supplementaries were not sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of the House, answers in writing would afterwards be circulated to the other Questions. MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.) said that if an hon. Member who had a Question down on the Paper was unable to be present at the beginning of Questions, or if the Minister who was to answer the Question was not present, then, according to the Standing Order, it would go over to next day. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be answered after five minutes before three if it is urgent and important. MR. GEORGE WHITELEY said the Rule now under consideration contemplated that those Questions which were of greatest importance should be placed first on the Paper, while those of minor importance should be placed towards the end. If the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried, the result would be that the latter class, when not answered within the time limit one day, would occupy the chief place next day. In that way they might have a large number of Questions of trivial interest coming first on the Notice Paper. They MR. O'SHEE said there might be a knew that there were Members who Question on the border line of impor- asked Questions which were to them of tance, and who was to decide whether it the highest importance, but which did should be answered that day or not? not present to others any great degree He thought this was His hon. friend the reasonable of importance. a Amendment, which should be accepted. Member for Ross had made an cursion round the world, and come back with a whole armoury of Questions, and he took the whole of Scotland within his purview. A Question carried over from the previous day, with regard to a postmistress in some outlandish part of Scotland, might occupy a primary position on the Notice Paper, and, therefore, it would not be desirable to deal in that way with Questions of minor importance. He recognised very great difficulty in this matter. How were they going to decide as to the importance of a Question? MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said the Leader of the House had stated that if a Question was important it would be answered between five minutes before three and three. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no; I said that urgent and important Questions which could not be deferred would be answered. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said that if there were eighty, ninety, or a hundred Questions on the Paper it might happen that the first forty only would be answered within the time limit. The ex *MR. SPEAKER said this line of argument was not in order on the others would be relegated to the class present Amendment. MR. PIRIE said this was a most reasonable Amendment, and he hoped the proposer would proceed to a division. SIR ROBERT MOWBRAY (Lambeth, Brixton) said the Rule as proposed by the "First Lord would meet the necessities of the case, because it provided that MR. GEORGE WHITELEY said he was only showing the difficulty of differentiating with reference to the importance of the various interrogatories. If his hon. friend went to a division, he would conceive it to be his duty to vote against the Amendment, because he thought it would be impracticable if an attempt were made to carry it out. It would not add to the amount of information they desired to extract from Ministers. (8.22.) Question put. The House divided:-Ayes, 93; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 147.) (8.35.) AYES. Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. Bain, Colonel James Robert Blundell, Colonel Henry Boscawen, Arthur GriffithBowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Brotherton, Edward Allen Bullard, Sir Harry Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm. Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Channing, Francis Allston Clare, Octavius Leigh | Joyce, Michael Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.) Leese, SirJoseph F. (Accrington MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. M'Fadden, Edward M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) NOES. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hamilton, Rt HnLordG (Midd'x Cochrane, Hon, Thos. H. A. E. Hanbury, Rt. Hon, Robert Wm. Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Harris, Frederick Leverton Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | | O'Shee, James John Reddy, M. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Roberts. John Bryn (Eifion) Schwann, Charles E. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYESSir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Llewellyn, Evan Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Reid, James (Greenock) (9.7.) MR. PIRIE Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Rolleston, Sir John F. L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES- moved to omit Question proposed-"That the words the words after "asterisk" in line proposed to be left out stand part of 9 to the end of line 10. The pro- the proposed Amendment." vision was novel, in that Questions in any way important or urgent MR. GRANT LAWSON thought the were to be distinguished by an asterisk. That, in itself, formed an argument against any further change. A Member who "starred" his Question would naturally attach some urgency and importance to it, and he should not be requested to give this longer notice. It was always open to a Minister to ask a Member to defer his Question, and he had never known such a request to be refused. Moreover, Members were now to be asked to give practically three days notice of a Question, while, if an answer was required on a Monday, the Question would have to appear on the Paper on the preceding Thursday. There was no necessity for such an innovation. There was exhibited in this Rule, as in most of the others, a spirit of absence of trust in Members, and a wish to bind and fetter them by unnecessary laws and regulations. The whole character of the House was being changed by these Rules, and he strongly objected to a Member having to give more than the usual notice. Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment "In line 9, to leave out the words from the word 'asterisk' to the word If' in line 11."" -(Mr. Pirie.) It was notice here proposed would be a distinct advantage. Nothing could be more futile than a system which allowed Questions, however intricate, ranging from China to Peru, to be put down at twelve o'clock at night, reaching the public Department at ten o'clock next morning, and an answer to be expected at half-past three that afternoon. That was an intolerable strain to put upon a public official, assuming Questions to be put down not for the purpose of tripping up Ministers, but with a desire to obtain accurate information. true a Minister could ask a Member to postpone a Question, but public officers did not like to be continually doing that: there was a certain amour propre about the matter. Without doubt, unsatisfactory answers sometimes. given because there was no time to go thoroughly into the facts. Under the Rule as originally proposed, Questions would have commenced at 7.15, which would have given three and threequarter more hours than at present for the preparation of answers. under the proposal as it now stood, Questions would come on at 2.15, SO that the time available was much curtailed. The House could not have it both ways; if Questions were to come on earlier, notice would have to be given earlier. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen had stated that to secure an answer were But on a Monday it would be necessary to considered answers to be given at 2.15 put the Question down on the preceding in the afternoon. But the answer to Thursday. He thought that was not that objection was simple. It was the quite the case. The Question was to duty of a Minister not to attempt to 1 notice was appear on the Notice Paper on the day answer when insufficient before an answer was required. There given; he should give the absolutely was a Notice Paper sent out on Saturday, conclusive reply that he had not had time and Questions appearing on that Paper to obtain the necessary information, and could be answered on Monday. The ask that the Question should be postGovernment had done their best to poned. Sometimes it happened that a meet hon. Members in this matter. The communication was made beforehand If an hon. provision applied only to Questions to to the hon. Member. which an oral answer was required. Member put a Question which perhaps. For a printed or typewritten answer the would involve communication across the Department would have all the time in Channel in order to obtain the answer, office hours in which to prepare the there was no reason to feel annoyed, and reply, so that if a Member did not he would not be justified in complaining insist upon an oral answer he would if he had to wait until the next day for be able to get a reply if the Question his reply. Therefore, the whole inconwas put down by twelve o'clock the venience could be obviated by the preceding night. Questions of urgency Minister simply saying that he had were already provided for, as they could be asked at five minutes to three o'clock. If it was a Question of importance to a Member's constituents, but not generally, an excellent way to get an immediate answer was for a Member to go to the Department and ask the Question. Then, again, Questions could be asked on the Motion each night "That this House do now adjourn." If a really important Question arose, and the Minister was told that it would be asked, he could not conceive the Minister declining to be present at the adjournment in order to give an answer. Urgent Questions were therefore provided for by the Rule, and he thought the House would agree that some further notice than the present system required was obviously necessary if Ministers were to answer satisfactorily and fully Questions which were put to them. was not been able to get the information. By this Rule, they were rendering it impossible, even in cases of great importance and simplicity, where the information was already at hand, to get the answer except by giving two days notice. What they required was elasticity and promptitude, which given by the present system. At the present time Ministers often said they had not been able to obtain the information necessary to answer a Question because the Question had only appeared on the Paper that morning. The hon. never raised any Member concerned objection to this, and there was an end Under the new Rule, in of the matter. every instance practically there would be two days delay, and in the case of a Question notified on Wednesday or Thursday they would not get an answer until the following Monday. That seemed an extremely unreasonof the power of MR. BLAKE understood that the able limitation Questions to be answered at five minutes the House to obtain speedy answers to three o'clock were Questions which in cases where the information could had arisen at too late a period to appear be readily supplied. And, besides, it on any Paper, so that that did not would lead to the concentration of three cover the case. While there was much days questions on Monday, thus adding in the reply of the hon. Gentleman to the inconvenience of the time limit. an additional instance of with which he agreed, that reply was This was absolutely unsatisfactory and incon- the rigidity of the new limitations clusive as an answer to the Amend- upon the power of the House. He ment. He entirely agreed that if Ques- agreed that under ordinary circumtions were not circulated until the stances hon. Members ought not to give same morning, there might sometimes be less than two days notice, but that was too short a time to enable accurate and no reason why Questions should not be answered at short notice in cases where a longer notice was not required. He cordially supported the Amendment of his hon. friend. answer, that due notice should be given pursue would be to "Let well alone." (9.25.) MR. FLYNN said there were two distinct questions raised in this new Rule which did not hang together at all. He agreed that unimportant Questions need not be starred, and the hon. Mem-sible. The safe policy in this matter to ber would get his proper answer. Very often that might be convenient. With regard to the starred Questions, the case was different; and the reply given by the hon. Gentleman opposite to the mover of this Amendment seemed to be most inconclusive. Take, as an example, a Question put to the representative of the Foreign Office. If the Minister had not the information, he asked for notice; but sometimes the Minister representing the Foreign Office could answer Questions without notice. Therefore, he could not see how the hon. Gentleman could defend the second portion of this proposal. MR. POWER thought the hon. Gentleman representing the Government had It not made out a case for this Rule. seemed to him that the House had always been reasonable in this matter, and he did not think anybody could recollect a case in which an hon. Member pressed for a reply after the Minister concerned had (9.36.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES said this incidentally suggested the whole question of giving notice. He entirely admitted that Questions ought to be put with notice if possible. The only Questions which might be asked without notice were those arising out of the answer to a Question. But he thought if the Government required notice of Questions it ought to be prepared to give the House notice of its intention. He had seen the Committee of Ways and Means asked to vote enormous sums, not only without notice, but in no intelligible form, so that one could not appreciate the full importance of them. The Government should give notice of what it proposed to do, especially in matters of large financial importance. In some cases the Standing Order would mean that four days notice should be given of Questions. He objected to the introduction of the reference to the Question appearing "on the Paper." The theory of the House was that the House knew nothing of "the Paper." Notice was given in the House, and what appeared on the Paper was only a memorandum of what was done in the House. It should be sufficient if notice were given the previous day, and the Minister could still defer his answer if the notice was too short. The Government would not themselves, he was sure, give two days notice of proposals they had to make, and they often submitted acknowledged that it was particularly proposals in Committee of Ways and desirable, if they wanted a satisfactory Means without notice. Still, the Rule Mr. Blake. said he had not had due notice. He 1 |