§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The two 15-minute slots a week in which we can ask the Prime Minister questions are rather important to the House, and despite various criticisms—sometimes rather ill-informed—from outside, it is the House's wish that those two slots should remain. We understand the time that is taken by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in asking and replying to questions, but it is unfortunate that the slot should be used to make a statement. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister spent a great deal of time today answering a question from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). His answer seemed like a substitute for a statement.
After all, only 10 questions are in the frame, and it is very rare nowadays to get beyond the fourth or fifth. I forget the last time that I was in the frame or you called me for Prime Minister's Question Time, which is, of course, the lot for many hon. Members. Can we try, as far as possible, to give opportunities to Back Benchers in those 15-minute slots? It would certainly be much appreciated.
§ Madam SpeakerI think that I appreciate the feeling of the House on this issue. I quite understand that that period is for Back Benchers. I thought that what the Prime Minister had to say to the House today was important to the country and should be placed on the record. For the House's information, let me say that although there is only 15 minutes, six Back Benchers were called, three questions came from the Leader of the Opposition and one question came from the leader of the Liberal Democrats. With answers from the Prime Minister, that was not bad at all. I would like to see more, but I think that it was quite a good score today.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My question to the Prime Minister was also on the Order Paper today, and I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment, but is not a large part of the problem the fact that every week—Tuesday and Thursday—the Leader of the Opposition makes three long statements during Prime Minister's Question Time?
§ Madam SpeakerSome of the problem, quite frankly, is that Back Benchers on both sides of the House ask questions that are far too long. I sit here and listen to questions that are inordinately long; they really should be Adjournment debates.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Of course, I accept what you say on this matter, but may I point out that my questions appeared on the Order Paper today and last Thursday, although they were unlikely to be called? Our best chance as Back Benchers of being able to ask questions comes from the shuffle. On the rare days that it turns out in our favour, we find ourselves in a position like today, when question 2 was not reached until four minutes before the end of Question Time. What happened today was definitely an abuse. Given the way in which the answer 487 was supplied, it was clear that a statement—of great importance—had been prepared, which denied us as Back Benchers the opportunity of asking the Prime Minister questions. The belief that what occurred today was an abuse and a denial of Back Benchers' rights is widely held on both sides of the House.
§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
§ Madam SpeakerThere are no further points of order—I am taking none at all. Some Departments of State do not get much further than 10 or 11 substantive questions in something like 30 or 45 minutes. Six supplementary questions from Back Benchers and four from Front Benchers—10 questions to the Prime Minister—in 15 minutes is not a bad score at all.
§ Madam SpeakerI am taking no more points of order, so sit down. I have taken on board the flavour of the House.