Points of Order (Hansard, 7 February 1990)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be known to you that a Select Committee of this House—the Select Committee on Defence—has decided, as is its right, to look at the affair of Colin Wallace. First, how, if at all, does this affect your decision when you took avizandum—if that is the right expression—on the whole question of Colin Wallace and privilege? Secondly, may I have an assurance that it will in no way inhibit what is said, hopefully to the Attorney-General, in the Adjournment debate on Monday? Thirdly, in relation to what may be Table Office difficulties relating to the rules of advice to Ministers, will we be able to probe the Minister's statement to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the Adjournment debate last night that no clearance—the word used was "clearance"—had been given? Is clearance advice to Ministers, or can we probe a good deal further as to what exactly what was meant by the statement that no clearance had been given for Clockwork Orange?

§ Mr. Speaker
As to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I shall have to see the questions that were asked yesterday before giving him a reply. So that is hypothetical. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can say that the investigation by the Defence Select Committee will not affect any decision I may take. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may certainly proceed with his debate without any concern.

§ Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be that the combination of television coverage and Foreign Office questions is inevitably a good mix, but have you, Sir, noticed that during the course of Foreign Office questions we tended to move from questions to speeches? Would it be possible for you, particularly in relation to Foreign Office questions, to remind all hon. Members that it is Question Time and that we are not taking part in debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
That point of order is helpful from the point of view of the Chair. I know that we in this House take no account of television, but the truth is that it is very difficult to proceed down the Order Paper if we have long questions and long replies.

§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In respect of Question Time, may I put to you a point that I think affects the rights of all Back Benchers? I know that you try to achieve the impossible—being fair to all of us—and that no Member has a right to complain even though he may be disappointed at not having been called. However, a real problem arises when a major issue is being dealt with—and, arguably, South Africa is that issue today.
Sixty per cent.—six out of ten—of questions come from the Opposition. The practice that you, Sir, adopt—for reasons that one understands—is to call Government and Opposition Members alternately. If the next question on the Order Paper happens to arise on the alternate call you will move on. That results occasionally in commentary on a major issue being out of balance, as was the case today when Members on the Government side were called in a quite small proportion to comment on South Africa.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at Hansardtomorrow, he will see that that is not true. The Procedure Committee has asked me to speed up Question Time. My predecessor, Dr. Horace King—

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
Do not quote him, for God's sake.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have started, so I shall finish. Mr. Speaker King used to get through 40 questions in an hour, whereas we got through only 14 today. The House may well agree that it would be fairer if we were to get more quickly through questions, but that inevitably means fewer supplementaries.

§ Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was not possible today, because of the way that the questions were selected, to ask any questions on the European Economic Community. On a day when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary returned from important meetings in Germany, that was unfortunate. Is there any possibility of you making arrangements with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to ensure that such an imbalance can be redressed?

§ Mr. Speaker
That matter has already been studied carefully by the Procedure Committee. There used to be a 15-minute slot in Foreign Office Question Time specifically for European questions. If the hon. Gentleman feels that we should go back to that, he should make his representations there. I judge from the comments that I hear that it might not be particularly popular.

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support you this time, although I have had occasion to complain about the lack of balance and the lack of fairness towards the Opposition during Scottish Question Time. It is worth pointing out to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that, if we take into account the contributions from the Treasury Benches, the Tories get the lion's share of any Question Time—about three quarters of it—so they cannot complain about lack of balance. On top of that, the Minister —

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House has given the Chair the responsibility of ensuring a fair balance. I assure the House that I take this duty very seriously.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am an assiduous attender at Question Time. There is a great deal of pressure on you to call hon. Members, and I am deeply grateful that you called me this afternoon. I think that you are wonderful.

§ Mr. Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, and I reciprocate.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I venture to suggest that this may be of more interest to the majority of hon. Members than the antics of Mr. Colin Wallace, that dubious Walter Mitty who was active mainly during the depressing and dismal interlude represented by the last Labour Government. We gave certain powers to the Select Committee dealing with the experiment of televising the House. Who decides how far and wide those powers go? Is it you, the Select Committee or the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Select Committee, which will bring its recommendations to the House.

§ Mr. Marlow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Select Committee made suggestions about changes in the experiment, but those suggestions were not brought before the House—they were merely introduced. I am not saying that it is outside the broadcasters' terms of reference, but should they come forward with a suggestion for something outside their terms of reference, who is to judge that situation? Is it you, the House or the Select Committee untrammelled on its own?

§ Mr. Speaker
This is a matter for the Select Committee. I hope that the House and the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are engaged in an experiment, and without changes we cannot experiment. We need to see whether the changes, which may themselves be varied from time to time, are beneficial, or not.

§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a matter which I imagine will not attract the attention of many hon. Members. Yesterday, in a written answer in the House of Lords, the centrepiece of legislation which went through both Houses at inordinate length and which has been lying about for four years suddenly disappeared. I refer to the Salmon Act 1986 and, with it, the salmon dealer licensing scheme.
Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, that the central core of a measure which has gone through both Houses of Parliament should be withdrawn by press release and written answer? Many uncertainties were created by that legislation, many people were waiting for its implementation and much advice was offered against the spirit of what was contained in that legislation. Is it right that, as it were, with a snap of the fingers, the whole thing should have disappeared as the result of a written answer?

§ Mr. Speaker
I thought that the hon. Gentleman proposed to ask me if I had received a request for a statement on the matter. Although he has not asked that question, I will give him the answer to it, which is that I have not. He must take up with the Government Department concerned the matter that he has raised with me.