§ Mr. SpeakerI wish to make a statement in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) yesterday.
The hon. Member drew my attention to two instances of Members tabling more than one oral question to the same Minister and asked whether this invalidated the 4 o'clock shuffle for the day in question. There have been further examples today.
The present practice of the Table Office in such circumstances follows the recommendations in the appendix to the report from the Select Committee on parliamentary questions in Session 1971–72. This lays down that record cards should be kept of starred questions once they have appeared in print and that if any starred notice is found to exceed the daily limit it should be unstarred and the Member so informed. When this happens, the Table Office has among other things to give priority to the questions in the order in which they are printed. I understand that those instructions had already been followed in the two cases brought to my attention by the hon. Member yesterday.
However, there is no doubt that unfair advantage in the 4 o'clock shuffle can be gained by any Member who tables more than one question to the same Minister. I have therefore given an instruction to the Table Office that, as from today, all questions dealt with in the 4 o'clock shuffle should be checked before they are sent to the printer and that if it is found that any Member has tabled more than one question to the same Minister the lowest such question in the shuffle should be the one to which priority should be accorded and the remainder tabled as if they had been handed in unstarred. The Member concerned will be informed when this is done. I consider that this will constitute a more equitable rule.
276 It is my belief that incidents of this kind usually arise from the practice on the part of Members of allowing others to table questions on their behalf. This is a subject which the Select Committee on Procedure might wish to reconsider, as did one of its predecessor Committees in the Session 1975–76, when this practice was much less prevalent.
Finally, I should tell the House that I attended the 4 o'clock shuffle in the Upper Table Office yesterday. I am satisfied that the process is both efficent and impartial. As I said last week, any Member is entitled to attend the shuffle, and I hope that those interested will take the opportunity to do so.