HC Deb 31 January 1968 vol 757 cc1344-7
Mr. Speaker

Order. The Chair tries to protect the interests of hon. Members who put Questions on the Order Paper, but it is rather difficult if the supplementary questions and answers in the exchanges become long, as they have become today. We have had only 28 Questions today.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to raise with you a point of order, of which I have given you private notice. It appears that under Rulings which, I think, have not been publicly promulgated, a limit is being applied by the Table Office to the number of words that may be included in a Parliamentary Question intended for Oral Answer, and it also appears—as, for example, from Question No. 80 today— that there is a certain variety in the application of these unpublished rules. It would be of great assistance to right hon. and hon. Members if you would be prepared to give us some guidance as to the limit which you in your wisdom intend to apply so that hon. Members may not in their innocence offend.

Mr. Speaker

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice. The limit to which he refers has been applied for many years, but I think he is right in suggesting that private Rulings made by Speakers from time to time on this matter might very well be made public. My own researches show that the only existing public Ruling on this issue was given by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown on 6th April, 1943, in c. 472 of HANSARD, when he insisted that Questions should not exceed ten lines, which is equivalent to something over 100 words.

Since that date, the Table has had to cope with an ever-increasing number of Questions and from time to time has advised Mr. Speaker on the need to keep the limit under review. Several private Rulings by my predecessors made the limit 100 words, and in May 1966, on advice, I asked the Table Office to limit the length of an Oral Question to roughly 70 words, counting the necessary periphrases as one word and using discretion in cases of special difficulty.

I agree that a further public Ruling on this may well be helpful, and, indeed, perhaps that it might have been made some time between 1943 and 1968. On the whole, the limit of 70 words seems to have worked effectively and economically over the past few years, and right hon. and hon. Members have accepted the guidance of the Table. The average length of Questions is 30 to 40 words. If, however, the House felt the limit to be unnecessarily cramping, we would revert to the earlier limit of 100 words.

On the other issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that the Table is human and, no doubt, sometimes errs in applying what is, after all, a rule-of-thumb method. I would point out, however, that right hon. and hon. Members can always appeal to Mr. Speaker if they are troubled about a decision of the Table. It is a tribute both to right hon. and hon. Members and to the Table that such an appeal vary rarely happens, and I think that the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing its sincere appreciation of all the diligent and helpful work of the Table Office, to which we give an enormous amount of detailed work every week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I respectfully thank you for that very clear Ruling, and also, if I may, associate myself with what you have said about the Clerks at the Table and the servants of the House. May I ask for clarification of one further point? My submission related to Oral Questions. Would you indicate whether the same or other limit applies to Questions for Written Answers?

Mr. Speaker

I would say, by and large, roughly to both. We have to consider the economics of the Order Paper.

Mr. David Steel

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to your comment concerning Scottish Questions today? We only dealt with 28 Questions today. May I ask whether it is possible to draw this matter to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure and suggest that the services of the Scottish Grand Committee might be more profitably used?

We are sent here to probe and examine the actions of the Executive, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibilities equivalent to those of nine different English Ministers. Yet Questions to the Secretary of State for Oral Answer appear once in five weeks on the Order Paper. Scottish Members therefore are unable to carry out their proper duties.

Mr. Speaker

As one who attended Burns' Night last Saturday, I am not unaware of the problem. Indeed, it has been raised on the Floor of the House several times, but it is not a matter for me. It is for the House itself to decide.

Mr. William Hamilton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If Questions had been put down to the Secretary of State for last Monday, they would have been reached.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you were answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), you indicated that Questions for Written Answer would also have the same limitation. Could I draw your attention to the fact that, since there is no limit to the number of Questions for Written Answer, if there was a limit to the length of Written Questions, this would really mean that more such Questions would be put down.

Mr. Speaker

There is no doubt that if any Ruling is made by Mr. Speaker and approved by the House ingenious hon. Members will seek to circumvent it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be allowed to associate ourselves with your tribute to the Table? If the House were as sensible as the Table, it would be far more efficient. Will you also accept the suggestion that an hon. Member who cannot put a Question in less than 70 words deserves to be sent back to elementary school?

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that the Table will note the tribute and the modest reference the hon. Gentleman made to himself in company with other right hon. and hon. Members.