HC Deb 10 May 1976 vol 911 cc34-6
Mr. Michael McGuire

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise as a point of order what I might describe as the elasticity of Questions. A few weeks ago, when you first became Speaker and you wanted to get the House to appreciate how you would judge Question Time, I thought that this matter was raised and was successfully dealt with in that you were reminded by one of my leagues that, amongst other things, Questions were intended to offer some opportunity for ingenuity to hon. Members in putting supplementary questions and also to keep Ministers on their toes more often, rather than having stereotyped Questions, with hon. Members simply putting down Questions and supplementary questions being asked only on the specific subjects contained in those Questions. After all, Question Time can be very much a lottery. An hon. Member can put down a Question very early and, because of the system that we operate, subsequently find his name way down the list with no possibility of linkage with earlier Questions.

I put it to you, with respect, that on a Question about how many Civil Service jobs have gone to Scotland, it is quite proper for me, as a Member who wants many of these jobs to go to the North-West, to seek to put a supplementary question drawing the Minister's attention to the needs of my part of the world, and for any other hon. Member, on a Question dealing with the dispersal of jobs, also to seek to put a similar supplementary question.

I was sorry that you felt it necessary to intervene. I did not mean to be disrespectful. I thought that we had an agreement on this matter and that my supplementary question fell within that agreement.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) for the way in which he put his point of order. I, too, thought that this matter had been cleared up. But there must be some sort of relationship between the Question on the Order Paper and the supplementary question. The Question in this case was quite clear: how many Civil Service jobs are based in Scotland? It was my judgment that supplementary questions about other parts of the United Kingdom did not fall under that Question.

I am doing my best to be as tolerant as possible at Question Time. But, as I understand it, there must be a link between a supplementary question and the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Buchan

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept completely the generality of your ruling. It is absolutely right. However, I ask you respectfully to look at the particular types of questions which arose. The truth is that this subject will be discussed continually in the House, because there is a direct relationship between jobs going to one area and jobs going to another area. Therefore, it is in effect the same type of question. It will be the most important matter discussed throughout the next Session of Parliament. It is crucially important in this case not that the limits of the Question should be extended but that it should be considered proper for such supplementary questions to be put.

Mr. Cryer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, of course. However, perhaps I might point out to you, so that you can take the matter into consideration in future Questions, that we have a somewhat strange system in this House whereby 100 or so of the majority party are taken out of the majority party to form the Government and they assess the priorities indicated in such matters as are raised in Question No. 23. The only way in which Back Bench Members of the majority party or of the Opposition parties can question such priorities, often in a comparative way—Scotland against the English regions, and so on—is by raising issues here in this House. The effect of limiting the raising of those issues inevitably reduces the amount of questioning of the Executive which takes place. Shore of a radical reform to allow more participation by the majority party, Question Time remains a very important time in which those priorities can be steered, questioned and guided.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friends, perhaps I might draw your attention to the fact that there is an additional point which needs to be made. I am sure that you appreciate it fully. When we were discussing devolution some time after the Question to which my hon. Friends referred, we were discussing it in terms of the Scottish and Welsh dimensions, whereupon, quite naturally and properly, you permitted the supplementary question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), who went on to talk about devolution in respect of an area. That is not dissimilar to the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) in Question No. 23. Both these are areas which could be covered by the same Question, rather than being looked at purely in nationalistic terms.

Mr. Peyton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In expressing sympathy with you in your difficult task of limiting the area covered by supplementary questions, may I ask whether it is not right to say that your task would be made easier if some of the monumental essays delivered as supplementary questions were both abbreviated and put into the interrogative?

Mr. Speaker

I am very grateful for every reminder that supplementary questions should be brief. I am also grateful to those hon. Members who submitted points of view which I shall bear in mind in calling supplementary questions.