Parliamentary Questions (Hansard, 28 February 1983)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice this morning that I intended to raise this matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I should make it clear to the House that informing the Clerks of a point of order is not really giving me notice. My office is the place to do that. However, the hon. Gentleman may proceed.

§ Mr. Dalyell
My noble Friend Lord Hatch of Lusby had the following question on the House of Lords Order Paper for 23 February: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that Thorn EMI, who manufacture the 'Ranger' anti-personnel mine, are discussing future sales with Argentina, either directly or through intermediaries, and if so whether they intend to take any action. You, Mr. Speaker, kindly replied to me on that subject last week, but when I tried to put down a question at the House of Commons Table Office I was told that it was out of order on two grounds: first, because there was not direct ministerial responsibility; and, secondly, because it sought confirmation of a rumour. I quite understand those rules, but surely what is sauce for the goose in the House of Commons must be sauce for the gander in the other place. Is it not time that we considered why questions that are accepted in the House of Lords cannot be accepted here? Surely there should be some uniformity in these matters. The matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee and I should have thought that it was a matter for Parliament.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must weigh my words carefully, as we always speak respectfully of the other place. We have our own rules and Standing Orders and this elected Chamber conducts its affairs very differently from the way in which another place conducts its affairs. I think that we would be well advised to look after our own business and, with respect, to let the other place do the same.

§ Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of my point of order, but have you observed that no fewer than 44 of the written questions on today's Order Paper are in the name of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? No doubt they are all in order, but do you consider that practice desirable: Quite apart from the cost involved, if every hon. Member put down that number, written questions would become impossible.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) very courteously gave me notice that he intended to raise this matter. May I gently remind the House that in the 1960s I put down a series of questions—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to couch his comments in the form of a point of order. He cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point of order—I am paid to do that—but he may submit a point of order of his own which incidentally may appear to be an answer to the original point of order.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I saved many hundreds of millions of pounds by putting down questions investigating the proposed airport at Aldabra atoll and the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. My questions may cost money, but the cost is peanuts compared with the estimated cost of £880 million for Port Stanley airport, to which 19 of my questions relate.

§ Mr. Speaker
As there is no danger of anyone stooping the hon. Gentleman putting down questions that are in order, I think that he has had a good run for his money today.