Points of Order (Hansard, 17 July 1990)

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In recent times, some hon. Members have raised points of order about those being called at Prime Minister's Question Time, and we have rightly been told that we did not have questions on the Order Paper. I have noticed in recent weeks that hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, who have been called at Prime Minister's Question Time did not have questions on the Order Paper. Today, two of the three hon. Members whom you called from the Conservative Benches—I am not questioning your selection—simply did not have questions on the Order Paper. I am beginning to wonder what the trouble is in going into the Table Office to table questions to the Prime Minister and to try to catch your eye—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I find it difficult to understand what the hon. Member means. Surely he is not suggesting that I should not go across the Chamber to get a proper balance, because that is exactly what I did today. I am anxious to ensure that those who have nil scores and who had not put a question to the Prime Minister were able to do so. Today I did just that. All hon. Members who were called at Prime Minister's Question Time had a nil score, and that was their first opportunity to ask a question.

§ Mr. Ewing
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely the dilemma. When hon. Members have previously raised this point of order, we have been told by you that we had not tabled questions to the Prime Minister. I would certainly object if you did not preserve a balance between both sides of the House. However, has your advice on previous days now been changed, and do we no longer require to table questions to the Prime Minister in order to catch your eye? Until recent weeks, my understanding has been that we should have questions down to the Prime Minister to try to catch your eye.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman got that idea. I hope that the whole House will agree that I should seek to strike a fair balance. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has, during this Session, put three questions to the Prime Minister, and he asked question No. 2 today. For supplementaries, I seek to give an opportunity to those who have not put a question, and that is exactly what I have done today. I hope that that is of some comfort to the hon. Member.

§ Mr Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members understand that, unlike the Pope, you are infallible in the Chamber. However, you have just said that you call hon. Members who have a nil score. The whole House knows that you keep an accurate record, but from when was the nil score dated? That is an important point. If we are to have nil scores, what about a penalty shoot-out?

§ Mr. Speaker
The House would do best to leave these difficult decisions to the Chair—[Interruption.] I am not prepared to have my arm jogged by hon. Members who seek to ask questions. However, if an hon. Member has a legitimate constituency interest in a departmental question, that is a different matter. I cannot accept bids for Prime Minister's Question Time.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
No, let me deal with this first. The hon. Gentleman who raised the point of order has already had an opportunity to put a question to the Prime Minister. I do not exactly know when—

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Exactly.

§ Mr. Speaker
Well, it does not state the date on my list. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has also put a question to the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. Faulds
As a nil scorer, Sir, may I await your future pleasure?

§ Mr. Corbyn
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is yes!

§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have every respect for the views of Back Benchers, as I am one myself, but while in no way wishing to question your judgment, perhaps you will bear in mind that it often appears to Conservative Members that too many opportunities are given to the Opposition Front Bench, and especially to the Leader of the Opposition, to ask two or three questions, at rather great length.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is perennial. Some Leaders of the Opposition have not risen as many as three times, but that has become a practice in recent years. The more times that Front-Bench spokesmen rise, the less time there is for Back Benchers. That should be borne in mind.

§ Mr. Corbyn
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
No, just a minute. I understand that the Opposition Treasury team is anxious to proceed with the Finance Bill.

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Skinner
I think that you have a point about the Opposition Front Bench and you must take that into account, Mr. Speaker, but you said that if an hon. Member raised a constituency matter, he or she would be in with a fair chance. I reckon that, on that basis, if any hon. Member mentions the National Union of Mineworkers, and I am the only sponsored NUM Member standing, I must have a chance. That is roughly what you are saying.
May I have an assurance that the deputy Prime Minister registers only half a score, which means that an hon. Member would get another chance if the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered for the Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Speaker
Of all hon. Members, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is certainly not deprived in any way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the reason why he is regularly called—[interruption.]—I must say this in defence of the hon. Gentleman—is that he is always here.