HC Deb 05 December 1960 vol 631 cc868-74
Mr. Speaker

I should like to say a word to the House about Questions. I have given careful consideration to the problems which were raised on Thursday last by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others with regard to the timing of the Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There are various possible solutions, but I must tell the House that strong representations have been made by hon. Members individually, from both sides of the House, and by the usual channels, that it really would be a pity if the House could not find a solution to this problem from its own resources.

It seems to be generally agreed that the run of Questions has become much more slow than past experience shows to be necessary. I myself have done my best—I confess that my efforts have been singularly unsuccessful—to keep Question Time moving. I can do no more without fuller co-operation from the House. I am told that the Prime Minister is prepared to make some change if that be the general wish of the House. I feel, however—and I am supported in this by the representations which have been made—that if the House were to make a real effort we could, even in the comparatively few days which remain before Christmas, make any change in respect of the Prime Minister's Questions unnecessary. I believe that the House would think this the much happier solution if it could be done.

I propose to try to revert to what was the fully accepted practice previously, and I shall be compelled generally to allow fewer supplementary questions than hitherto. Success will require some self-restraint in comparison with our habits of late, and for this I must ask the help of all hon. Members, for it would be tedious for the House if the Chair were constantly to have to remind hon. Members of what we all know, namely, that the sole purpose of the supplementary question should be to elucidate the Answer given.

Let us see how we get on. I hope that by Christmas we shall feel that, between us, we have brought Question Time back into a form like that in which we need to have it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

We are all very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the statement that you have made. As you have said, the Prime Minister is prepared to make some change if that be the general wish of the House. In the light of your statement, Sir, I am sure that the best procedure would be to see what change we can make ourselves before Christmas and review the matter then having regard to the success we make in that advanced and accelerated procedure. I do not underestimate the desires of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to see the Prime Minister's Questions reached, and neither does my right hon. Friend, but I think that the most sensible way would be to make the experiment you suggest.

Mr. Gaitskell

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your statement, but may I ask you to bear in mind certain considerations? First, it has never been made clear what is the objection to the Prime Minister answering Questions at a particular point of time, at 3.15, as was suggested by the Select Committee. This is really no: a concession on his part. It is something which was recommended by the Select Committee, and it seems to many of us to be a very sensible idea.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, will you bear in mind, that, although no doubt supplementary questions are sometimes too long, so are supplementary answers to those questions and, further, supplementary questions are a truly essential part of the tradition of the House, sometimes eliciting important admissions from the Government. It could be very unfortunate for the reputation of Question Time, if I may say so, Sir, if you were to be too severe on supplementary questions on important issues.

I hope that you will bear those matters in mind, Mr. Speaker. If your suggestion is, as I understand it to be, that we should leave this matter until Christmas, I think that I should be bound to accept that proposal, on the understanding, however, that, if the Prime Minister's Questions are not reached at a reasonably early date within the next fortnight, we shall certainly wish to return to the matter after the Recess.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the totality of Questions got through would not be touched by the timing of the Prime Minister's Questions at 3.15. I wanted to bear both things in mind. The austerity the Chair might feel obliged to impose on supplementary questions would very much depend upon the length and character of the supplementary questions. I shall try to obtain the kind of position that the House desires.

Mr. Shinwell

May I reinforce the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Would it not be far better, and to the advantage of the Prime Minister himself, if, instead of coming to the House, as he does on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and having to wait to see whether his Questions are to be asked—and, frequently, having waited, have to go away without answering his Questions, thus wasting time that he might use to greater advantage—he knew that at 3.15 p.m. his Questions would then be put by the hon. Members asking them? Surely that is a point for the Prime Minister himself to consider.

Secondly, may I also reinforce what my right hon. Friend said about the advantages of supplementary questions? Frequently, an important Question is put by an hon. Member who regards the Answer as unsatisfactory, and time is taken up either by points of order or by the hon. Member announcing that he will seek to raise the Question again on the Motion for the Adjournment. Surely it is far better that supplementary questions should be asked, within, of course, the discretion of the Chair. Primarily, it is for the Prime Minister himself to decide, if the House so desires it, that he should come here at a specified time to answer Questions?

Sir G. Nicholson

I want to put something to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that has not been considered before in this discussion. It is that this is really an innovation, which, I think, was introduced when Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown was in the Chair, of calling the names of hon. Members for asking supplementary questions. Before the war, the practice was that a Minister would answer a Question, and, automatically, the hon. Member who asked the Question was granted by the House leave to ask a supplementary, and, thereafter, there was more or less a free-for-all. Hon. Members used to get up and the hon. Member with the loudest voice, or in the most prominent part of the House, won. Sometimes, that worked very well, but if it was not working, Mr. Speaker automatically called the next Question.

The result of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's innovation has certainly been to give Question Time a greater dignity, but it has also entrenched the supplementary question and given it a sort of right to exist that it never had before. I suggest that this is worth while considering. I do not mean the first supplementary, but that the second, third and fourth seem to have a right to exist. I suggest that it might be worth considering going back to the prewar practice.

Mr. C. Pannell

Some of us do not understand the difficulty which the Leader of the House seams to have about the Prime Minister answering Questions at 3.15 p.m. Before the Select Committee on Procedure was set up, we had tedious repetition from the Leader of the House saying that everything had to wait until the Select Committee on Procedure had reported. We duly reported, and the Government have adopted only the rather trivial degrees of odds and sundries from its Report.

As a matter of fact, what happened then is worth considering. The recommendation in favour of 3.15 p.m. was the unanimous decision of the Select Committee, on which it spent a great deal of time. The Committee considered it with a great deal of trouble, and we understood that tentative inquiries had been made as to whether this was acceptable to the authorities concerned. We understood that it was. Why put all the House about, when we could have this automatically settled by the Prime Minister replying at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, although it should be understood that if a Question were put on any other day some other Minister would reply for him? We cannot see the difficulty about this tidy suggestion for the general convenience.

Mr. Speaker

I do not wish to get involved in a long discussion. All I am asking at the moment is that the House should try this experiment. If it does not work, we shall all know where we are by Christmas. If it does work, it will help with the totality of Questions and not only with this matter of the Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Mitchison

May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider both sides of the matter? There is the possibility that too much austerity in supplementary questions would lead the Government to practise evasive replies.

Mr. Speaker

We might fall into all kinds of perils. I do not undertake to be as austere, as, for instance, I have been today. But I must see what the House is capable of.

Mr. Mellish

May I reinforce the points which have been made about the length of Answers from the Government Front Bench? Not only are they mostly unsatisfactory, but also very long? May I ask you, Sir, in giving your consideration to this, to take this into account—that they should be shorter? Secondly, on the question about calling Members for supplementaries, perhaps we could now forget the old-fashioned idea that Privy Councillors ought to have preference?

Mr. Speaker

When I ask for the assistance of the House I include Ministers.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. Since, by implication, criticism has been made of Privy Councillors, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will apply the same principle to right hon. Members on the Front Bench here as you do to Privy Councillors and other hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker

I shall try to operate what I think is best in the interests of the House as a whole.

Mr. Rankin

You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that to a small extent I was concerned in what happened on Thursday, and that you made a rather unusual Ruling, in my view, in that you refused me a supplementary question on the grounds that it contained too much argument. You promised on Thursday that you would look again at your Ruling. While I am not pressing you now, I am asking if you still remember your promise.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman presses me. I examined with some care what he said and I have not seen anything in any way to decry my decision that his question was out of order.

Mr. Rankin

May I press my point upon you, Mr. Speaker, because it is a very important one? Of course, if there is a tightening of the conditions under which supplementary questions may be put the whole House—perhaps hon. Members on both sides—will be very seriously concerned with the results of that Ruling. I do not want to go back on my supplementary question, but, with respect, I suggest that it did not contain too much argument, although, as I said, it is very difficult—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that I have already ruled, once, in effect, twice, on the hon. Gentleman's question. I have not the slightest doubt that it was out of order for more than one reason. I do not propose to argue about it, but if the hon. Gentleman wants guidance about what the rules are he will find stated on pages 357 and 358 of Erskine May the applicable rules to Questions originally tabled, which would govern the matter of his question, and on page 363 their application to supplementary questions, for which the rules are the same.