§ Mr. LewisI rise on a point of Order and to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be a growing practice on the part of certain hon. Members, of putting on the Order Paper more than the three questions to which they are entitled to ask for oral answers on a given day. No doubt that is something which any of us may do by mistake. For example, one may give notice of a question for a future date, forgetting that one has already given notice of some other question or questions for that same date, but the practice to which I wish to draw your attention, Sir, seems to point to something rather more than that. There have been cases recently of hon. Members having put down four and six questions and in one case ten questions, to be answered orally on the same date. There was a case of an hon. Member who on a Friday gave notice of four questions to be answered by the same Department orally on the following Monday. It seems hard to believe that that could have been done by accident. I submit that the practice imposes an unfair burden on the Department which is called upon to provide the answers and on the responsible Minister. I am aware that the Clerks at the Table do what they can to stop this practice, but it is not always easy to prevent it when questions are handed in one at a time, even on the same day, let alone when it is done on different days. I submit that, so far as it is deliberate, the practice is an abuse of the Rules of the House, and I ask you, therefore, Sir, what can be done to prevent it?
§ Mr. SpeakerHon. Members will remember that the number of oral questions which can be asked on the same day has been limited to three since 1920. Originally they were unlimited, but they had been reduced to eight in 1909 and to four in 1919. That was done not by any Standing Order but by general agreement of the whole House. If more than three questions appear on the Paper in the name of the same Member, the questions which stand fourth or later on the Paper are not called by the Speaker, and are either answered in writing or 1637 deferred until another day. The accumulation, to which the hon. Member referred, of Members' questions beyond the prescribed limit arises through the handing-in of questions at the Table on different days to be answered on the same day. I have come to the conclusion that that is, no doubt, through inadvertence on the part of hon. Members. The practice causes very considerable inconvenience and throws a great deal of unnecessary work on the Departments in framing answers to questions which cannot be asked orally. I should, therefore, be obliged to hon. Members if they would exercise some care not to hand in more than three questions for any one day.
§ Mr. ThurtleMay we take it, Mr. Speaker, that you have not within your knowledge any information which suggests that any new and sinister practice is developing, such as was suggested by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis)?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I have said, I think it is through inadvertence.
§ Mr. StephenIs there anything in the Rules to prevent a Member putting in four questions? On occasions there may be four questions or even five to which a Member is anxious to get speedy answers, and I do not see why in exceptional circumstances more than three questions should not be allowed.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I have said, there is no Rule, but the number is generally agreed by the House, and, that being the case, it is best for hon. Members to confine themselves to putting down three questions and not to go beyond that number.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo.
§ Mr. StephenOn the point of unstarred questions, my experience has been that very often we have to wait a long time before we get an answer to an
§ unstarred question, and since there is no Standing Order on the matter, I have seen it, since I have been in the House, that there have been occasions when Members have put more questions on the Paper than they are able to ask orally. I would certainly object to this liberty of hon. Members to put questions being taken away from them in this way.
§ Mr. SpeakerNothing is being taken away from hon. Members which they have got now. As I have said, and now say for the third time, it has been generally agreed to by the whole House.
§ Mr. StephenIf my hon. Friends and I are not in agreement, I do not see how it can be taken that there is general agreement of the whole House on this matter, and the fact that Members do deliberately sometimes put down more than three questions shows that there is not general agreement. I certainly want to protect the rights of Members in this respect, and I think many hon. Members above the Gangway agree with me on that matter.