§ Mr. PRETYMANI ask your ruling, Sir, with regard to a question which I put on the Paper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for his authority for a statement which he made at Question Time one day last week. The question has been disallowed and I shall be glad to know on what principle this has been done?
§ Mr. SPEAKERFirst of all, I thought that the question was of an argumentative character, and calculated not to ascertain information but to arouse argument. In the second place, it seemed to me to re-discuss a matter which had been discussed already; and, in the third place, because it was not sufficiently precise, and it did not appear from its terms whether the answer which was complained of was given in debate or in answer to a question. The whole matter appeared proper and suitable for argument in debate rather than for Question Time.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I most respectfully say that the statement having been made at Question Time in accordance with frequent rulings, I did not think it right to continue to debate it at Question Time. It was, however, a definite statement which to my mind demanded recognition, and as to which there has been some public comment. I do not wish to get over the difficulty by mentioning the question now. Rut as the statement was made publicly at Question Time I wish to know whether there should not be an opportunity of refuting it publicly on the floor of the House without resorting to the Press?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not open to Members to make a reply contradicting the Minister when he gives an answer to a question. The question does not show when the statement was made, and that was one of my difficulties in the case.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I put the question down again?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNot in this form, because it would have exactly the same faults.