Question Time (Procedure) (Hansard, 28 February 1985)

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is a great deal of pressure during Question Time. Today, the Home Secretary referred to the inquiry being carried out by Lord Bridge at the request of the Prime Minister. My point of order is simple and clear—[Interruption.] We know that Members on the Conservative Benches are not concerned with civil liberties. I am directing my point of order to you, Mr. Speaker.
The inquiry being conducted by Lord Bridge is obviously of a serious nature—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not prolong Question Time. That is a bad practice, which I thought we had ended.

§ Mr. Winnick
I consider that there should have been—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With great respect, it is not a matter of what the hon. Gentleman considers. He must put a point of order to me to answer.

§ Mr. Winnick
Was it not an abuse of the House that a matter of such importance should have been dealt with during Question Time, with no statements being made by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to prolong Question Time.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall deal with one point at a time. I am not responsible for the questions that hon. Members table on the Order Paper for answer. There was a long answer to question No. 4, and we were able to reach question No. 14, which was broadly similar. I think that that was entirely due to the foresight and perspicacity of hon. Members concerned.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an item raised during Question Time to be deemed by a Front Bench Opposition spokesman to be a statement and treated as such to prolong the questioning of the Treasury Front Bench?

§ Mr. Speaker
As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was given a copy—[Interruption.] He said so. He was given a copy of the answer. I think that he may have been under the misapprehension that it was actually a statement. That is what he said. That is probably how the misunderstanding arose.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that, in your role of custodian of the proceedings of the House and the rights of Members of Parliament, an important matter is involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), in question No. 4, asked the Home Secretary how many official complaints about police behaviour have been received during the miners' strike; and how many of these concern accusations of assault. The Home Secretary answered that question. Then, obviously by prearrangement—not with you, of course, as I would not allege that for a moment — the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) — and the Home Secretary was ready with his reply — asked a question which enabled the Home Secretary to give an answer which in no way related to the question put by my hon. Friend, but was instead used as an opportunity for the Home Secretary to make what in other circumstances would more properly have been a statement about the Prime Minister instituting an inquiry into allegations made in a television programme which was banned by the Independent Broadcasting Authority earlier this week.
The point that I put to you as a point of order is simply this: is it not an abuse of Question Time for the Home Secretary to use a question in no way related to the statement that he wanted to make so that he might make a statement in response to a planted supplementary question?

§ Mr. Speaker
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that I have no knowledge of any planted question or anything of that kind. I called the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) because he happens to be Vice Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That is a very good reason. I had not anticipated that such a long answer would be given. I am not responsible for answers, but there used to be a system whereby, if we had questions of such complexity, they were answered at the end of Question Time. That would be a good way out for the future.

§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is recognised in most parts of the House, that you are very zealous in protecting 466 the rights of Back-Bench Members, particularly at Question Time. How was it that a statement relating to a question still unasked, but described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufmann) as a statement, could be exchanged between members of the two Front Benches but not circulated to any other party or any other Member of the House? That seems to be an abuse of procedure.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan)
Further to that point of order. I ought to correct what has been said. I think the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will recall that he was good enough to thank me for sending him a copy, not of any answer to a question, but of a letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to the Leader of the Opposition. He was not sent anything that related to what I answered.

§ Mr. Kaufman
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I think it would be for the benefit of the whole House that we should not prolong this and that the matter should now be finally cleared up.

§ Mr. Kaufman
Further to the point of order raised by the Home Secretary, Mr. Speaker, I made it clear at the time, and I make clear now in response to the Home Secretary, that he sent me a copy of a letter which the Prime Minister had sent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. At the same time, it has to be said—you will appreciate what I mean, Mr. Speaker—that it came as absolutely no surprise that the Home Secretary then used the basis of that letter as an answer to a supplementary question. Furthermore, as I said in my earlier point of order, no one was alleging in any way that you, Mr. Speaker, were a party to the planting of the supplementary question. Nevertheless, it was obvious to everyone in the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was ready for the supplementary question. It may be that the position of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East made him confident that he would be called by you to ask a supplementary.

§ Mr. Speaker
All that is as may be. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been in government, knows that this is as old as the hills.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. In the earlier exchanges, you said that you interpreted the Home Secretary's response as an answer and not as a statement. Of course, we all respect that interpretation and understand it. Although it was in the form of an answer, it was a carefully prepared major statement of policy. Because that major statement was put in a form which you accepted in good faith as an answer, I suggest that the Home Secretary misled you and the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am in no way concerned with answers, nor is it my role to be interested in them, even though I may be.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question that was asked by—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Member that if he is now going to attempt to expand on Question Time when he was, in fact, called to ask a question, I shall look upon it very badly indeed.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Two days ago, during Defence questions, I asked a question. Before the Minister could reply, you rose to your feet, Mr. Speaker, to point out that my question was not in order. The precedent is set for a judgment by you as to whether a parliamentary question is in order. I direct you to question No. 4 today, which was about police behaviour. The question was accepted by the Table Office and answered by the Minister. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) asked a supplementary question. I simply ask you to make a judgment and to rule whether the question asked by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East was in order in so far as it did not relate to police behaviour. [Interruption.] It was about surveillance. If the question was not in order, is it correct to say, in so far as the Minister made a statement in response to that question, that the Minister's reply was equally not in order? If you rule, following my point of order, Mr. Speaker that both the question and the answer were not in order, the House could require the Home Secretary to make a new statement on the question, thereby enabling many of my hon. Friends to raise questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
I interpreted the question of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East as being in order; otherwise I would have ruled him out of order. The House knows that I listen very carefully to questions. I am not responsible for what the Home Secretary says in his answers. I am sensitive to the moods of the House, and that is why—I hope the House understands this — we moved on fairly rapidly to arrive at the question again and to have a further exchange on it. In my view that was the right way in which to proceed.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of points. There is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and my right hon. Friend 468 the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about abusing Question Time. I well understand your predicament, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary was able to answer a question on a matter with which he wanted to deal. There is a long standing convention that a Minister answering a question is not expected to answer another question that is lower down on the Order Paper. That is the second abuse this afternoon by the Minister.
Because of the absence of some hon. Members, and because the House was able to race down the Order Paper, we reached question No. 14. I make two suggestions, Mr. Speaker. First, if you are going to pull up Back Benchers for straying from the subject, Ministers must be pulled up as well, secondly, you should ensure that you stop Ministers abusing the ability to answer questions lower down on the Order Paper when they are answering questions put by another hon. Member.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member would make a very good Deputy Speaker.

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that question 4 was my question. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall ask for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must raise an entirely different point of order or I will not hear it.

§ Mr. Winnick
I am asking you whether in future—not today — you will make it clear to Ministers that when a matter is likely to be the subject of much controversy and a statement is clearly required, they should try to arrange that? What we had today was a serious abuse of Question Time.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to put me in a position of finding out what answers will be given.