HC Deb 20 April 1989 vol 151 cc472-4
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can assist me and other Members in defining the difference between the answer to a quesion and a statement. This afternoon, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister took in excess of four minutes, in effect more than 25 per cent, of the time allotted to questions to the Prime Minister. If ordinary Members are to be given an opportunity to ask pertinent and relevant questions of the Prime Minister, it seems an abuse of the process of the House for the right hon. Lady in answering a question to take more than 25 per cent, of the time available.

Mr. Speaker

I am not responsible for whether statements are made and I had no request today for a question on that matter. We reached question No. 6 today, which is about average for Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for you to extend injury time if the usual pattern of the House is abused so that Members wishing to put questions may have an opportunity to put them if a long time is taken, even by the Prime Minister, to answer a question?

Mr. Speaker

As I said, we reached question No. 6, which is about average for Prime Minister's Question Time. It is not unprecedented for fewer questions to be reached when a series of questions fom the Leader of the Opposition leads to long answers.

Mr. Bermingham

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

No, I will take next the point that I understand the Hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) wishes to raise with me.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably know that, for some months, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have been refusing to answer letters from Members inquiring about entry clearance cases and other matters and that they have been referring them for reply to officials. Since this procedure began, I have been tabling large numbers of parliamentary questions about entry clearance matters, reunifying families and so on. I was alarmed recently to receive a reply from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to three such questions telling me: In accordance with the recent guidelines on the Handling of Representations by Members of Parliament in Immigration Cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the Correspondence Unit of Migration and Visa Department of the FCO. The hon. Member will receive a reply from them in due course. Given that Ministers refuse to answer letters from right hon. and hon. Members, it is a bit much for them to refuse also to answer parliamentary questions but to refer them to officials—especially since those questions reveal a catalogue of incredible incompetence and bungling in the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the British embassy in Islamabad. I can well understand why Ministers do not want to answer such parliamentary questions, but can you, Mr. Speaker, persuade them to do so?

Mr. Speaker

I am often asked if I can bring pressure on the Government to alter answers or to give different answers, but that is not my function. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Mr. Dobson

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), Mr. Speaker. Recently, the Select Committee on Procedure reported on various aspects of disorder and misbehaviour in the House, and on right hon. and hon. Members who exploit opportunities that are open to them but which are in effect an abuse of the House. The Procedure Committee roundly denounced those practices—as you, Mr. Speaker, do, both in the House and when you give radio or television interviews. However, today we saw a clear abuse by the Prime Minister of her position in the House.

If we are to seek all-party support for upbraiding right hon. and hon. Members who wrongly exploit their position in the House, it must apply to all. Today, you could see from your seat, Mr. Speaker, as I could from mine, that the Prime Minister arrived armed with a two-page statement on the Football Spectators Bill, which she proceeded to read word for word. If that had been done by a junior Minister, you would have pulled that Minister up and called him or her to order.

Mr. Speaker

But today, the Prime Minister's response was to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot be held responsible for what was said in reply.

Mr. Bermingham

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to your reply to my earlier point of order, I say with great respect that it is not the number of the question on the Order Paper reached that matters, but the total number of questions asked. When a statement is made or a very long answer given, surely it is within your powers, Mr. Speaker, to intervene—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I did intervene. I said, "This; is Question Time."

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can remember, as I am sure you can, when questions from the Leader of the Opposition seemed as though they lasted for as long as four minutes. Opposition Members did not complain then, so what is sauce for the gander is surely sauce for the goose.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I think that we had better get on.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

We have a very heavy day ahead of us. Is it a fresh and helpful point of order?

Mr. Skinner

I believe that I know the reason why the Prime Minister speaks at length in that way. Her long-winded statements always occur on a Thursday. The clue lies in the fact that, on Thursdays, the Prime Minister meets the Cabinet and throws her weight about there. She does what she likes, making long-winded statements to which nobody replies. Then she comes to the House and forgets where she is.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let us be fair about this. I do not raise many points of order, because you cannot see me from your place. When I put my question to the Leader of the House earlier, I thought from the expression on your face that you shared my concern. The Leader of the House said that there will be a mining debate next week. I know all about that debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman misled me in a way, because you, Mr. Speaker, know as well as I do that I shall be unable to raise the problem of subsidence in a debate about pit exits. The Leader of the House is not really being fair to me. I asked for help, and I have not received any. My right hon. Friend left me drowning in the pond.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he tries an Adjournment debate.