§ The following Question stood on the Order Paper:
§ 50. MR. W. J. BROWN—Mr. Alexander: I do not think the speech of yesterday arises out of this Question. I am sure my hon. Friend will take all necessary opportunities to answer it. I would say regarding the first part of the supplementary—To ask the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the Government's policy in relation to the issue of the closed shop, namely, the system or arrangement under which a workman's employment in a given plant, industry or occupation is made conditional upon his being, and remaining, a member of a trade union, or a particular trade union, or a trade union of a particular type, namely, affiliated to the T.U.C.
Mr. BrownOn a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the fact that I have twice postponed Question 50 in order to get an oral reply, on both occasions it has not been reached—[Interruption.] I am addressing Mr. Speaker. I was asking whether I might have your indulgence, Sir, and the indulgence of the House to receive a reply on what is an important Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that it is not open to the hon. Member to request that he should receive a reply. It is open to a Minister, if he thinks that a Question is of sufficient importance, to ask leave to answer it, although it has not been reached. The matter is entirely out of my hands.
§ Mr. IsaacsAs the hon. Gentleman has already given notice that he wishes to raise this on the Adjournment, that is when I will answer it.
§ Mr. ChurchillOn a point of Order. Is there any reason, because someone has said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, why, if the House gives the normal indulgence, this important Question No. 5o, which has been several times asked, should not be answered orally by the Minister, who has the answer in front of him?
Mr. BrownMay I supplement that by reminding the Minister and the House that when I put the Question earlier I was asked by the Minister to define what I meant by the "closed shop"? I have taken the precaution to do that in the form of the Question today.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonFurther to the point of Order. Is it not usually the case that when an hon. Member has said he will raise a matter on the Adjournment, that closes the matter until it is so raised? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerQuite frankly, this puzzles me at the moment. It has not been said today that the matter was to be raised on the Adjournment. Therefore, it must be a different Question from that on which the hon. Member has given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, but hon. Members cannot get up and demand that a Minister should answer a Question which has not been reached, if the Minister does not choose to answer, and I am not going to say that the Rule should be broken merely because there is a lot of shouting and noise. If the Minister does not choose to answer it is entirely within his own prerogative.
§ Mr. ChurchillMay I ask what is the special reason of fear which prevents the right hon. Gentleman from reading out the answer which he has?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think we had better get on to the next business—
§ Mr. ChurchillI never saw such an exhibition of cowardice. I would be ashamed to do it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was in the process of saying we were getting on somewhat dangerous ground—
§ Mr. ChurchillHear, hear.
§ Mr. Speaker—because what are really imputations and insinuations should not be made in supplementary questions.