§ 10.1 pm
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Prime Minister's understandably long statement this afternoon, you expressed the hope that, given that 35 right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak in the Army debate, speeches would be kept short —especially those made by members of both Front Benches. As things turned out, the speeches of the Minister for State and of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) together lasted—understandably, because of interventions—100 minutes. Is it not a matter of some concern to the House, when a time limit is imposed on Back-Benchers, that a speech of 56 minutes should be made by the Minister?
When I asked the Leader of the House on 6 June whether there would be any time in tonight's debate for reflection on the Gulf war—of the kind that the House had after the Crimean war, the Jameson raid, and the Falklands war—he replied:
As I said earlier, when we are debating defence matters, it may be possible to raise some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions."—[Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 420.]For many of us, and particularly the dissenters, that has not proved possible.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand the hon. Member's point.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I like to give way to interventions if possible—and I did so during my speech. I will take guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, if I should not do so in future, to keep my speeches shorter.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not for me to give the Minister that sort of guidance. By way of general guidance, I suggest that if Departments give their Ministers a 15-minute speech, it may turn out to be a 30-minute speech, whereas a speech intended to last for 30 minutes may take longer. It is a question of self-discipline. If the speeches made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) had each lasted only 30 minutes, it would have been possible for other hon. Members to be heard.
§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to item 9 on the Order Paper, concerning rates of duty on mineral oils, which seeks to set taxes two years in advance—for the first time, without a Bill being put before Parliament. That seems contrary to Standing Order No. 53. Is it in order, therefore, for the House to consider that motion?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have been informed that motion No. 9 will not be moved tonight.