HC Deb 22 April 1986 vol 96 cc178-9 3.55 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this point of order, but it relates to the principle of a private notice question versus a statement from a Minister and is directly within your responsibility.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers have now become aware of the fact that on a private notice question you quite rightly limit the time for questions from those other than the right hon. or hon. Gentleman asking the question. For example, today you gave 15 minutes of the House's valuable time for the private notice question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

In my view, the issue is so important that the Home Secretary should have made a statement. There is no question in my mind but that you would have given more time to question the Home Secretary had he made a statement rather than having to respond to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend. The point is that you ought to consider the amount of time that you allow for supplementary questions to a private notice question.

There is now no doubt that at this time of crisis in relation to Libya, America and Great Britain, Ministers are seeking to wriggle out of their responsibilities to the House. Today, the Home Secretary should have made a statement. Because he did not, and because you were placed in such a position, other right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to ask questions were, through no fault of yours, denied the opportunity to do so. In those circumstances, you ought to consider extending the time on a private notice question if the issue is of sufficient importance to warrant a statement from the Minister.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The point is that the Government did not make a statement and I granted the private notice question. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time. The whole House knows that I have a high regard for the time given to Back Benchers. It is precisely because there is such a long list of Back Benchers wishing to speak on the two Opposition motions that I gave only 15 minutes for the private notice question.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

It only wastes time.

Mr. Dalyell

It will illuminate the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) very properly asked the Home Secretary whether he was consulted in advance. The Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I cannot deal with that. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question on a matter for which I am responsible. I am not really responsible for anything like that.

Mr. Dalyell

Your responsibility is to provide clarification. Unless you give time, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to clarify from the Home Secretary's answers whether he knew in advance. It is important to give time so that the Home Secretary's answers can he clarified, so that we know what he really meant and whether he knew about the attack on Libya in advance, or was consulted afterwards. That is why my right hon. Friend raised a substantial issue.

Mr. Speaker

The House knows that I have an exceedingly difficult job balancing what is important and what is even more important. The two Opposition motions today are very important, and I had to make that judgment.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would consider the genuine and important points of order that my hon. Friends have raised, in the light of a decision that you made a few weeks ago, which I thought was very helpful to the House. You will recall that on that occasion, following a point of order that I raised, a Minister then rose on a point of order and made what you turned into a statement because you said that it was an abuse of a point of order.

The point that my hon. Friends are making is that when a Minister is using the device of a private notice question to evade giving a full statement, you might consider turning that into a statement, with the consequences for questioning that would ensue from that.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The trouble is that I do not have that power. It is a matter for the Government whether they make a statement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that we have had enough of this.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Then why is the hon. Gentleman trying to raise a point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My point of order arises on an additional point.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with the first point of order. I must balance these matters. Many hon. Members, including a maiden speaker, wish to take part in the debate that follows. I gave an extension of 15 minutes on Question Time today, and that was a good run for a private notice question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My point relates to the same issue, Mr. Speaker, but approaches it from a different angle. I believe that the point is very important. Is the only distinction between a private notice question and a ministerial statement that a Minister has decided that the matter warrants precedence over other business, whereas you decide that for a private notice question? To some extent, therefore, they surely have the same status. If they have the same status, there must be times and occasions when you might wish to ensure that they are given equal time in relation to procedure in debate.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There are times and occasions when I do that, and I have done that today.