HC Deb 22 March 1946 vol 420 cc2156-77

11.7 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr, Herbert Morrison)

I beg to move, That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraph shall have effect in substitution for paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 7: (4) Any Member who desires an oral answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk, but notice of any such question must appear at latest on the Notice Paper circulated two days (excluding Sundays) before that on which an answer is desired. Provided that questions received at the Table Office on Mondays and Tuesdays before 2.15 p.m. and on Fridays before 11 a.m., if so desired by the Member, may be put down for oral answer on the following Wednesday, Thursday and Monday, respectively. The object of this Motion is to establish a Sessional Order revising the time of notice which has to be given in relation to Questions for oral answer. The object of the Sessional Order which is before the House, is to give effect to the recommendation in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, that the period of notice for Questions for oral answer handed in during the sitting of the House, should be increased from one to two days, not counting Sundays, Questions received at the Table Office before the hour of sitting, being deemed to have been received the day before.

To the uninstructed observer it might appear that this is a matter of no great consequence, but that is not my view nor, I am sure, the view of the House of Commons. Anything which touches Questions, however important or unimportant their relationship may be, anything which touches this British Parliamentary institution of questioning Ministers day by day, is bound to be a matter of vital importance to the House of Commons. Parliamentary Questions have had a comparatively short history relative to the life of Parliament. In just over 100 years, they have developed into one of the most valuable and characteristic of our Parliamentary institutions. As the Select Committee point out, the right to put Questions to Ministers is one of the most important possessed by Members, and it has become a very effective method of exercising the historic functions of Parliament in relation to the Executive. Indeed, Question time exemplifies that close day-to-day relationship between Ministers and legislature, which is one of the main sources of strength of our constitution. If any Minister is ever in danger of forgetting that Parliament is his master—and though it has never been allowed to happen to me, I can conceive of circumstances in which it might happen—Question time is a sharp and healthy reminder to him of his responsibility to Parliament.

A new Minister soon learns that everything he is doing from day to day, important or unimportant, may be challenged any day, by way of Question in this House. That is a very good thing. I sometimes wish that all our Allies in the world, great and small, had a Parliamentary Question day, on which Ministers could be questioned about matters of foreign policy and what not, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is questioned here, and rightly. If only his opposite numbers in other nations of the world could be questioned, it would do much to clear up misunderstandings of one sort and another But constitutional practice varies from nation to nation—and I would not like it to be thought that I have only one country in mind. The American Congress itself does not have Questions to Ministers, democratic though the Constitution of the United States undoubtedly is.

It is right, therefore, that this institution of Parliamentary Questions should be regarded with importance. I hope it always will be. I share the view of the Select Committee in deprecating anything which would tend to diminish the effectiveness of the right of Members to question Ministers. But this does not mean that the existing procedure is a law of the Medes and Persians, which must never be changed. As in the past, the sheer number of Questions may, in itself, necessitate changes, and it gives cause for thought that we have, as I am told, already passed the 10,000 mark for Oral Questions this Parliamentary Session. No doubt, by this time, my colleagues on the Treasury Bench are trying to count up, for how many thousands of those 10,000 Questions they have been personally responsible. Nevertheless, restrictions on existing rights should not be lightly introduced.

There is, however, one change of machinery which the Select Committee thought could, with advantage, be made without diminishing, and indeed on balance increasing the effectiveness of oral Parliamentary Questions. The present Rule as regards the period of notice for oral questions is contained in Paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 7, which was framed in 1902. This provides that notice of Questions for oral answer must appear at the latest on the Notice Paper circulated on the day before that on which the answer is desired. The effect of this is that Ministers and Departments have only one clear day to prepare the answers to a considerable proportion of their Questions. Some of these raise high questions of policy, calling for considered examination. Others may require consultation with a number of Departments. It is often necessary to make inquiries outside the headquarters of the Department, of outstations, of overseas posts, of Service units in all parts of the world, of local authorities, of the police, and so on. In each of these cases, the replies can only be prepared at such short notice, at the price of a greater or lesser dislocation of other Ministerial and Departmental business, and with the risk that the inquiries may not be as thorough as they would be if the notice was longer. These difficulties are particularly serious in the case of Questions appearing on the Order Paper on Saturday, for answer on Monday

A number of examples of Questions 0f these kinds were given in the Memorandum which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury submitted to the Select Committee, and which is published with their proceedings. I will not go through all these examples, but it may help the House if I quote two of them, to illustrate what I have in mind. As an example of a Question involving extensive inter-Departmental consultations, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned one addressed to the Prime Minister, which appeared on the Paper on a Tuesday for answer on the Wednesday, about the number of wives of Service personnel and of Crown servants respectively who had been provided with passages to join their husbands. It was necessary to consult the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, and the Ministry of War Transport. One can imagine that No. 10, Downing Street, had a rather busy and anxious 24-hour period, with everybody most anxiously striving to see that the Question was properly answered on the following day. I can assure the House that the greatest care is taken about Parliamentary answers. In any case, if the greatest care is not taken, the Minister runs great risks. Great care is taken, and the Departments have a healthy respect for this Parliamentary institution, and it is good that that should be so. As an example of a Question requiring inquiries abroad, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary instanced one which involved inquiries into the alleged lack of mosquito nets for certain airmen in Singapore.

In neither of these cases could it be said, on the face of things, that the urgency was such that a delay of a day or two would have mattered, and I think that this can be said of the great bulk of the Questions concerned. I merely state this as a fact. I make no complaint whatever. Under the existing Standing Order it is not only legitimate but perfectly natural that Members should put Questions down for answer with only the clear day's notice required by the Order. It was because they felt that many Questions which are put down at the minimum period of notice do not appear to merit such urgent treatment, and that the present period demands great efforts by a disproportionate staff in Departments, without producing the best results either from the Members' or the Departments' point of view, that, representing the Government, my hon. Friends the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Under Secretary of State for Air asked the Select Committee to consider an increase in the period of notice. They suggested an increase from one day to two.

The Select Committee accepted these arguments in favour of increasing the period of notice, and recommended that the present Rule should be amended so as normally to give the Departments a full two days' notice. They did not, however, feel able to accept the precise suggestion made by the Government's representatives, because, as they point out in their Report, the effect of putting off a Question from the earliest day is usually to defer the answer for a whole week. The Committee's alternative proposal is that Questions received at the Table Office before the hour of Sitting of the House should be deemed to have been received the day before, and that arrangements should be made for copies of such Questions to be sent by hand to the appropriate Department as soon as they have been examined by the Clerk in charge of Questions. In this way, as they remark, Departments would have the advantage of several valuable working hours to initiate such inquiries as may be necessary and the right of Members to a quick answer to a really urgent Question would be preserved.

The Government recognise the force of the Select Committee's argument, and though it will, of course, provide somewhat less relief to Departments than a period of notice of two full days, they are very willing to concur in the alternative arrangements proposed. As the Committee recognise, its success will depend largely on the co-operation of the House. As is clear from the Committee's Report, the object of the special procedure which they recommend is to enable Members to get quick answers to really urgent Questions. I am sure that the House will operate the expedited procedure in the spirit in which it is intended to be worked, and that Members will not put down what I may call last-minute Questions unless they feel that an early answer is really urgently called for in the public interest. I would add that I hope that—not only from the point of view of the Departments but also that of the Clerks of the House who deal with Questions, and to whose willing shoulders the new arrangement will add extra burdens—Members will do their best to hand in their Questions as long as possible before the Hour of Sitting of the House. It would immensely increase the difficulties of everybody concerned if the Clerks were snowed under by Questions handed in at the last minute, and many of the advantages of the change would be lost. Therefore, the cordial co-operation of hon. Members in that respect will be most highly valued.

It will be noticed that we have made some slight drafting changes in the amendment to Standing Orders suggested by the Select Committee. These do not affect the substance, but we think that perhaps they make the position a little clearer. There is one other minor point on which the Government have departed from the strict letter of the Select Committee's recommendation. Though the Committee do not say so in terms, they appear to contemplate that the amendment should be in the form of a new Standing Order. I am not sure whether they gave direct consideration to the point, but the Government think that perhaps it would be more convenient if we made it a Sessional Order in the first instance, and so get experience before it is made an actual Standing Order, although we think it will work satisfactorily.

The Select Committee also recommended that Questions not for oral answer should be answered within seven days after their appearance on the Order Paper. This is not a matter for a Standing or Sessional Order, but the House will wish to know that the Government agree that this is a reasonable proposal, and instructions in this sense have been sent to the various Departments of State. Like the Select Committee, the Government recognise that if Members can be assured of a speedy answer to Questions for written answer, they will be likely to make more use of them, and the pressure on Question time will accordingly be relieved. This is one way in which Members can contribute to the greater usefulness of Question time, and, like the Select Committee, may I commend the idea to the House?

Lastly, I would express appreciation of the spirit of helpfulness and good sense with which the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), have dealt with this matter. We are grateful for their understanding and cooperation. Given the cooperation of the House, the proposal which they have made should not only be of considerable benefit to the Government, but should increase, if only in a small measure, the effectiveness of one of the most valuable rights of the Private Member. For both these reasons, I commend the Sessional Order to the favourable consideration of the House.

11.23 a.m.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I speak now, as being in charge of this Bench, and also as representing my hon. Friends of the Opposition who were Members of the Select Committee. In the first place, I wish to pay a tribute to the admirable appreciation—using the word in its old-fashioned bilateral sense—of the value of Question Time which we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I hope it will not be a very serious breach of the Rules of Order if I say, in parenthesis, that we on this side of the House, however deeply and bitterly we may differ from the right hon. Gentleman on political matters, are very pleased to think that he should lead the House, because he has such an acute respect for the rights and privileges of the House and of the public outside. While paying compliments, perhaps I might say something about the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young). Although it would be as wrong to praise or blame him as it would be to praise or blame you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how happy we are to serve under him. I think he will agree that, in the time that we have been sitting, we have been able to get through a great deal of very useful and valuable work. It is tribute to the work of the Select Committee that they were able to present a unanimous report on this matter.

There are one or two matters in this Report to which I should like to call the attention of the House because, after all, the Motion is largely part of the Report. I would call the attention of Members in all parts of the House to Paragraph 3 where we have said: It is important therefore that Questions, especially oral Questions, should only be put down when other and less formal methods have failed to produce a satisfactory result, or when some information or action is urgently desired. I think all hon. Members of the Committee—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Chairman will bear me out—are anxious that this point should be submitted to the consideration of the House and should be accepted by hon. Members. There is no question that it undoubtedly often happens that Ministers constantly have 30 or 40 Questions a day to answer. I see the Under-Secretary for Air is present, and I know that this has been my experience when at the Air Ministry as well as his experience and I do not doubt that it is also the experience of other Ministers. This involves a heavy burden of work which must be carried out, as the Leader of the House pointed out. But I do think—though this may seem a strange suggestion to come from someone sitting on the Front Opposition Bench—that in these times of great international and general strain there is some obligation upon hon. Members not to put down a Question when they can put a matter by letter or in some other way. I say that without offence to anybody, and we have brought it out very strongly in our Report.

I wish now to deal with a delicate matter, but one which I hope nobody will resent. There are ways of saving time in the Question hour. There has arisen the most astonishing custom of hon. Members wasting time by rising to say, "May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer which will give the greatest satisfaction to my constituents." I venture here to say very vulgarly, "Who the blank cares whether the answer gives satisfaction to their constituents or not? "We are not here to listen to bouquets from hon. Members to the Minister for giving satisfaction to constituents, and while the hon. Members are thanking the Minister for his reply, which is in any event a complete innovation, as was pointed out by a supporter of the Government in the House, this is taking up a considerable amount of time.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I think that I am expressing the views of the Standing Committee by saying that while we do not want to place blame upon any particular shoulders, we were rather concerned, as the evidence shows, by the abnormal time which it takes to get an answer from a Government Department. If one sends them a letter—that is the other side of the question—it often takes weeks to get a reply. I know the great difficulty, shortage of staff, and I understand that there is difficulty in the typing departments of Government offices, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, if he will take this matter into consideration and tell us, as I am sure he will, that everything will be done to expedite matters. I often have my private secretary write to the Minister's private secretary, but even by that means it sometimes takes a month or six weeks to get an answer on a very simple case. I hope, therefore, that something will be done.

There is only one other thing that I wish to say. We on the Select Committee consider that we were abundantly justified in recommending that there should be no further curtailment of Questions and I would call attention to the point which we included in our Report about the manner in which the number of Questions has been cut down year after year. I well recollect —I think it was in 1909—when the Questions were first limited to eight per Member—it is an interesting reminiscence to show how history repeats itself. Several hon. Members—I think I was among them—accused the Government of treating the House as the Tsar treated the Duma. The comparison with our great Ally, Russia has apparently been going on for 40 years under entirely different Governments in each case in disparagement of our Ally. In view of the genuine apprehension expressed on all sides of the House, not merely from the Opposition benches, I venture to commend the proposal to the House, and I think I can say without impropriety that the Chairman of the Committee will agree with me that this is by no means the end of the useful labours we hope to undertake on behalf of the House.

11.30 a.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

Although I think this is a reasonable proposal I am not sure that it is necessary. If we take the kind of instance quoted by the Lord President of the Council whore a Question is put down to the Prime Minister which obviously requires prolonged inquiries before an answer could be given, surely the reply could be made, as it so often is in this House, that the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries and will communicate with his hon. Friend. This, I think, would be accepted not only by the hon. Member but by the House as quite satisfactory in the circumstances. This House is always a most reasonable place and if a Question has been put down to which it is unreasonable to expect an early reply because it obviously involves considerable detail, surely an answer of that kind would be accepted as adequate. Assuming that this proposal is considered desirable, I am rather doubtful whether hon. Members ought to accept it without stipulating some conditions. This is not an issue between the Opposition and the Government and certainly not one between the Front Benches, but concerns the back benchers of all parties. I think private Members should consider a little more before agreeing to this proposition as to whether or not they should lay down some conditions with regard to the restoration of the rights of private Members which have been so gravely impaired in this Parliament.

I should like to make one particular point. The real sanction which lies be- hind our getting satisfactory answers to Questions is the power of back bench Members to raise a question at other times if they do not get satisfaction at Question time. At the present time, virtually the only opportunity they have is upon the Adjournment, and all Ministers and their advisers know perfectly well that the chance of a back bench Member being able to get the Adjournment before the Question has become completely stale is probably something like 20, 30, or 40 to one against. [An Hon. Member: "Nonsense."] I am speaking from my own experience. I have not had the good fortune once to obtain the Adjournment since the ballot began in this Parliament—

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me for a moment. An hon. Member takes his place in the ballot where he is in competition with about 12 other hon. Members so that he should get the Adjournment in 12 days.

Sir J. Mellor

That may be the hon. and learned Member's experience, but I know that there are often more than 12 names down, sometimes 20 or more, and since the ballot began I have tramped that corridor day after day and I have never had any good fortune yet. As I say, it is well known to Ministers that the chance of back-bench Members raising a question on the Adjournment before it has become stale is relatively small, and that at the best it is speculative. I believe that this must have some influence upon the way in which the Ministers prepare their answers where the matters are rather ticklish to deal with, and I maintain that if that is the real sanction lying behind the right of private Members to obtain answers to Questions at Question time, they ought to consider for a moment whether it is a sufficiently strong one. In my submission it is not, and I therefore suggest that the House ought to require something in exchange from the Government for giving up their right to give one clear day's notice only for Questions. We ought to ask the Government to give at least one day to private Members per month, for Motions for which we should ballot in the old-fashioned way. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. It would add to our powers of raising questions on which we have not obtained satisfaction at Question time. I feel that this matter would have gone through without further discussion if I had not risen. I hope there will be further discussion and that private Members who have been considering this matter will say whether or not they are satisfied that Private Members are having adequate opportunity in this Parliament for voicing complaints. I feel very strongly that Private Members have given up too much. This is an opportunity when they have the right to demand some restoration of their privileges.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

The answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) about the kind of reply which we often get, "lam having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member," is that it is not satisfactory to the hon. Member concerned, to the House as a whole, or to the Minister. Usually the sequel is a letter, some weeks later, which is not on record in Hansard, and the contents of which are not generally communicated to the public or to the House.

The proposal now before us is eminently reasonable and modest, and has been thoroughly thrashed out in the Select Committee, as hon. Members who have read the Report will realise. We should support it, especially taking it in conjunction with the assurance given by the Lord President of the Council that steps are being taken to communicate copies of Questions directly to the Departments concerned before they appear on the Order Paper. That will save half a day, or even a full day in many cases. I was extremely glad also to hear that there is some prospect of unstarred Questions being answered more promptly. That will mean a great easing of the tremendous overburdening of the Order Paper with starred Questions. Meanwhile, if I might make one respectful suggestion to hon. Members, it is that one way of getting a quick answer to a Question from a Government Department without waiting some weeks for a letter, and at the same time without incurring your just disapproval, Mr. Speaker, of oral answers about individual cases, is to put down a starred Question for a day on which it cannot possibly be reached.

My last point is about the Adjournment, which was referred to by the hon. Member opposite. I have some sympathy with him on the question of the ballot. I also have been extremely unlucky. I am not sure that the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was mathematically sound. Therefore, I make one suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. It is that we should continue to ballot for the Adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, but that Friday, when Business often ends early, should be a free day for the Adjournment, a day on which we could return to some of the earlier flexibility of this institution, and on which you, in your discretion, might call one or more Members who had really urgent matters to bring forward.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Warbey (Luton)

I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join in the tribute paid by the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to the manner in which the Lord President of the Council introduced this Order. My right hon. Friend showed a high sense of the important function which Question time plays in our Parliamentary system. I desire, with him, to see a similar system applied in all other countries so that it might be possible for Members of Parliament in other countries to prod their Foreign Secretaries as actively as some of us prod the Foreign Secretary of this country. Some of our Allies—if not our great Allies, some smaller ones—have been greatly impressed by what they have witnessed of the functioning of Question time in this House. Some of them were here during the war and were very impressed by what they saw. At least one, our Norwegian Ally, has decided, as a result of what they observed here, to initiate a similar system in their own Parliament.

I am disturbed, upon looking at this Order, about one point. I notice that a Question handed in at 2.14½ p.m. on Tuesday will be answered within two days, on the following Thursday, but if handed in at 2.15½, one minute later, will not be answered until the following Monday. A difference of one minute in the handing in of the Question will result in a difference of four days in the answering of it. That is partly due to the fact that we do not sit on Saturdays and Sundays, and partly to the fact that no time is given to the answering of Questions on Fridays. When 1 raised this point once before, I was a little surprised that the Lord President of the Council replied that it was not the practice of this House to have a Question time on Friday. I was aware before I came to this House that it was not the practice, but, as my right hon. Friend also said, there is nothing sacrosanct about a particular procedure for the receiving and answering of Questions. It is therefore possible to consider the extension of Question time.

I imagine that it would be out of Order for me to go into the reasons why there should be an extension of Question time to Fridays, but I believe I can indicate that in the application of this Order there is a reason for doing so. If we were to extend Question time to Fridays we would not have the anomalous position that a difference of one minute in putting down a Question will result in a difference of four days in the answering of it. I respectfully suggest that we should recognise that our Parliamentary work involves a five shift system, and that, if we require to sit, quite rightly, on five days a week, hon. Members should regard it as their duty to attend the House on five days, and that, if we have a five shift week, it should not be regarded as satisfactory that hon. Members should be satisfied with doing four shifts a week. It is not regarded as satisfactory in industry, and I do not think it should be regarded as satisfactory in the conduct of our Parliamentary business. If, therefore, we can adopt the practice of attending the House of Commons on five days a week, I suggest that we might also adopt the practice of having Questions on five days a week.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

The Lord President has been so very reasonable in the presentation of this Motion that I hope he will extend his reasonableness to consideration of the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). The House, and, in particular, private Members, are asked to make a further concession of their rights to the Government, and, quite apart from the merits of the proposal, any concession of that sort surely entitles private Members to ask for the consideration of a counter- concession. I doubt if there are many private Members of this House who are entirely satisfied in their minds and consciences that they have, with the present shortage of private Members' time, adequate opportunities to ventilate individual grievances and cases affecting their constituents, and, therefore, I would ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider, not necessarily today, the suggestion which the hon. Baronet made that, at any rate, one private Members' day per month might be considered.

As the hon. Baronet said, the opportunities of an hon. Member obtaining the Adjournment are comparatively small, and I speak with a little feeling as one who, for the past month, has trod that corridor without any modicum of success, and I would doubt, with the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) whether his mathematics are really right. If one's experience is, as mine has been, that one has to put one's name with 20 other names on 20 days, I should have thought that the odds were always 19 to one against one, but that is rather an interesting question of mathematics. What I am concerned with is the result of it, and the answer has always been against me. I do urge this matter on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and suggest that, whatever system of obtaining the Adjournment we have, the odds against a particular hon. Member are heavy, and that some further facility for the raising of individual grievances of one's constituents is requisite for the proper discharge of one's duties as a Member of Parliament. I am perfectly certain that a number of hon. Members opposite will share that view in their hearts, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the House gives him the concession for which he asks today, he will consider the suggestion for a counter-concession. The right hon. Gentleman has a great reputation for negotiation and conciliation. I hope he will demonstrate that that reputation is well founded.

11.49 a.m.

Sir Robert Young (Newton)

I hope the House will allow me to express appreciation of the very cordial way in which the Leader of the House accepted the recommendation of the Committee on this occasion, and I would like to join with the Noble Lord, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in the appreciation which he expressed. He very kindly referred to myself. May I be allowed to say how much indebted I am to each Member of the Committee for their kindness and help in all these matters. This is a question brought forward for the purpose, not merely of expediting the Business of the House, but of safeguarding in every sense the rights of the private Member. It was brought to our notice that there is some difficulty about Questions in relation to the time given to Ministers, and especially to those Ministers who have to answer Questions on Mondays. Seldom did they see either the Question or the answer to be given to it until the Monday forenoon, and consequently we came to the conclusion that something ought to be done in that direction. My hon. Friend behind me referred to the large gap between the answers to Questions handed in on one day and another. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I think the hon. Member would have objected a great deal more if we had suggested that the Questions ought to be in by 10 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Consequently, I do not think he need perturb himself about that. We intended to maintain the private Members' rights which they possess now, with the exception that, when Questions are handed in by 2.14 p.m., the answer will be given in two days' time.

I do not want to say anything about the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) and an hon. Member on the other side of the House. After all, these matters have been decided by the House for the present Session, and I think that, if hon. Members want to get a proper concession, apart from this, it will be their duty to press upon the Leader of the House when the next time comes for considering private Members' time. One question which was asked me by several hon. Members was about the location of this Table Office. Those hon. Members who wish to hand in their Questions will find the Office at the foot of the Gallery stairs, and those who want to send Questions by post will have to address their letters to the Clerk at the Table, but the letters must be there by 2.14 p.m.

I rejoice that the Leader of the House not only accepts the recommendation, insofar as alteration of the Standing Order is concerned, but has given the House an assurance that our ether comments and recommendation about non-starred Questions being answered within seven days, will be observed and also that the letters which are sent by hon. Members to Ministers—and I quite agree with the Noble Lord; I have had some experience of long delayed answers to letters—will be replied to within, say, 14 days. If any hon. Member does not obtain a satisfactory reply by that time, there is no harm in the Minister indicating to the hon. Member that the matter is still being pursued and that an answer will be sent in a very short time. I want to assure hon. Members that the Committee are particularly anxious to make sure that, whatever they do in relation to the Procedure of the House, it should be done in a way which will result in the better working of the Business of the House, while, at the same time, safeguarding the best and truest interests of hon. Members.

11.54 a.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

May I refer to the remarks of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and particularly to his reference to those superfluous words which we occasionally hear in this House when an hon. Member is thanking the Minister for his reply? I think I can speak about these words objectively, because I have never yet found myself in the happy position of being impelled to use them, but I have wondered if the use of these words does not arise from something like this type of origin. A great many of us back benchers and new Members have found that there is considerable difficulty in intervening in Debates at all, and I feel that, probably, hon. Members who are back benchers on the other side of the House have found this even more acutely than we have. Perhaps there is some impulse to use these words which is derived from an hon. Member's wish to satisfy his somewhat discontented constituents, that he is, in fact, in the House of Commons and taking some part in its Debates. Therefore, the solution of the question of the elimination of these supererogatory words would be if the Leader of the House could find it possible to lengthen the time available for consideration of Motions, so that those of us who wanted to speak on a Motion did, in fact, get more chance of doing so.

There is another point to which I would refer. The answer frequently given by a Minister is that he will circulate to the hon. Member some paper or some letter which contains a reply which may well be of considerable interest to the House in general, or at least to more Members than the Member who has put the Question. In cases of that kind the reply should be incorporated in the Official Report, so that we can all benefit by the knowledge which would otherwise flow only between two persons. Finally, I am relieved to see that the Leader of the House is not asking, in the Motion before the House, for something which I dare say a number of Ministers would have been relieved to see granted, namely, that there shall be some delay between the original Question and the giving of an answer to a supplementary question.

11. 57 a.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

The Debate has been very helpful and friendly and I am grateful to hon. Members for the attitude they have adopted. I am grateful to the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for the friendly observations which he made. With regard to Departments and written answers, steps have been taken by the Government to put it to them firmly and frankly that answers to non-oral Questions should not be given later than seven days afterwards, and that does not merely mean that answers should not take longer than seven days before being given, but that they should be given earlier than seven days whenever possible. I am sure that my right hon. Friends, the Ministers in charge of the various Departments, will not merely leave that as a circular from the appropriate quarter of Government, but that they will themselves give verbal firm instructions that this must be adhered to, and that in a case where there are exceptional circumstances whereby the rule cannot be complied with, they will require a special report from the officers concerned as to why it is not possible. If Members will follow up these instances, I feel that seven days is a reasonable outside limit in other than exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I speak with greater lightheartedness now that I am not a departmental Minister, but in the light of my own experience I think that seven days is reasonable for an outside limit in other than exceptional circumstances, and I can assure the Noble Lord that every step will be taken in that direction.

I thought that the grievance of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) about private Members being treated badly did not quite ring convincingly. My recollection is that he himself does very well. The numbers of occasions on which I come into the House and am charmed to hear him making observations and speeches of one sort and another is considerable, and I am always glad to hear him.

Sir J. Mellor

Not necessarily on subjects of my own choice.

Mr. Morrison

I would only say that the hon. Member does very well. Evidently he is rather more clever, in relation to the average of percentages or in initiative, than the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) or my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). I do not think that I agree with his idea that it is quite all right for the Minister to come to the House and say that he is making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member. I have done it myself, and have been told, not without reason, that the House of Commons wants to know, that it is not only an hon. Member who wants to know, which is a reasonable observation. Although that has to be done from time to time the House does not take to it too kindly, especially when it has been said three times running. Ministers do not like doing it. We are anxious to treat the House with the greatest respect, and to make the utmost information available. I do not think that that is a remedy.

The hon. Gentleman and some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) were doing a little bit of Eastern bargaining, in the sense of saying that if they were to be nice and good and gave the Government this facility, what had the Government to give them? I do not think that had the true Anglo-Saxon note about it. The Anglo-Saxon note is that we judge something on its merits, and that if it is right we do it. The Eastern note is "Never mind the merits; what can I get out of you in return?" I am sorry to see this tendency, and 1 hope it will not be unduly developed. I note what they have said and will take it into account, but I am not in a position to say anything at the moment about private Members' time. I have a feeling that a nice further row will develop in due course, on some other occasion, and I will try to be ready for it, but I am not in a position to say anything at present.

As to the Adjournment, the fact is that it has become a very popular and useful institution. Often the opportunity of the Motion for the Adjournment was missed in. previous Parliaments on a high proportion of days, but in this Parliament it is very rarely missed. My belief is that this half hour Adjournment will become almost as outstanding a characteristic feature of the British Parliament as Question time itself. It will be a great thing to boast of in the world that if some one has a grievance, even a little one, it can be ventilated on the Floor of the House, and the Minister put on the spot, not merely by Question, but as a result of discussion, and it will be another example to the world. The fact of the Adjournment having become so popular is possibly the reason why Mr. Speaker had to invent some rough and ready guide whereby, I would not say that justice could be done, but that Mr. Speaker would be relieved of an invidious task. That is why the Ballot came along. It is one of those little gambles we have in the House of Commons when the Home Secretary is not looking. It solves a lot of difficulties.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon for his support. The answer he made to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was effective and right. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) is also making the best of the occasion and his argument about 2.14½ p.m. and 2.15½ p.m. was really not related so much to the actual merits of that case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) said, a line must be drawn somewhere, and hardship is bound to be caused to the man who is half a minute late. I always feel sorry for that man, but there it is. What my hon. Friend was really doing was taking advantage of an opportunity to revive the idea about which he pressed me some time ago, as he had every right to do, as to whether we might not have a pukka Question time on Friday mornings. I will be quite frank. The truth is that it would drive the Departments and the Ministers too hard. There are a lot of things done in Departments on Friday mornings, and also Cabinet Committees from time to time, which really cannot be done on other occasions because of the fact that Departments are heavily occupied. If Ministers were heavily involved on Friday mornings in answering Questions, it would be a heavy burden on the Departments and on Ministers themselves. I admit it would solve this four days gap, but that is the frank answer about it.

It is the case, as I was reminded in a note kindly sent to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Opposition Whip, that if something really urgent arose, Mr. Speaker would no doubt always be willing to consider, as in the past, the question of a Private Notice Question. The risk we run with these changes is that there may be a slight increase of such Questions, which are entirely within the discretion of Mr. Speaker as to their urgency.

If the matter is really urgent, it is possible for it to be met by means of a Private Notice Question, not that I am trying to stimulate too many of them, because the House possibly would not like too many of them any more than it likes too many Ministerial statements. I am very glad. that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure told the House where the Table Office was As a matter of fact, I myself marked a minute to my own private secretary, "Where is this Table Office?" because, quite frankly, I was not sure. I thought possibly it was here in the middle of the Floor, but I was wrong. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving the House that information

There has been a reference to answers to letters from Members. It was mentioned in the Report. We are doing our very best about that. I do not wish to stimulate debate on that subject, but the Government are doing their very best about answers to Members' letters, which are exceedingly numerous and about which Departments take a lot of trouble—

Sir R. Young

May I interrupt my right hon. Friend to say that this is referred to in Paragraph 12?

Mr. Morrison

I remember the point now, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend. One of the problems is the congestion caused by a great number of letters, more than ever before, I should think, and the difficulty with regard to clerical labour. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put to me only this morning a suggestion that it would greatly relieve the Departments if the mere acknowledgement which many Ministers like to send could be done in a nicely and courteously printed note from the Department. [Hon. Members: "It is."] It is done by some Departments but it is not done by the Home Office. I am sure the House would not mind that being the case, anyway. It is the letter of substance that hon. Members really want, and the sooner the better. If that is done in some Departments already, that only shows how one learns when one tells something to the House of Commons.

Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

May I ask whether consideration is being given to the suggestion made in the Debate the other day, that Members of Parliament should be able to mark certain letters "Priority" so that they are not dealt with in a routine manner?

Mr. Morrison

That has not been dealt with so far. I doubt myself whether it would work. The tendency would be that there are so many priorities to be marked that it would be difficult to distinguish the importance of them. It reminds me of a story that used to be told in the late Government by the Leader of the Opposition, about a queue in Moscow. It was a long queue and some fellow came rushing up waving a paper. He went to the head of the queue and the whole queue shouted at him, "What are you doing going to the head of the queue? "He said, "I have got a priority." "Oh," they said, "We have all got priorities. This is the priority queue." That, I am afraid, might be the difficulty about it, but we are always open to receive suggestions.

Mr. Pritt

Surely, in actual practice it one has something very urgent to raise and one rings up the private secretary of the Minister, one does in fact get priority if it is a proper case. That is my experience.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that is so. We do our best in these matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered:

" That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraph shall have effect in substitution for paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 7:— (4) Any Member who desires an oral answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk, but notice of any such question must appear at latest on the Notice Paper circulated two days (excluding Sundays) before that on which an answer is desired. Provided that questions received at the Table Office on Mondays and Tuesdays before 2.15 p.m. and on Fridays before 11 a.m., if so desired by the Member, may be put down for oral answer on the following Wednesday, Thursday and Monday, respectively.
Forward to