§ Q3. Mr. G. Campbellasked the Prime Minister what considerations led him to arrange for the Paymaster-General to answer Questions on a subject for which he has no administrative responsibility, namely, the co-ordination of home information services.
§ The Prime MinisterTo help the House by having a Minister to whom hon. Members could table Questions on this subject, Sir.
§ Mr. CampbellIs not this arrangement unfair to the Minister concerned, the Paymaster-General? Because he is not responsible for the subject, he seems to have been in some difficulty in answering supplementary questions. Is it not also unfair to the information services and a most unsatisfactory arrangement for the House?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I made it plain last year—indeed, before the election—that a Labour Government would not employ a Minister paid with taxpayers' money to do the kind of job that was done at Tory Central Office by a whole-time Minister. Indeed, there were two such Tory Ministers, one on information and the other a full-time chairman of the organisation. I am against the appointment of a Minister paid with public money to do a party function. For that reason, no Minister is doing this 838 job. When, however, hon. Members put Questions down they are entitled to an answer, so it was thought suitable, for the reason I have stated, that a non-Departmental Minister, even though he has no responsibility in that field, should answer Questions.
§ Mr. TinnWould my right hon. Friend agree that the present arrangement gives hon. Members opposite who wish to harry the Paymaster-General the opportunity to indulge in a blood sport for which they have more appetite than ability?
§ The Prime MinisterThat may well be. But in so far as hon. Members consider, as I do, that the co-ordination of home information services is important, it would be a nice change if they started putting down Questions on the subject of the home information services, and then they will get a full answer.
§ Mr. HoggWithout in any way seeking to pursue a purely partisan point, would not the Prime Minister recognise that it is precisely because the co-ordination of home information services is important that it cannot, and should not, be treated by either side of the House as a purely party function? Is it not desirable, therefore, to have a Minister whose function is to do just that, as it was done by my right hon. Friend?
§ The Prime MinisterI know that the "shadow" Paymaster-General is always very careful about entering into controversial matters, but it is precisely because in the last Government we had this abuse, this public scandal, of a Minister carrying out Tory Party propaganda with the taxpayers' money.