§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a humble seeker after knowledge—humble with a small "h", but still humble. I do not know the rules as well as you do, Mr. Speaker, but the Order Paper says:
Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster … will begin not later than 3.10 pm.It also says that questions aboutthe Public Accounts Commission will begin not later than 3.15 pm.The Question time for the Chancellor of the Duchy started promptly at 3.10, but two hon. Members were called after 3.15 and the Question Time for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went on until 3.18, which is 30 per cent. longer than the time that the House lays down. What is it to be? Are we to have a flexible Question Time, which would help many of us at Prime Minister's questions, or if the rule book means anything at all, doeswill begin not later thanmean more or less? As long as we know where we stand, either will do.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that we had reached question No. 10 on questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, and that was linked with question No. 12. We therefore overshot Welsh questions by two minutes, and I hope the House will think it reasonable, when such overshooting occurs, that I should give "injury" time for subsequent questions. That is exactly what I did today.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Might I on this point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman says so.
§ Mr. SkinnerI am attemping to assist you, Mr. Speaker, in answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). Many of us noticed that Welsh questions overran, but we also noticed later that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster decided to link four questions, right down to No. 31. I think you noticed that as well, Mr. Speaker, because when he came to question No. 22 which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) he did not have the guts to link it with my question No. 26. He was prepared to link questions from Tory Members, but was not prepared to link questions higher up the list from Labour Members. It could well be, Mr. Speaker, that you spotted that, because I was able to get my question in.
§ Mr. SpeakerNot for the first time the hon. Gentleman is quite right: I did spot it. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had previously intimated to me that he intended to link those two questions, but I do not think that I heard him say so, and for that reason I interpreted his mind.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a previous occasion I complained that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answers questions about four times a year and for only five minutes at a time. The situation has been aggravated today because he deliberately ensured that a number of Conservative Members who would not normally table 319 questions to him did so in order to avoid questions about the BBC. Would it not be right for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that if a Minister has only five minutes in which to answer questions—I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was speaking as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or as the chairman of the Tory party—he would not link questions but should simply answer the first question on the Order Paper?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe linking of questions is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman was called on question No. 22 and was able to make his point.
§ Mr Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise the difficulty of your position, but we also have a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, the Chancellor of the Duchy answers questions for only five minutes every sixth week. It is an abuse of the procedures of the House and something for which we need some form of protection from the Chair when the Chancellor of the Duchy, who for weeks has been skulking away from the Chamber, afraid to come and answer questions about his activities in relation to the BBC, then comes here and chooses to link question No. 21 with question No. 24, which had little or no chance of being reached in five minutes, with question No. 30 which also had absolutely no chance, and question No. 31. He took question Nos. 21, 24, 30 and 31 to himself and linked them, even though he has only five minutes every six weeks. We must have some protection from the Chair against that.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House will have heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say that these are matters for the usual channels. The length of time for ministerial questions and the linking of questions have never been matters for the Chair.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall hear the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) first.
§ Mr. NellistFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and your Department have told me in the past that at a normal Question Time of, say, 40 to 55 minutes, the linking of questions normally takes place up to question No. 15 or about No. 23, so that questions on the same topic can be dealt with at the same time to give 320 some logic and coherence to Question Time. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can be asked questions for only five minutes, and to link question No. 21 through to question No. 31 can be seen as nothing other than an attempt to gag Opposition Members, in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman attempted to gag the BBC.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savours Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it on the same point?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursYes, Sir. This is quite a serious matter. A Minister has selectively taken together questions on the Order Paper while leaving out other questions. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair should deprecate that. You are in a position to protect our rights and I seriously ask you to deprecate the practice of Ministers linking questions in that way, thus cutting out the right of Opposition Members to ask questions.
§ Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rarely raise points of order, but I believe that there was an abuse of the House today by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As the only Member of Parliament for a constituency in the shire county of Lancashire to try to ask a question on this issue, I feel somewhat annoyed about this abuse. I know that you always try, Mr. Speaker, to protect Back Benchers' interests and that you see that as an important part of your duties. However, this afternoon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tried deliberately to prevent Opposition Members from asking questions. If the Prime Minister applied the same logic tomorrow, she could link all the questions on the Order Paper from her hon. Friends. Although you may not have the constitutional power to do anything about such linking, you could point out strongly to the Chancellor that you frown upon that practice and that it should be discontinued.
§ Mr. SpeakerI repeat that I have no authority over the linking of questions by Ministers. That is a time-honoured practice. However, the whole House knows that I link questions so that those hon. Members who have questions lower down on the Order Paper that are broadly the same have some chance to ask supplementary questions. That is purely a private matter for me, because I feel that it is only fair to hon. Members, who are, after all, subject to the shuffle for Question Time.