§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what interval of time they consider reasonable between a debate in which a Minister is unable to reply to all the 587 questions which have been raised and the subsequent provision of the relevant information.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I think that it is difficult if not impossible to generalise. The period within which information is produced will depend on the precise circumstances and the nature of the information required. I can assure your Lordships, however, that Ministers are fully aware of the need to provide such information quickly.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that more than one noble Lord has recently had reason to complain of delays, and one wrote to me the other day and said that he found that the average delay was six weeks or two months. Marvellous to relate, a long overdue letter from the Scottish Office arrived on my desk just two days ago, in seeming anticipation of my noble friend's reply to this Question.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am sure that any connection between the Scottish Office's letter and my noble friend's Question must have been purely coincidental. But, more seriously, Departments are aware of the need to reply quickly, and that is a matter which all Governments have under review. May I venture a personal comment and say that the Department sometimes holds up a reply (especially covering as wide an area as the letter which my noble friend received from the Scottish Office) for the sake of completeness, when it might be much better to send an interim reply and say that they were going to deal with the other matters later.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the noble Earl take note of this: that this letter bears such marks of hasty composition as to include a paragraph that is repeated?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, would the Minister accept that a letter which I have received could have been written just as easily six days after the debate rather than six weeks and six days; and would he accept my statement that I should have 588 been happy to wait even longer if the letter had contained less verbiage but more information?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, it is not for me to point fingers at any particular Department, but I can assure noble Lords on both sides of the House that this is a matter to which we attach importance. If one particular Department has incurred some delays in replying, I think the noble Lord opposite will agree that January 1 is a holiday which is celebrated at certain length in a certain part of the United Kingdom.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I do agree with that; but even in Scotland we do not celebrate for six weeks and six days.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I first of all welcome the noble Earl back and express the hope that he has recovered. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has anticipated my request that the letter should be tabled so that the House could judge better, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who, I hope, follows the practice of previous Prime Ministers in instructing Departments to be prompt in their replies, whether he would do another review, on the grounds that this matter has to be stirred up once every year or two in order to get people to operate rather more quickly?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, for the remarks with which he prefaced his supplementary question. I am rather regretful that I happen to have come back on rather a sticky wicket at this moment. Strangely enough, again purely coincidentally and without revealing any undue State secrets, there has been a stirring of the pot only very recently.
§ THE EARL or LAUDERDALEMy Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the Scottish Office is not the only villain in this matter, although when the noble Lord, Lord Muirshiel, was in charge he got the turn-round down to 17 days. Is my noble friend aware that I raised a 589 matter with the Home Office just after the pornography debate; that it was not acknowledged for ten days, and that the answer came six weeks later and missed the point? Would he bear in mind and have Departments bear in mind that the quality of an answer is not to be judged by its length?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I would accept most of what the noble Earl has said, and, like him, I was not wishing to point my finger at any particular Department, let alone my old Department.
§ LORD RAGLANMy Lords, would the noble Earl confirm that in fact Departments often delay giving answers which they know perfectly well, in order to make it appear that they have considered the reply very deeply?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, no, I did not say anything of the sort. I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. What I said was that Departments, I think very naturally, sometimes, when there are a lot of questions to be answered, delay replying until they have all the answers. I was suggesting that it is a better practice to send a quick reply on points to which one can reply quickly, and then give the answers to the other matters later.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the best answer of all is a real answer?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I should like to terminate this particular dialogue by giving also a quick reply.