HC Deb 20 June 1961 vol 642 cc1175-8
Mr. Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any chance of our having an answer to Question No. 43?

Mr. Gaitskell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 13th June the Prime Minister made a brief statement on the Report of the Romer Committee and announced that he was circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the findings of that Committee, subject to security inhibition.

As the summary was not available, the House was not in a very good position to ask Questions, as I think the Prime Minister realised, because the right hon. Gentleman frequently referred hon. Members to the summary. In these circumstances, and since five or six Questions on this subject have not been reached today, I wonder if I might ask you whether the Prime Minister would wish to answer these Questions together at the end of Questions now. Would that be possible?

Mr. Speaker

This is the end of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman knows the rule to which I have to adhere, namely, that if I have notice of a wish by a Minister to answer a Question if not reached, then I allow that sort of thing; but I cannot really do it otherwise.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the Prime Minister would care to answer Question No. 43?

Mr. Speaker

That illustrates the difficulty of the matter.

Mr. Gaitskell

Does this not point once again to the desirability of the Prime Minister answering Questions at a certain time, say 3.15, as was proposed by the Select Committee on Procedure? Could the matter be taken up again with the Government?

Mr. Speaker

I have always tried to do whatever the House wanted about it, but there are conflicting views. I am sorry that we spent so much time in Scotland today. We do better some days than others. It was probably largely my fault today.

Mr. W. Hamilton

You will probably recollect, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago representations were made that the Minister of Labour, because of the number of Questions addressed to him, should answer Questions on two days a week instead of one day. Would it not meet the case which you have mentioned about Scottish Questions if we did the same with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and had him answering Questions on two days instead of one day?

Mr. Chetwynd

Fridays and Saturdays?

Mr. Speaker

The complexities are obvious to everybody. The more time we spend on the Prime Minister on a day like this, the less we are able to spend in Scotland. The matter tends to complicate itself a little.

Mr. Woodburn

May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of Questions today other business was taken before Scottish Questions were reached, so it is hardly fair to blame all of it on Scotland?

Mr. Speaker

I do not blame it on Scotland. I blame myself for it largely. It is difficult to know how best to help the House.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the present situation is most unsatisfactory in connection with a very important matter of public interest like the Romer Report. We were not able to ask Questions on it in the ordinary way on a previous occasion. We ought to be able to deal with it fairly expeditiously and not weeks after the Report came out. I would suggest that you should consider this matter. You may not be able to deal with it within the existing rules of order, but it is a matter of great concern to the House as a whole.

Mr. Speaker

It is the sort of matter about which I should hope that the House would help me, because it is a matter about which there will have to be agreement as to what I should seek to do.

Mr. G. Brown

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to say that if you were approached by a Minister who expressed a wish to answer a Question after Question Time you sometimes felt able to allow that to happen. I have twice noticed the Prime Minister leaning forward. Is it reasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes, in view of what my right hon. Friend has said, to ask permission to answer these Questions? If not, would he like to say what he is running away from?

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

No, that really is not quite right. I have stated the rule in accordance with which I have to act. It is at once obvious that we must insist upon it, or else all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with Questions which are not reached may pursue the same course.

Mr. Shinwell

May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker—

Dame Irene Ward

Further to the—

Mr. Speaker

I will have points of order one at a time, if I may.

Mr. Shinwell

Mr. Speaker, some considerable time ago when we discussed the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure a proposal was made that the Prime Minister might reply to Questions at 3.15. On that occasion the Leader of the House, in reply, said "Let us see how we get on with the present arrangement", because the Prime Minister's Questions were being brought forward to No. 40. Apparently, that is not very satisfactory.

Would you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that apart entirely from what has happened today with Scottish Questions and the like, this happens every time when the Prime Minister is called upon to answer Questions? Would you consider whether it is possible to facilitate an arrangement so that the Prime Minister could answer Questions at 3.15 p.m.?

Mr. Speaker

I should like to work this in any way which the House thinks appropriate. I think that it has been the position in the past that the House virtually dictates to the Speaker what it wants done. I do not propose to take a line of my own in this. I hope that I can have the guidance of the House about it.

Dame Irene Ward

Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to make a statement on Thursday after Questions on the gist of the Questions on the Order Paper today so that we could then have an answer to them without all this complication?

Mr. Speaker

No doubt what the hon. Lady has said has been heard, but I could not pretend that it was in order to ask it at this moment.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could one of the matters that is to be considered be whether the Prime Minister should answer on a third day in the week? Is it not the case that certainly after 1945—I cannot remember for how long—there used to be a third day for the Prime Minister? We should all very much like to hear from the Prime Minister and see him more than we do at present.

Mr. G. Brown

That is going a bit far.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that we shall not have speeches on this subject. I realise that it is a serious problem. I am anxious to get the best arrangement that I can from the point of view of the House.