HC Deb 10 March 1950 vol 472 cc609-12
Mr. Speaker

I desire now to give a Ruling, as I promised yesterday, on a matter which was raised yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler).

Apart from a few cases in which express permission of the Speaker is asked, when a course of action is proposed to be done "with permission," that means, according to circumstances, with the permission of a particular Member or of the House in general.

On 5th July, 1926, a Member asked a Question involving a number of names and figures, and the Minister proposed therefore to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Member, however, asked that the answer should be given, and declined to accept a copy of it offered by the 'Minister. It was suggested by another Member that discretion as to answering a Question rested with the Minister. Mr. Speaker Whitley replied: It is at the discretion of the Minister whether or not he answers a Question put to him, but this is only a question whether the answer should be given by being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or whether part of it should now be given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1926; Vol. 197, c. 1618.] The answer to the Question was then given orally.

To sum up shortly, (1) it is in the discretion of the Minister whether he will answer a Question; (2) if he decides to answer, the Member concerned may insist on an answer given orally and not merely circulated; but (3) the Speaker may intervene, and has often done so, to suggest that lengthy answers should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT instead of being given orally in order to economise Question time.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I am sure that we, on this side of the House, would like to thank you, Sir, for the Ruling you have given on this matter, which confirms the impression I was bold enough to state at the last Sitting of the House. If I may say so, we, from the human point of view, are entirely in sympathy with the sense of your Ruling, namely, that long answers take up the time of Questions and should not normally be given orally. I notice that the Minister of Health is not present today. We regret that very much on this side of the House, because he ventured to take what I thought was an unnecessarily combative view of this matter yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) who declined, or objected, to taking the Question as an oral one, simply asked the Minister if he would indicate whether numbers were included in the Minister's answer. Had the Minister thought fit to give a courteous reply to that, I do not think any of this trouble need have arisen.

It is quite clear, having read the Minister's answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that numbers are not included. If the Minister had said that, it would not have been necessary for us to press the matter. There is no desire on our side to go behind the undoubted Ruling given by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, and confirmed by yourself, that the Minister has absolute discretion to give an answer or not as he likes. We accept the decision, which confirms our own impression, that the Minister has absolute discretion, and, though we do not desire all long answers to be given orally, if a question is asked of the Minister, the right remains with the hon. Member to accept or not whether the answer should be oral or written.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

For the guidance of hon. Members who, in the light of your Ruling, Sir, should desire to exer- cise the right to receive an oral answer, I wonder whether you would indicate what procedure they should follow. Normally a Minister's answer begins, "With permission, I will circulate the answer." Does your Ruling indicate that the hon. Member concerned should then rise to his feet and refuse permission?

Mr. Speaker

I think that is a valuable suggestion. One difficulty yesterday was that the hon. Member for Solihull had given that permission, and then after an unsatisfactory answer to a supplementary question, he withdrew it. I think that if one asks a supplementary question, it is just as well to say "without prejudice," or something of that sort and make it clear that permission is not given.

Earl Winterton

I do not wish to add anything to the admirable statement made by my hon. Friend, but I would call attention to the fact that the effect of your Ruling, Sir, is completely to controvert the statement made by the Minister of Health yesterday. I wondered in the circumstances whether the Leader of the House would be prepared to rise and say, as we have done on this side of the House, that we fully accept your Ruling.

Sir John Mellor

In the course of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you used the expression "permission of…the House in general." Am I right in thinking that that means the unanimous permission of the House and not the majority of the House?

Mr. Speaker

It is very hard to lay down definite rules in the matter. There is such a thing as a general opinion which the House can sense, so to speak.

Mr. Driberg

In cases where this Ruling is taken advantage of, as Members can quite properly do, now that you have so ruled—and I am grateful to you, Sir, for clarifying a situation which was not at all clear before—is there not some risk that Members generally will be deprived of a large number of Questions and answers if there are a great many demands for full oral replies which may be very long? Would it not be better, therefore, in such cases, if those replies could by agreement be given at the end of Questions, as long answers often are?

Mr. Speaker

I think one can trust to the common sense of Members not to ask too often. If I may say so, I really deprecate the last suggestion of the hon. Member that we should have everything at the end of Questions, because that would take away the time of hon. Members in Debate. Question time should be limited, except in the case of Private Notice Questions, to the one hour.

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

It is always a little difficult in these technical matters to follow everything at first hearing, but as far as I could follow, Mr. Speaker, I think the Ruling you have given is a sensible one, which ought to be generally accepted. If I may say so, there are elements of common sense in this business. If very long answers were read in the House, clearly the opportunity of other Members' Questions being reached would be prejudiced. It is a matter of common sense, and no doubt it is part of the duty of the Chair, if I may say so, to protect the other Members of the House in the Questions which they may wish to put, by checking the giving of unduly long answers. That, I think, is implicit in the Ruling you have given, Sir.

Mr. Martin Lindsay

Mr. Speaker, I would only like to thank you very much indeed for the Ruling you have been good enough to give the House, and to confirm the view that has been so well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), in saying that if the Minister concerned had been at all conciliatory, I would not at all have thought it necessary to take the attitude I did take.