§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often deprecated reflections upon the integrity of hon. Members. You were in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred, in an intervention, to Labour Members being among the biggest supporters of the IRA. We loathe the IRA, which is a murderous organisation. You will be aware that I, among others on the Labour Benches, have constantly attacked—and I will continue to do so—the terrorism of the IRA. Only last week we saw the sort of action in which the IRA indulges.
Would you be willing to accept, Mr. Speaker, that those of my hon. Friends who raise, rightly, what they believe to be a miscarriage of justice are in no way justifying the evil activities of the IRA? In those circumstances, is there not an obligation on the hon. Member for Selly Oak to withdraw immediately his accusation?
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My remark was prompted only by the sense of frustration when seven questions—obviously all done together—are tabled to draw attention to a matter that has been dealt with before. Does not the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) realise that the only people to whom such questions give comfort are members of the IRA? That is what I said, and that is what I meant.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I did not judge the comment of the hon. Member for Selly Oak as being a reflection upon the integrity of hon Members and it was not out of order. However, I fully accept that the language that we use in this House is very important and that no reflection upon the integrity of hon. Members should ever be made.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Selly Oak can ascribe his frustration as being reason enough for suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other Labour Members were giving aid and succour to the IRA. The hon. Member for Selly Oak is a fairly reasonable bloke, even though he writes for The Sun from time to time. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, should invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his slur.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it is the intention of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to seek to correct a miscarriage of justice and fight the IRA, is it not incumbent upon him to inform the Attorney-General of the names of those he believes to be guilty of the outrage?
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is becoming an extension of Question Time. I hope that the hon. Member for Selly Oak was not impugning the honour of any hon. Member. If he was giving us his opinion that anything that happened here gave comfort to the IRA, that is one thing; but if he was impugning the honour of another hon. Member I am sure that he would wish to withdraw his remark.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkI recognise that there is passionate regard for the issues that we all support from time to time. If any hon. Member, especially the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, assumes that I thought that he was an IRA supporter, let me say that that was furthest from my mind.
§ Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)Further to the point of order. Mr. Speaker. I do not find the statement that has just been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a withdrawal. We cannot allow an extension of Question Time.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it on another matter?
§ Mr. DalyellYes, Mr. Speaker. It raises the general issue of scrutiny of the Law Officers in the House. With changing circumstances, is it not deeply unsatisfactory that the Attorney-General should be scrutinised for only 10 minutes and the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate not at all in their individual capacities? Is there any way in which the general issue of the scrutiny of the Law Officers can be looked at, because surely a period of 10 minutes is deeply unsatisfactory, despite the great efforts that you have made, Mr. Speaker, to allow a full 10 minutes, which is appreciated?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member knows that I am not responsible for the allocation of Question Time. He should raise the matter through the usual channels, where it might be corrected.