HC Deb 25 January 1968 vol 757 cc598-602
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

On a point of order. I think that this is the right moment to raise a point of order about Question Time, so that the House does not set itself a precedent which it might regret. I would value your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one point.

When you called the hon. Member for Woolwich. West (Mr. Hamling) to ask Question Q3 to the Prime Minister, he did not rise to ask it, so I understand that the Question then fell. When the Prime Minister answered Question Q5, he said that he was answering Question Q3 with it. I submit that this is a material point, because the Questions which are taken together with the Question being asked influence what supplementary questions may or may not be put.

I therefore seek your guidance on whether or not this is a precedent, or whether it is in order to answer with one question another which has already fallen because the Member concerned did not rise to ask it.

Mr. Speaker

I would say offhand, that the absence of a Member or his refusal to put a Question which is being answered with another Question does not prevent the Minister from answering the first Question with the second.

I cannot really see the significance of the point which the hon. Member has raised, but I will certainly look at it.

Mr. Strauss

I should like to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise to the House for keeping it for two or three minutes on a matter of some importance.

I want to draw your attention to the practice which is growing and is in danger of being established by default of asking identical questions every Tuesday and Thursday to the Prime Minister. I submit to you, Sir, that this is not only contrary to the interests of the House, but directly contrary to the procedure of the House as laid down by Erskine May.

The practice is well known to hon. Members, but, to establish my case, I want to quote just two examples from this week. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked the Prime Minister: …if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia. Today, the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) put down a Question in identical words. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) asked a Question about the progress being made … with the British application to enter the European Common Market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 211, 213.] Today, the hon. Member for Haltemprice put down a question in identical words.

I suggest that this is a new practice, which is definitely contrary to what is permitted under the rules stated by Erskine May. On page 354, under the general heading, "Examples of inadmissible questions", Erskine May specifies in paragraph 26, Questions Repeating in substance questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused.… A question fully answered, whether orally or in print, cannot be renewed … It further specifies a Question which is Multiplied with slight variations on the same point. Therefore, according to Erskine May, this procedure is obviously wrong, and all the Rulings of previous Speakers have confirmed that.

My second argument is, first, that this procedure is contrary to the interests of the House because it never leads to any information. For example, the Questions on Thursday are put without any new development having occurred since Tuesday, and the only outcome of these repeated Questions is that we have perhaps a short debate in which hon. Members are enabled to repeat their own already very well known views on certain topics. Second, this is a waste of time and, third, it prevents hon. Members who want to ask the Prime Minister Questions on a whole host of other matters from doing so. Rarely do we go further than Question Q4 or Q5 and, among those first four or five, are always exactly the same Questions as had been put down earlier.

Lastly, if it is permitted to put down the same Question day after day to the Prime Minister twice a week, obviously, we should be allowed to do so to every other Minister. Up to now, we have all accepted the strict rule that one could not put down a Question to a Minister to which an Answer had already been given recently.

Therefore, for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider this situation and to rule, if you can, that the Rulings of previous Speakers on the matter, which are uniform, should be upheld. Those Rulings have been generally accepted by both sides of the House and, up to now, have been invariably implemented by the Table Office.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I am addressed further on this point, I would remind the House that we have a lot of business ahead of us. I hope, therefore, that any submissions made to me will be brief.

Mr. Heath

I am sure that the House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for saying that you will consider this point. However, when you are considering it, you will, no doubt, be willing to take into account that when there is a continuing situation—such as negotiations in Europe, or the question of Rhodesia—then that is rather different from the specific points on which the Ruling is usually given by the Table.

Perhaps you will also take into account the fact that if the Table has been passing the same Questions for successive Tuesdays and Thursdays the explanation may lie in the fact that the House has experienced that often, between Tuesday and Thursday, the Government change their mind and policy.

Mr. Speaker

I think that I can help the House if I deal with the point straight a way. I have every sympathy with the point which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has raised. I have been troubled about this matter for more than 12 months and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall is not the first Member to bring this problem to my notice.

Questions are refused at the Table if they repeat … in substance questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused …". The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was right in pointing out that that appears in Erskine May. It appears on page 254 under paragraph (26). The difficulty, as the Leader of the Opposition has just rightly pointed out, about certain major issues is that the situation may be a continuing one, with the possibility of development.

I would also remind the House that Questions which are likely to be reached by the Prime Minister are usually put in thee weeks ahead. As long as Questions are in order, the Table cannot refuse them. I do, however, remind hon. Members that it is not in order for one hon. Member to have identical Questions of this nature appearing simultaneously on the Paper, but for different dates, and that attempts to do this have been disallowed.

I am acutely aware of the fact that many hon. Members put down Questions to the Prime Minister which they wish to be reached, but which are not reached because of what we might call the regular Questions. On the other hand, I remind the House of the intense interest which is shown in these two regular Questions, which keep popping up their heads on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The final solution must be in the hands of hon. Members themselves.

Mr. Strauss

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Strauss.

Mr. Strauss

You said, Mr. Speaker, that the Table has no option but to accept Questions which are in order. My submission is that, according to Erskine May, these Questions are not in order.

Mr. Speaker

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I understood his submission. He was suggesting that the Table was not in order. I have been ruling.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), and bearing in mind the tenor of your Ruling, before you become too sympathetic with the points put by right hon. Members on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to bear in mind the difficulty involved in getting Questions past the Table; in other words, that the Officers who are under criticism do their job thoroughly?

I beg you, Mr. Speaker, when thinking of where the rights and wrongs of this matter lie, to bear in mind that back benchers have the right to see that their Questions are clearly and properly answered. Their desire is to ensure that, once Questions have passed the Table, no further obstacle is placed in the way of getting them answered thoroughly, bearing in mind the rights of Privy Councillors.

Mr. Speaker

When the hon. Gentleman reads my Ruling in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, I do not think that he will find that anything I said contradicts the submission he is making.

Mr. John Hynd

Further to the point of order. May I ask for clarification of your closing remark earlier, Mr. Speaker, in which I think you said that the solution of this matter was in the hands of hon. Members? Since we have no control over the Table, I would be grateful if you would clarify that remark.

Mr. Speaker

I should have thought that it was transparently obvious. The way to avoid Questions continually cropping up is for hon. Members not to submit those Questions. That would appear to be the remedy.