HC Deb 07 December 1971 vol 827 cc1124-6
Mr. Hugh Jenkins

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter arises because the Table Office has said that it proposes to remove a Question of mine from the Order Paper. It will be appreciated that once a Question is removed from the Order Paper it cannot be restored. The Question was tabled yesterday, 5th December, and I admit that it is arguable whether it is in order. The Question seeks to ask what is the average rent of Greater London Council dwellings in my constituency and what will be the average rent in five years' time under the Minister's proposal. I freely admit that in dealing with the Question the Minister would be in order just to say that he could not or would not answer it, but what I submit is—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must remain very technical on this point. He must not go into the merits of the Question or Answer.

Mr. Jenkins

I was not intending to do that, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that I freely admit the Minister may choose, for whatever reason, not to answer the Question. However, I am suggesting that it would be wrong that I should not be permitted to ask it.

The reason I should be permitted to ask it is this: first I agree that this is—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Whether Questions are taken off the Order Paper or are transferred must be matters between the individual Member and the Table Office and myself. I do not think they are matters of order. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member takes up the matter with me and I will see what can be done.

Mr. Harold Wilson

This must be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and the Table Office bearing in mind your responsibility for the Table Office. In looking at the kind of matter my hon. Friend has described, would you, Mr. Speaker, consider the precedent of a large number of Questions which were tabled and answered. I think they were Written Answers, that this happened on Friday, 6th March, 1970, and that the Questions then were of a similar character. They would appear to set a precedent.

Mr. Speaker

I will go into this matter.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is one final point which is important. I am happy to accept your invitation to discuss this matter afterwards, and I wish to make it clear that, in raising it I intend no criticism whatever of the Officers of the Table Office, who have a very difficult job to do. In this case they happen to have made a mistake, which any human being can make.

Sir J. Langford-Holt

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you direct your attention once again to the device employed by hon. Members, legally and perhaps properly, of getting down Questions to the Prime Minister? There are today four Questions of this sort tabled to the Prime Minister, one of which— No. Q12—is perfectly proper, but two of which are, in my view, not designed for the purpose for which a Question should be tabled. In Question No. Q6 when the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) received the answer "No", he said he was delighted that the Prime Minister was not going to his constituency, when in his original Question he had specifically asked the Prime Minister to go to his constituency. In the other Question tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), the hon. Member not only breached the convention of the House but clearly breached the lowest standard of this type of Question.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House must consider this matter. The content of Questions and the Answers to them is not a matter for the Chair. There are certain rules under which Table Office operates in trying to deal with hon. Members. These are matters which should be investigated in another way rather than by points of order at Question Time. However, I will go into the point raised by the hon. Member.