§ Sir W. BRASSOn a point of Order. As Question No. 66 arises directly out of a statement made by the Prime Minister on Friday last, which was this:
In the cotton industry a tremendous impediment had been placed in the way by the Tory cotton owners. That sort of thing must be changed or legislation introduced,I would like to know why I could not have this question put to the Prime Minister; and I should also like to ask the Prime Minister how he knew that they were all Tories?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not say they were all Tories; I said they were individualistic Tories. That was what I said, and it will be found in the local newspapers, which gave an extended report of what I said. However, 1159 the real question is one on which I would like to take the House into my confidence. I did not know that this question was put to me until the hon. and gallant Gentleman said so just now. [Interruption.] It is not the Clerk at the Table; I am responsible; but I did not know, as a matter of fact, that this question was put to me. I am responsible in this way: I have asked my secretaries to deal with the questions put to me, and to scrutinise them very carefully, so that I am not asked to answer questions that are in a state of departmental consideration.
Great attempts have been made recently, either quite directly to get me to answer departmental questions, or so to draft questions that they appear to bring in business of this House, or something of that sort, so that they have an appearance of being Prime Minister's questions. If for nothing else, in the interests of public expenditure, that sort of thing will not be encouraged. In a case like this, supposing that I had taken this question, what would have happened? It would have come to me; it would have been handled by my secretaries first of all; they would have wasted their time upon it, and they would have sent it either to the Board of Trade—[Interruption]—they would have wasted their time in this sense, that the work would have had to be done twice by being handled by my Department. It was sent straight to the Board of Trade, and the answer given was exactly the same as would have been given by me; it would have been supplied to me by the Board of Trade; and we felt that the action that was taken was such as to have allowed my secretaries to work effectively, and not to take up time in duplicating other Department's work.
§ Sir W. BRASSThe question to which I wanted a reply, and which I mentioned in my question, was as to the impediments which were put in the way of the recovery of the cotton trade, and which the Prime Minister said were due to Tory millowners. That was reported in the "Daily Herald."
§ Captain P. MACDONALDIs it not a fact that most of the millowners are Liberals, and not Tories?
§ Mr. T. SNOWDENNo; there are a few Labour men among them.
§ Mr. HACKINGI put down a question to-day, No. 45, in connection with a communication which I thought had been sent to the Prime Minister by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that he received no such communication. May I suggest that he might have made inquiries from the appropriate Government Department?
§ Mr. SPEAKERrose—
§ The PRIME MINISTERI know you have intervened, Mr. Speaker, but I am not at all sure that, in the interests and for the information of the House, this matter should not be cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I had had a letter from a certain correspondent. That took us about two hours yesterday to investigate. I received no such letter, and, if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to have noticed that the letter, which apparently was in his possession, was addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, and not to me at all, it would have saved at least two hours of my secretaries' working time.
§ Mr. HACKINGThe Prime Minister has just said that he knew that the letter was addressed to the President of the Board of Trade. Why, then, was not that question transferred to the President of the Board of Trade?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt was not until a few minutes before I came into the House that the inquiry, which I insisted yesterday should be very carefully carried out, was completed, and I could make up my mind as to what was the answer that I should give. The question was addressed to me, the alleged facts were given, and I felt that it was my duty to answer the question and then to have a private interview with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and ask him not to repeat it.
§ Mr. HACKINGThe Prime Minister casts a reflection on me. He has said that I ought to have known that the letter was addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, and that no doubt I had a copy of it in my possession. I have had no such copy of the letter.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is quite out of order, and I cannot allow further time to be taken up.
§ Sir HUGH O'NEILLI do not want to go into the matter which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, but, on the general question with regard to questions to the Prime Minister, used it not always to be the practice of this House that questions asking for information about legislation were properly put to the Prime Minister, as head of the Government? After all, forthcoming legislation is really a matter for the Government as a whole. You have said, Sir, that it is not a matter for you to decide as to who shall answer questions, but I would submit to you that it would be appropriate that you should give some Ruling as to whether or not the practice of the House which used to exist has been or should be changed.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord is quite entitled to speak on the point of Order.
Earl WINTERTONMay I respectfully call your attention to the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Whitley on two occasions, when he stated that questions with regard to legislation should be addressed to the Prime Minister, and should not be answered by Departments?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have not had an opportunity, since this question was raised, of referring to past Rulings, but I have always understood that, although questions might be addressed either to the Prime Minister's Department or to some other Department, that particular Department was always at liberty to transfer questions to some other Department if it thought that they were more concerned. The only Ruling that has been given is that, if a question has been referred to another Department, the Member who asked it should be so informed.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask a further question, Sir, on the Ruling that you have just given? I have always understood that it was in the discretion of the Minister to answer a question addressed to him or to ask one of his 1162 colleagues, if he thought that more appropriate, to answer the question on his behalf. But is it not the right of a Member to put down his question to the Minister from whom he wishes a reply, subject to the right of that Minister to refer him, if necessary, to another? Ought not the Member's question to appear on the Order Paper as addressed to the Minister as it was in the notice which the Member gave, and not be transferred by any other authority than the Minister who requests his colleague to answer to another Minister?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI thought that it always is the custom that Members should be informed whether a question has been transferred or not.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI do not know whether, as a point of Order, I can put it that that is a very inconvenient change. After all, a Minister may not always understand the particular reason which led a Member to put his question to that particular Minister. I remember a case in which the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture were both interested, and a Member interested in agriculture wanted the views of the Board of Agriculture, but the question was transferred, as I would say, automatically, to the Minister of Health. On that occasion you recognised the fact that it was a proper question to address to the Minister of Agriculture, and you permitted it to be addressed to him. I submit that, if a Member puts his question down to the wrong Minister the penalty is that he is asked by that Minister to repeat it on another day to the right Minister. That is the sanction for the error that he has committed. But he is at any rate entitled to give notice to the Minister of his choice and have his question on the Paper in that form.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe change to which I referred, that Members should be informed when their questions were transferred to another Department, was made because complaints were made that sometimes a question was put to a Minister and another Minister said, "I have been asked to reply." That caused complaints. We could revert to the old system, if generally desired.
Mr. MACLEANIs it not the case that there is hanging in the Library and in the Lobby a form letting Members of the 1163 House know the particular days upon which particular Ministers are replying to questions? Is it not the case that, where Ministers are in charge of a Department they should not be expected to give answers on behalf of other Departments, and ought not Members on the opposite side to understand the forms and procedure of the House better than they evidently do?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that faults are always confined to one side of the House.