HL Deb 21 January 1982 vol 426 cc705-9

3.56 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure he agreed to. Over the last few months I have received a number of representations from Members of the House on the subject of Starred Questions, and as a result the whole of this meeting of the Procedure Committee was devoted to this one subject. In general these criticisms fall into two parts: the first is that Question Time very often lasts rather too long, and the second relates to the difficulty that some of your Lordships have experienced on finding a space to put down a Question on the Order Paper because so often the Order Paper is full for the whole month ahead in which it is open to put down Questions.

The Committee devoted a considerable time to the discussion of these matters and considered a number of different suggestions for change. As to the length of time that was taken up by Question Time, their decision was that they saw no need for the introduction of any new rules, but rather they wished to draw attention to the guidance issued in a previous report of the Procedure Committee in 1976, which was still valid; and in the view of the committee if that guidance were to be followed now, it would solve the problem.

The committee wished me to reiterate the guidance in the hope that in the future it would be more closely followed. So I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of the guidance given by the committee in 1976, namely: They consider that Question Time should normally be concluded in twenty minutes and draw the attention of the House to the following undesirable features of Question Time which tend to lengthen it:

  1. (a) the tendency for small debates to develop;
  2. (b) lengthy Ministerial replies which encourage lengthy supplementaries;
  3. (c) the practice of advancing a point of view under the guise of a supplementary question; and [finally]
  4. (d) the habit of reading out prepared supplementary questions".
On the other subject—the difficulty of finding time for putting down a Question—the committee expressed considerable sympathy with those of your Lordships who have found no place for your Question while finding that other Members of the House had a considerable number of Questions on the Order Paper. The problem was particularly acute just before Christmas when we were not sitting on Mondays and therefore there were no Questions on Monday, but even now the present situation is that the list is completely full for the whole of the next month. No one can put down a Question more than a month ahead, and at the present moment there is no space on the list.

Various solutions were proposed and considerable discussion ensued, but in the end the agreement that was come to was to recommend to your Lordships that for an experimental period of six months no noble Lord should be allowed to have more than three Starred Questions on the Order Paper at any one time. I would emphasise that this is only to be an experiment for six months, but the hope is that it may allow more of your Lordships to find time to put down Questions, and, in particular, might make it possible to put down Questions of more topical interest. If this report is agreed to, then it is proposed that this experiment should start one month from today, and then we should reconsider it in the light of the experience gained. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the First Report from The Select Committee be agreed to. —(Lord Aberdare.)

The Report was as follows:

STARRED QUESTIONS

The Committee have considered the length of time spent in the House each day on Starred Questions and the difficulty some Lords find in being able to table Starred Questions within the existing time limit of one month.

So far as the length of Question Time is concerned, the Committee point out that this matter lies in the hands of the House itself. They reaffirm the guidance which they gave in 1976 (1st Report 1975–76) namely, that," They consider that Question Time should normally he concluded in twenty minutes and draw the attention of the House to the following undesirable features of Question Time which tend to lengthen it:

  1. (a) the tendency for small debates to develop;
  2. (b) lengthy Ministerial replies which encourage lengthy supplementaries;
  3. (c) the practice of advancing a point of view under the guise of a supplementary question; and
  4. (d) the habit of reading out prepared supplementary questions".

The difficulty which some Lords have found of not being able to table Starred Questions within a reasonable period of time has been particularly acute recently, following the Summer Recess. The problem has been intensified because the House has not generally sat on Mondays since the Opening of the new Session. The Committee believe that the current difficulty will probably not be as severe later in the Session. However, they recognise the concern that exists in all quarters of the House that too many questions are being tabled by the same Lords. The result of this is that topical questions cannot be asked at short notice. The Committee considered whether this problem could be alleviated by increasing the number of Starred Questions allowed each day from four to five. However, they were of the opinion that this would not solve the present difficulty but merely serve to extend Question Time further.

The Committee recommend instead that, for an experimental period of six months, no Lord should he allowed to have more than three Starred Questions on the Order Paper at any one time, and that this period should begin one month after the agreement of the House to this Report.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Chairman referred to 1976. At that time I had the honour to be Leader of your Lordships' House, and I know many of the problems. May I ask the Leader of the House whether, perhaps in consultation with the Lord Chairman, she would have a look at the list of Questions for Written Answer that are now set down on the Order Paper. Many Questions are now being put there because it is not possible to get them answered quickly orally. May I ask—and I have to admit that during my period as Leader of the House I was not sure how it could be adopted—whether it is possible that Questions for Written Answer could be disposed of with a greater degree of expedition than at present? I think many Peers are putting down Questions for Written Answer because they cannot get them on the Order Paper for answer orally. If this course could be adopted, then I think there might be some relief of the Questions put down for oral Answer, and I think that would be for the benefit of your Lordships' House.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, may I add a word? I am a Member of the Select Committee and, of course, I go along with the recommendation; but I attach perhaps even a little more importance than the noble Lord the Lord Chairman indicated he did to what I think is the very real problem at this moment, and that is the difficulty of getting a Question relating to a topical matter down for answer within a reasonable time. The noble Lord the Lord Chairman told us that in fact the Order Paper is at the moment full for the whole month during which one is permitted to put down Questions; and, as the House will recall, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Huyton said a week is a long time in politics. It is the fact that matters arise about which some of your Lordships in all parts of the House may want to ask a Starred Question, and they simply cannot do it for at least a month; and, with respect, that seems to weaken the value of your Lordships' House as a body entitled to investigate and inquire into the responsibilities and activities of government.

I very much hope that the rather modest experiment which the Select Committee has recommended will help in regard to this position. I am inclined to doubt whether it will; and I hope that, when the Select Committee reconvenes to again consider the matter after the sixth-month period, consideration may be given to the alternative of allowing perhaps a fifth Question on the Order Paper, perhaps one put down with a shorter time limit—to be answered within, say, 10 or 12 days.

The Select Committee have reported that they do not think that Question Time should exceed 20 minutes. When you have only four Starred Questions I wholly agree with that. It seems, with respect, that for four Starred Questions 20 minutes is too long. But if the House is to devote 20 minutes, or perhaps even a little more time (as it might think desirable) to Questions, then it is at least arguable that we should allow additional Starred Questions and, in particular, one—perhaps one, perhaps two—which has a shorter time limit, so as to allow topicality. I hope the House will accept this experiment, but if, as is the view of some of us, it does not have much effect, then I hope we may be able to go for a more radical solution.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I would agree with the Select Committee that perhaps some limitation ought to be introduced. I come with fairly fresh experience of another place, and on the whole I find the Question procedure here rather preferable to that in another place; but there are a couple of points I would have made, I think, had I had the opportunity. I would have thought that perhaps four Questions on the Order Paper, rather than three, would have been better. It would have given one the chance of one a week.

Another point I would have made (though I have benefited by it, and I think I ought not to have done) is that at the moment one can put down two Starred Questions on one day. I think that probably is being rather greedy; and I would have thought that if, in extending the number of Questions that can be put down on the Order Paper, the committee decide to recommend that any one Member of this House can have only one Question on any one day, that would be something that most of us would accept.

Lord Balfour of Inchrye

My Lords, may I disagree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as regards the possibility of increasing the number of Questions. I think the remedy lies largely in those who ask Questions and get a long ministerial reply, and who then are tempted, and fall to the temptation, to ask an equally long supplementary in return. That seems to me to be one of the basic weaknesses of our present Question Time.

I think that the proposal by the committee is entirely good. If one looks at the Order Paper, between 18th January and 18th February there are 19 sittings. One noble Lord—all to his credit, no doubt—has no less than seven Questions down for answer during that period. Any noble Lord having that proportion, which no doubt he is quite justified in putting down, inevitably squeezes out a lot of noble Lords, on either side of the House, who wish to ask what they feel are urgent Questions on some topical matter. I believe that if we have this experimental rule of not more than three Questions under any noble Lord's name it will give a wider scope for Back-Bench Questions and a narrower scope for Questions which deal with major policy issues which really are not very urgent for reply. Therefore, I think that by and large there is every advantage in supporting the proposal of the committee.

Lord Polwarth

My Lords, is not one of the main causes of this problem, as it is also of the length of many of our major debates, the fact that the membership and the active membership of your Lordships' House is continually growing?

Lord Derwent

My Lords, ought we not to give this experiment a chance now, and get on with it? We are not going to alter anything by going on talking. In six months' time we shall have another chance by referring it to the committee.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I intervened just briefly to answer one or two of the points which have been raised, and to say in general, on the question of the length of time spent on Starred Questions each day, that I agree that the four features set out in the report are certainly undesirable. The maintenance of order in the House is indeed the responsibility of the House as a whole, and therefore of every noble Lord who is present. As the Leader I can only act as the voice of the House in this respect, and that is what I endeavour to do. But I think it important to recognise that this very valuable principle that the House has, of each Peer exercising his responsibility in this matter, is one of which we should be proud and to which I think we should all adhere.

A number of noble Lords have raised points on the difficulties of tabling Questions, including my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The Procedure Com mittee made their recommendation only after very careful consideration, and I believe it is important that the House should agree with the recommendation of this well-established and senior committee. I hope, therefore, that all noble Lords will agree with the recommendation. Of course, it is always possible to table amendments, but, as we are going to have this recommendation for an experimental period of only six months, then the whole question can be looked at again should it be thought to be necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, made the point that under the suggestion of the Procedure Committee it would be possible to table three Questions only at a time and that he would have preferred to have tabled four. In fact, if he looks carefully at the recommendation, he will see that it does not necessarily limit any one Peer to three Questions in any one month. If there are spaces for Questions at later days on any Order Paper a Peer can ask several Questions in one month. That is how it would work. What is important, I think—this was the point made by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Balfour—is that there should be some gaps so that at reasonably short notice some more urgent Questions can be asked of the House. I hope that the House will support the recommendations of the committee for this experimental period. I hope that will be found to be beneficial to all noble Lords in all parts of the House.