§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to intervene and use your good offices to protect minority interests among private Members of this House who seek week after week to reach obscure Ministers who are set low down on the answering list for Questions? Are you aware, Sir, that for weeks past we have been trying to reach the Minister for the Civil Service —the Minister for the bureaucracy—and that today we have again been frustrated by the garrulous and loquacious behaviour of the Scots, who took 45 minutes to deal with 20 Questions, which I could have deal with from the Front Bench in a quarter of that time?
As we now have to put up with written replies from the Minister for the bureaucracy, and from the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications on such important matters as the future of the Post Office Giro, on which there is wide-spread support for my view that it should be abolished, will not you, Mr. Speaker, take appropriate action to see that private Members can question all Ministers in rotation, and that this acute selectivity is not continued to the detriment of silent Members of the House such as myself?
§ Mr. SpeakerWithout accepting any of the hon. Member's epithets, I would say that if he has been trying for several weeks to reach the Minister I doubt whether I have any control because it must have been during the Recess. Nevertheless, part of my trouble during Question Time is that supplementary questions are apt to be as long as the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have every sympathy with the desire to get through Question Time quickly and for the arrangement of Questions to be in the interests of the House as a whole. I think things would go better if we could have shorter supplementary questions and shorter answers.
§ Sir G. NabarroFurther to that point of order. My appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, is not only in connection with the length of supplementary questions from the back benches but also with the length of Ministerial answers, which today were abnormally and unnecessarily long. As back benchers have no control over this, could not you use your influence with 1021 these loquacious Ministers to cut down the length of their answers?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have referred to the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. The only epithet I am not certain I agree with is "abnormally".