Several Hon. Members:

rose

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Is it to complain that I did not manage to call the hon. Gentleman?

No. I lost a fishing vessel off Dover and I want to put a question to the Minister. I cannot put a question down —

Order. That would have widened questions on the statement, which is about the Antares report. This is an extension of Question Time, and with the best will in the world I am afraid that it is not possible to call every Member who wishes to ask a question outside the ambit of the statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about prorogation. I put down a number of written questions which have not been answered, except by way of the usual rubric from Ministers that "I will provide an answer at some time in the future." On prorogation, everything before the House, except statutory intruments, falls. May I have your assurance that you will deprecate the action of any Minister who seeks to avoid answering questions by failing to produce a written answer before the time of prorogation? I put down questions several days in advance of the written priority limit and, like other Members, I have been given holding answers and told that substantive answers will be given at some future stage. As we are close to prorogation, it is important that Standing Orders under which Ministers are required to answer are followed.

The whole House knows that at prorogation everything falls. The hon. Member would have to table his questions again and then receive an answer to them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to breach the guidelines set out by the Serjeant at Arms for the use of the emblem and the stationery? As you know, I am anxious that Michael Bates, our excellent by-election candidate in Langbaurgh, should win the election. I would like to write to every one of my Conservative colleagues to ask them to come up to Langbaurgh to help, and also send them a letter which did not bear the imprint of the election agent, ensuring, of course, that the matter did not appear on the election expenses of our candidate,. That is exactly what the hon. Member for —

Order. What is the point of order for me?

The point of order for you is that, if the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), of whom I have given notice of this point of order, has already done that, would I be allowed to do the same and not be charged?

The hon. Member certainly would not. I was not aware of what he alleges against the other hon.

Member. He should let the Serjeant at Arms see that letter and allow him to deal with the matter, because the rules are plain.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication from the Home Secretary that he intends to make a statement before the Session ends about the increase in the television licence fee? Are you aware that, if only a written answer is given, it will not be possible for us to make the point that, although the increase is undoubtedly good value for money—I have no quarrel about that—pensioners will have to pay the full increase out of the derisory increase that they will receive next year? Those of us who believe in a concessionary television licence fee for pensioners want to make that point. It will be unfortunate if the Home Secretary does not make an oral statement.

I do not think that the Home Secretary will have a chance to make an oral statement about the matter in this Session. We shall have to see what happens in the next Session.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), with great kindness, that I cannot hear him on this matter. I cannot allow him to ask the Minister a question, but I will look kindly on an Adjournment debate in the next Session.

rose—

Could I be fairer than that?

You could not be fairer than that, Mr. Speaker, but I have an urgent matter which you have not given me the opportunity to raise. I would like an opportunity now to explain the position. If you will allow me that opportunity —

Order. I have explained the position in terms of order, not in terms of the question that the hon. Member would like to ask.

I am most grateful for that opportunity. I have the second largest fishing community in the south-west. I also have large naval establishments in my constituency. In August, we lost a fishing vessel out to sea with the loss of all the crew. Yesterday, as a result of a parliamentary question, it was discovered that severe damage occurred to the hull of the vessel. This is the only opportunity that I have to raise in the House the possibility that the fishing vessel, the entire crew of which was lost, was hit by a naval vessel. This the first and only opportunity for me to ask that question.

How can I obtain from the Minister a survey of the area on 11 August to find out which naval vessel was in the area, whether it be a British, European or Soviet ship? Otherwise, the loss of the ship and its crew may never be explained. I need the opportunity to raise that point.

The hon. Member could not have obtained that answer today. As the incident occurred on 11 August, the hon. Member should have given notice of a private notice question or raised the matter in some other way last week when we first returned. That would have been his first opportunity to do so. I cannot allow him to do it now.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No, I have had enough of that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have observed that I did not rise during the Minister's statement, because I left it to hon. Members with a more direct interest in fishing matters. Is it in order for the Minister, perhaps inadvertently—I put it gently—to mislead the House by giving the impression that he has a detailed knowledge of the report by the sheriff and saying clearly to the House —

Order. This is an extension of the private notice question.

No.

It is not a matter of order for me. The Minister must take responsibility for what he said.

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), Mr. Speaker. You suggested that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) might be in breach of House of Commons regulations. I assume that that refers to the advisory pamphlet with which we have all been issued by the Serjeant at Arms, about the use of the emblem on House of Commons stationery. It states: Original House stationery, which is provided at public expense, should not be used for the following purposes". Point (d) mentions supporting the return of any person to public office". I have in my possession a letter from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. The letter was clearly sent to all Labour Members, asking them to go to Langbaurgh for the by-election, and offering transport as well—presumably at public expense.

Order. That is a repetition of what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has just said. I think that the matter should be drawn to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms.

rose—

Order. It is unfair on the whole House for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to try to raise a question now that he would have liked to raise if I had called him on the private notice question. He was not rising then —

That is not the case.

Well, what is the case, then?

You are putting words into my mouth, Mr. Speaker. I am quite capable of misquoting myself.

Further to my point of order, Sir, I asked you whether you would allow the Minister to examine what he had said about the sheriffs report. The sheriff clearly suggested that submarines could exercise in other areas, far away from fishermen. That is not the impression that the Minister gave the House or the nation.

That is not a matter for me. If we wish to prorogue, we really should get on. We have a rather busy day ahead of us.

Several Hon. Members:

rose

I will take a point of order from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) —

Order. The hon. Gentleman must draw the matter to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms; and, if necessary, it will then come to me, and I shall deal with it.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, how can you say that before you have heard whether I have a further point to raise?

Because the hon. Gentleman specifically said, "Further to the point of order"—a point of order with which I have already dealt.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker; but it seems to me that, by the time that the matter has been drawn to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms, the by-election will already have taken place. Would it not be appropriate for you to draw it to the attention of the returning officer? That is where it matters now.

I believe that the by-election will not take place for another two weeks. If the hon. Gentleman has any sense, he will see the Serjeant at Arms today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago, you suggested that I should have tabled a private notice question. I strongly deny that. The information that I received was given last night, in a parliamentary answer, by the Minister of State, who said that considerable damage to the ship had been found on the ocean bed. This is the first opportunity that I have had to raise the matter, and that is why I wanted to raise it today.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that the incident had taken place on 10 August; he can check the record. He should have tabled a private notice question today. I am not a mind reader, but, if the hon. Gentleman had done that, I should have been able to consider the matter.