Skip to main content

Standing Order No 9

Volume 983: debated on Thursday 1 May 1980

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, in order to—

Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise the point of order about the Prime Minister's question. I want to explain to him—and I might as well explain to the House—that I cannot take an application under Standing Order No. 9 because the Prime Minister's answer, as the House knows, was a blocking answer, inasmuch as it prevents further questions being tabled on this subject for at least three months. I have already ruled privately to one hon. Member who wrote to me on this matter. It will, therefore, be out of order for supplementary questions that would not be in order for the Order Paper to be put on this question to the Prime Minister or, indeed, to any other Minister concerning movements in such bases.

Inasmuch as the right hon. Lady took the opportunity to reply to my question, despite the nature of the reply, surely that in itself, as it came after noon today, would give me the right to raise this application under Standing Order No. 9?

I am afraid that nothing new came up from the exchange of questions. The blocking therefore stands for three months, and I shall have to rule out of order even supplementary questions on that issue which would otherwise be in order within the rules of the House, which the House expects me to safeguard.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that for an item of national importance to be removed from the Chamber by a deliberate blocking mechanism used by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is clearly against the national interest. I believe that the Government should make a statement about what happened in respect of the use of the facilities at Diego Garcia.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but I am here to see that our rules are adhered to.