FORM OF PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (Hansard, 21 February 1961)

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he considers that the form of this Question is in accordance with the practice of the House, having regard to the serious allegation that it makes against London Airport?

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for raising this point of 944 Order. It had been my intention when I came to answer the second Question, which it would have fallen to my lot to answer, to draw the attention of the House to the form of these Questions; but since the noble Lord has, quite rightly, raised it now, it may be convenient to the House if I say now what I would have said then.
My attention has been drawn to the form of both the Questions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. It has been suggested to me that neither is drawn in the proper form for Parliamentary Questions. I am bound to say that I agree that they are most unfortunately phrased. The Question which I am to answer, for example—that is the second Question—is phrased exactly in the form which is universally considered to be unfair, modelled on the classical example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Moreover, Questions which contain an opinion or allegation in the guise of a question have more than once been the subject of adverse comment in your Lordships' House.
After consulting the precedents, I considered that it would be in accordance with the practice of the House if I took no steps to persuade the noble Lord to alter the form of his Questions, and I thought it best to leave the Questions for answer in the normal way. However, I would appeal to all noble Lords to frame Questions in accordance with the custom and usage of Parliament.
It might be convenient if I refer to the most recent precedent, because, so far as I know, it has not yet appeared on the Record. It goes back to the year 1951, when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, put down a Question for Written Answer on the subject of the publicity of the British Travel and Holidays Association. In view of what they judged to be the offensive character of its phrasing, both the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Leader of the House, who was then Lord Addison, attempted to persuade Lord Morris to alter the form of the Question so as to exclude the offensive part. Their efforts were of no avail, and Lord Morris questioned the Leader's right to exercise what he, Lord Morris, felt to be the right to censor the terms of his Question. The Question went on to the Order Paper and the Government's reply duly appeared inHansard. But as it was a 945 written reply, noble Lords did not have the opportunity of raising the point which has been raised to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. The reply disclaimed responsibility for the Association's publicity and, in effect, rebuked Lord Morris for the form of his Question.
The matter was shortly afterwards referred to the Procedure Committee. The Committee agreed that the words contained in Lord Morris's Question were offensive and that the really objectionable thing about them was that they did not constitute a question at all. However, the Committee recognised that occasions on which Peers refused advice to bring their Questions within the bounds of propriety were extremely rare and agreed that the occasional impropriety was the price that had to be paid for the preservation of a valuable privilege. The Committee recommended that no change should be made in the practice with regard to Questions.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, may I say this? While agreeing with everything that has been said, may I remind your Lordships that the matter is always in your Lordships' own hands? The noble Lord has asked leave to put his Questions. I beg to move that leave be not granted.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
My Lords, before the Motion is put, may I make one or two observations? I shall be only too happy to withdraw the Questions. If I have fallen into error, I apologise at once to your Lordships. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House knows very well that 1 am accustomed to the procedure in another place. For over 30 years I very seldom put down a Question which was not required either to be withdrawn or to be drastically amended. Imagine my delighted surprise when, almost for the first time in my life, I saw upon the Order Paper two Questions at last exactly as I had written them down. If it be your Lordships' wish, I will gladly withdraw them and put the offending passages in the form of supplementary questions at a later stage. I should like to withdraw the two Questions.