HC Deb 08 June 1928 vol 218 cc493-6

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KELLY:

  1. "(1) To ask the Minister of Labour, if he will state the number of men and women who were registered as unemployed from the enamelled hollow-ware trade in April, 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively.
  2. (2) To ask the Minister of Labour, if he will state the number of men and women registered as employed in the enamelled hollow-ware trade in 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively.
  3. (3) To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state whether he has received an application from the light castings trade for a Committee to be appointed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and what action does he propose to take."

Mr. KELLY

On a point of Order. I realise that Friday is an awkward day on which to answer questions, but these questions are put down because discussion has to take place later upon the information which is asked for.

Mr. SPEAKER

Perhaps the information may be given in the course of the Debate to-day.

Mr. KELLY

May I point out that information is asked for in these questions in respect of the discussion to-day, of which we have had only about 24 hours' notice, and it is really highly inconvenient to this House that the Minister of Labour is not here to give the information.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)

The ordinary practice is that oral questions are not answered on Friday. I understand that a copy of the answer to Question No. 3 has been, or is being, sent to the hon. Member, and, therefore, he will receive it earlier than he would in the ordinary course of procedure.

Mr. KELLY

With regard to Question No. 3, I quite recognise the position on a Friday, but the short notice given to us with regard to this discussion later in the morning compelled me to put the question down, as the information is not contained in the document furnished by the Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On the point of Order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, although I do not think it is necessary, that Ministers frequently have been here on Friday to answer questions regarding information urgently required in Debate, and even not required in Debate. I would draw attention to Foreign Office questions, which are frequently answered. I understand your ruling in the past is that, on a Friday, Ministers have Departments to look after, and, therefore, the House has excused them from attendance; but on this occasion both the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade are here, so that the Board of Trade is well represented. This is information which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), and I and other Members require for the Debate, and I think it is really stretching the indulgence which the House has extended to Ministers and their Departments too far when the Ministers are here.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I may say that Question No. 3 is one which, in fact, has been answered many times. Only yesterday I stated that it was the practice of the Government never to give information as to applications which have or have not been made. I can therefore say that, following the precedent, no information is given about applications until reference is made to a committee.

Mr. KELLY

May I ask if it is not a fact that this light castings trade is closely allied to the one that is supposed to be discussed this morning?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I think that is a matter of opinion which should be dealt with in the course of Debate.

Mr. LANSBURY

I sent you, Mr. Speaker, a note asking permission to put a Private Notice Question to the Home Secretary, and I have received from his Department a note saying that the Home Secretary at such short notice is unable to reply, and suggesting that I should put a question down for Monday. One portion of the question, however, refers to a matter which will take place on Sunday, so that there is no chance of my getting an answer that is of any use, and what I want to ask is, whether it is possible for me to raise the matter on the Adjournment to-day? I am not quite sure whether that is allowable on Friday or not.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is no Adjournment Question on Friday, and I think the hon. Member's best way would be to get into communication with the Home Office in the course of the day. If the hon. Member will communicate with the Home Office, there may be someone there who can answer the question.

Mr. LANSBURY

I want very respectfully to say that the reason of a Private Notice Question is the urgency of the subject, and a Member has only the possibility of bringing that to the notice either of the Minister or yourself. Certain information, or alleged information, came to me last night concerning a certain subject, and I immediately took the necessary steps. Otherwise, I, like any Member, could have put a question down in the ordinary way. The matter which I wish to raise is one which is not argumentative at all, but is simply a question of fact. There is a part of the question which might be postponed, and I am perfectly willing that it should be postponed; but as to what is to happen on Sunday, there ought not to be any question about giving an answer to that. I raise a very emphatic protest against the doctrine of the Home Office that they must have 48 hours' notice before they will answer a question on a matter of fact. Having made that protest, I have no option but to adopt your advice, and see whether I can get an answer. But I protest at this time of the day there ought to be someone at the Home Office who could give an answer to a perfectly simple question of fact. I do not know what we pay public officials for, if at 11 o'clock in the day they cannot answer a question.