HC Deb 24 April 1989 vol 151 cc668-9
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a private notice question about Blowpipe missiles. At present the destination of Blowpipe missiles is—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry that I was not able to call the hon. Gentleman; he was not alone in that. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time and I allowed nearly 20 minutes on it, which is much longer than I would normally allow for a question.

Mr. Cohen

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is selfish of the hon. Gentleman to persist. If it is a matter of order, I shall deal with it, but not if it is an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Cohen

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I am asking a question of you, Mr. Speaker, not of the Minister. At present questions about the supply of Blowpipe missiles to the terrorists in countries such as Nicaragua or Afghanistan are blocked by the Table Office. As we have now been able to ask questions about it on the Floor of the House, will you take steps to unblock the tabling of such questions in future?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members should look at the Order Paper to see how much business we must get through today.

Mr. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your advice on a serious matter concerning freedom of speech? The House jealously guards its right of freedom of speech, and hon. Members have a duty to protect it, which includes the process by which hon. Members are elected. Conservative party election posters in the Vale of Glamorgan have been wantonly destroyed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). Has he approached you, Mr. Speaker, about making a statement?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter of order in the House.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with exchanges, but you, Mr. Speaker, may have heard the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs refer to the procedure in a French court as being sub judice. Since the Wright case, it has been generally accepted that the sub judice rule applies only to British courts.

Mr. Speaker

I did not hear the Secretary of State say that, but if he did I must tell hon. Members that the matter may be sub judice in French courts but it is not yet so in Ours.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the Chair has no power if a Minister chooses to answer a question lifted from the Order Paper rather than make a statement, thereby excluding you, Mr. Speaker, from the parliamentary process? Did the Minister seek your authority to make a statement? Will you confirm that the effect of the procedural device, compared with a statement, used by the Secretary of State—he has been under much pressure lately and we understand that he is aware of his vulnerability—is that, first, it restricts the amount of time available—although you, Mr. Speaker, allowed every hon. Member who stood to take part and we are grateful for that? Secondly, it limits the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to a single intervention at the end of the statement. Thirdly, and most important, because that device was used, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who had to put up with snide comments from the Secretary of State, had no prior knowledge of the statement's contents, which is a normal courtesy, and therefore had no opportunity to consider the details of a matter that is of profound national importance, in which the Minister's previous incompentence has been a matter of grave national concern.

Mr. Speaker

The House should understand that, because of the shuffle, the question might have been answered earlier. If we had not reached oral question No. 35 today, it would have received a written answer. No request for a statement was made, and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) rightly said that I have no authority to stop questions being answered at the end.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

You, Mr. Speaker, may have noticed from today's Votes and Proceedings that there are already 736 early-day motions on the Order Paper, a large proportion of which have been tabled by Opposition Members, who are keen to climb on any bandwagon. Will you raise with the printers of the Votes and Proceedings the strange absence of an early-day motion, which Opposition Members have surely tabled under our democratic procedures, condemning the unwarranted invasion of personal property perpetrated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of ripping down election posters—an act that was witnessed by television cameras?

Mr. Speaker

So far as I know, such an early-day motion does not appear on the Order Paper, but it may well do so tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that if question No. 35, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), had come up earlier in the shuffle the Secretary of State could have answered it. What is the purpose of having the shuffle if Ministers can decide what questions they will answer by making a statement from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter for the Minister, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that we have had a private notice question on this matter from the Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter of considerable interest to the House. I said that oral questions that are not reached on the Order Paper receive a written answer.