PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 5 February 1947)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)
My Lords, in moving that the House do agree with the Committee's Report, I think it might be appropriate if I said just a few words in support. This proposal has been considered more than once by the Committee on Procedure. The matter was brought to their notice again in November last after representations from a number of your Lordships and from certain Ministers as well, and it was again considered by the Committee. They committed it to a sub-committee which made special inquiries and reported, as here recorded, to the Select Committee, and the Select Committee recommend it to your Lordships for your adoption.
This Report is really concerned with two things. It aims at getting a simple arrangement for dealing with starred questions and one that will not make too great an encroachment upon your Lordships' time. It also aims at making the matter more definite, for the procedure has sometimes been that a noble Lord has had to wait for perhaps two or three hours to ask a question which is replied to in a few words; and on the other side it has often been the case that the Minister whose business it is to reply has similarly had to wait for a long time to give an answer in a few words. This has frequently caused inconvenience which, if possible, should be avoided. At the same time, it is felt that it would be prejudicial to the general business of the House if the time spent on these questions was unduly prolonged, or encroached on our general business. Therefore, the Committee recommend, in the first recommendation, that starred questions should be on the Order Paper on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and that on such days they should be disposed of after private business and before other Notices and Orders. The Committee also recommend that not more than three starred questions should be placed on the Order Paper on one day. That might be thought to impose considerable limitations, but, in fact, if we study past Order Papers we shall see that very rarely are there as many as three starred questions. 401 In practice, therefore, there is not likely to be any limitation.
The second recommendation deals with another matter on which there is complete accord on all sides of the House, so far as one has been able to ascertain. It is that we should take care, as far as possible, that in placing on the Order Paper notices of Motion, the Paper does not become so crowded that it becomes impossible to find time to debate some urgent matter that may arise. As we all know, this is sometimes rather inconvenient. Hitherto, by the aid of the Whips and their skilful adjustment of matters, we have generally been able to find time if some urgent matter crops up, but it has often presented serious difficulty. It is suggested, therefore, that notices of Motion should not be placed on the Order Paper for more than a month in advance. In this way the time before us will not be unduly crowded, and we shall be able to make arrangements through the usual channels of consultation for discussing matters that arise from time to time which may be deemed to be urgent. It is for those reasons that these recommendations are made to your Lordships, and I hope you will see fit to approve of them. I beg to move.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Viscount Cranborne is away ill. I hope that he will be here again next week. I know that if he had been here he would have given, as I do, wholehearted support to both the proposals in the Report of the Committee. As we should have expected, they have done their work with great thoroughness, and in the recommendations which they have made they will carry the support of the whole House with them. The recommendations are essentially practical, and they are, I think, also in line with all the tradition and practice of the House. Not always is the convenience of Ministers, and perhaps what I might call the convenience of private members, one and the same, but in this particular case I think it is equally for the convenience of the Ministers who have to answer, and the noble Lords who put the questions, that, within reasonable limits, these questions should be taken at the beginning of business.
402 I think three in number (blessed figure!) seems a suitable figure to give us—a suitable ration. I suppose I ought to say. Equally in this matter, I think all your Lordships will agree that some limitation on the advance notice of Motions to be placed on the Order Paper is desirable. I remember many years ago when I had to draft a Films Bill to re-establish the film industry in the country, the one thing on which everybody was agreed was that there was a great evil in blind booking and block booking by which the screens were filled up for months ahead. In the same way, I think we are all agreed that it is undesirable that the Order Paper of this House should be filled up for weeks or months ahead. For all the reasons which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has given, on behalf of those for whom I speak I cordially support the proposal.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I would express full concurrence with what has been said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
My Lords, before we leave this question may I, as one of those who originally suggested something of this sort, say that I wholeheartedly welcome what has been done, and I understand the limitation which has naturally been applied to it. However, I should like to know how this will affect private notice questions. Presumably private notice questions would come before these starred questions. Would that in any way rule cut private notice questions on a Thursday? I notice that Tuesday and Wednesday are the two days allotted to starred questions.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that it will make no difference at all to the existing practice in regard to private notice questions.