HL Deb 08 August 1940 vol 117 cc158-60

4.8 p.m.

LORD DAVIES

My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many persons are at present employed in the Ministry of Information; whether there has been any increase of personnel since last October; and what is the present total annual expenditure on salaries and wages.]

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

The total staff employed at 31st July was 1,385, excluding staffs overseas. There has been an overall increase in personnel since October last. The total annual expenditure on the salaries and wages of this staff is at the rate of approximately £403,000.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, arising out of that answer may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether the figure last given was not 999, and is not this roughly an increase of 50 per cent. in the numbers?

LORD RANKEILLOUR

My Lords, on a point of order. I understood from the discussion we had the other day that a supplementary question was to be confined to the Peer asking the question, and that fresh points might not be raised in the debate. I submit that to your Lordships subject to what may be said by the Lord Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I think there is some misapprehension. The Offices Committee—and I speak in the presence of many who were there—discussed this point, and they thought it right that a supplementary question arising out of a starred question should not be confined to the Peer asking the question, but that any of your Lordships who wished for further information should be allowed to ask a supplementary question. I will just read to your Lordships the relevant part of the Committee's Report: If a Peer is not satisfied with the answer given, a supplementary question can be asked, provided such supplementary question is confined to the subject of the original question. It is for your Lordships who are guardians of the order of the House to decide whether a supplementary question such as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has asked is within the four corners of that provision.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

My Lords, I did not have that interpretation in view, but may I now put it to your Lordships: Can any number of Peers who are dissatisfied with the answer, perhaps on different grounds, raise a supplementary question?

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, may I raise another point? Is subsequent intervention to be limited to a question or is it open to any Peer to comment on the answer—in short, to debate it?

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

My Lords, I think the general sense of the House was that only supplementary questions should be asked and that nothing in the nature of comment or debate should be permitted. If a debate on a supplementary question or on the original question is desired by any noble Lord, opportunity is afforded him to move for Papers. I think that was the intention of the Committee and of your Lordships.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, because he has enabled me by rapid calculation to amend my question and to ask whether this is not an increase of 40 per cent.—not 50 per cent. May I add that this does not mean that I am dissatisfied with the answer given? I am only asking for further elucidation.

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

I cannot pledge myself as to the accuracy of my noble friend's arithmetic, but I think the figure 999 was mentioned some months ago as the number of the staff.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask whether it was in the minds of those who framed this new—it is not a Standing Order, but what I may call a voluntary rule—that one Peer after another might each put one supplementary question?

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

Yes, I think that was the intention, in firm reliance upon your Lordships' good sense.

LORD ARNOLD

May I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, because this is very important and we have had several debates on it in the last fifteen years, what he meant when he said that any noble Lord might move for Papers? Does it mean that he must put down a Notice on the Order Paper?

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

That was my meaning, and, if I expressed myself inadequately, I apologise. If a noble Lord wishes to move for Papers Notice must be properly put down on the Order Paper.

LORD ARNOLD

Does the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, mean that any noble Lord who wishes to carry the matter further cannot do so on that particular occasion, but must put down a separate Motion and move for Papers?

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

The noble Lord has understood me quite correctly.

LORD DAVIES

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the second question which I put on the Paper relating to the Ministry of Information. Through a clerical error that question associates my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth with the Ministry, and I beg to offer my apologies to the House and also to my noble friend for this error.