chile, or Palestinians in Israel? These are cases where there can clearly be no obvious ministerial responsibility, 208 as Ministers of the Crown cannot answer for the behaviour of foreign Governments in their own country, but where there is some general application of human rights.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put the question. Oral question No. 9 was allowed as was a similar question earlier on the Order Paper—oral question No. 3—about another Jewish citizen in the Soviet Union. I understand that that is allowed because under the Helsinki Agreement, we are able to pursue the question whether that agreement is being kept. However, I cannot give undertakings on the broader matter to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and taking up the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has raised—that I had oral question No. 11, which was not reached today—as you pointed out, oral questions Nos. 3 and 9 are similar, and on the same subject. No one is seeking to denigrate the importance of these issues, but since we have only 35 minutes to cover the world in Foreign Office questions would it be possible for the Minister answering to group questions such as these to save time?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is up to the Minister, and the less that I say the safer I shall be.