§ Mr. BILLINGOn a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that not 30 per cent. of the questions were reached to-day, and that nearly 30 per cent. of the questions which were asked were asked by proxy, how many questions is it in order for an hon. Member to ask by proxy? I am referring specially to questions asked on the Labour Benches.
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members on the Labour Benches are not by any means the only persons who ask questions by proxy. The House has always accepted this, and I do not see that I have any authority to interfere with it of my own initiative.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask whether any protection is possible against questions being put by hon. Members throwing doubts on the character and veracity of other hon. Members? I refer particularly to the question put by the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) against the hon. Member for East Leyton (Lieut.- 856 Colonel Malone), who is not here, and whether this is not against the whole spirit of the House; and is there any means of giving protection to hon. Members in their absence?
Mr. PALMERMay I respectfully ask your opinion on this point? I have heard my hon. Friend who has just sat down refer more than once to the hon. Member who has recently left the Navy as "hon. and gallant." Knowing as we do how much we value in this House the title of "gallant," I asked quite seriously, with no desire to cast any reflection on the hon. Member, whether an hon. Gentleman is entitled to apply the term "gallant" to the hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Malone)?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask whether an officer who has been decorated for gallantry with the Military Cross is entitled by courtesy to be addressed as "gallant"?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHMay I respectfully submit that there are many Members on the Government Bench who enjoy military titles not one of whom ever saw a shot fired?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI assumed that the questions put by the hon. Member for the Wrekin were genuine bonâ fide questions, and I answered accordingly. I am not going to undertake—it is no part of my business—to say whether an hon. Member is entitled to describe himself as being a captain or a colonel or a commander or anything else. That is entirely a matter of Military, Naval, and Air discipline, and it rests completely with the authority to whom he is or has been subject.
§ Mr. DEVLINWould it not be a matter which would expedite considerably the business of the House and the simplicity of our discussion if we were to drop all those expressions of "honourable and gallant" and "right honourable" and call each other by our names?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that that would be very undesirable. The courtesy implied in the terms which have been in use in this House for many centuries makes it desirable to retain them.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTMay I ask whether there is any limit to the number 857 of questions which hon. Members are permitted to ask on behalf of other hon. Members, and whether, if the custom be carried further, it will not result in two or three Members being here to ask questions for a large number of other hon. Members? Has your attention been called to the fact that this is the sixth time this Session that questions addressed to the Minister of Munitions have not been reached? Cannot something be done to see that a day is given to questions addresed to the Minister of Munitions, so that we can have answered the questions which are of vital importance to the country?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is putting a number of questions to me, and I do not know whether I shall be able to deal with them all. With regard to the last question, that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for arrangement between the hon. and gallant Member and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who arranges the order in which questions stand upon the Paper. With regard to the question whether hon. Members are entitled to ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members, of course, if there were any abuse of that rule, the House probably would feel that the time had come when there should be some limit to the practice. At present I am not able to say that the rule has been abused. There are reasons, especially on Monday, why hon. Members should be allowed to ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTMay I ask whether you have considered the fact that very nearly fifty per cent. of the questions to-day have been asked in that way?
§ Mr. WATERSONWould not the questions to the Minister of Munitions have been reached had there not been so many supplementary questions from one hon. Member?
§ Mr. BILLINGIs not some privilege going to be given to hon. Members who take the trouble to attend this House, in contradistinction to those who disgrace it by their absence?
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASWould it not be better to disgrace the House by one's absence rather than by one's presence?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSWith regard to the rule being abused by too many questions being asked by proxy, would it not be possible, with a view of getting verbal answers, to change the procedure, seeing it has been already changed by cutting the number of questions hon. Members are entitled to ask down to three, by setting up a new rule requiring hon. Members to ask their own questions?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWould the House be prepared to accept this proposal? On going through questions the first time, hon. Members should not be allowed to ask questions on behalf of others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"]—will the House allow me to finish? After all those who are present have asked their questions. Then on going through the questions a second time, any hon. Member might ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" "No!" and "Agreed."]
§ Mr. MacVEAGHI wish respectfully to ask you whether you have the slightest reason to believe that the privilege of hon. Members in this respect has been abused by any section?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have already said that I have no such reason.
§ Mr. MILLSIf we reach a stage when questions are automatically cut off, can they not automatically appear as the first questions the next day?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat would upset the whole order for the rest of the week. Questions are all arranged in particular-order day after day. I think the suggestion that I have thrown out, on the whole, seems acceptable to the House.
§ Mr. HOGGEDoes it mean that when you reach a quarter to four, you will go back? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "] I am asking Mr. SPEAKER the question. I am perfectly willing to adopt the arrangement if it means that at a quarter to four, or whatever time you determine, it is necessary to go back to No. 1, and that you will then call all that remain before you finish questions.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhen I reach the end of questions, if there be any time, I shall then go back, and call upon all those hon. Members who did not respond the first time.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo.