HC Deb 04 December 1947 vol 445 cc565-71
49. Mr. Granville Sharp

asked the Prime Minister on what principles replies will be given by Ministers to Parliamentary inquiries on the work of socialized industries.

Mr. H. Morrison

I have been asked to reply, but in view of the length of the answer I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later:

Mr. H. Morrison

In the light of experience so far gained, the Government have reviewed the question of replies to Parliamentary inquiries about the work of socialised industries. During the war the Government exercised direct control over certain industries, since actually socialised or to be socialised, notably the railways. Ministers were directly responsible for the running of such services and, therefore, answered detailed questions on matters of day-to-day administration. This situation was, however, exceptional.

Under recent legislation, boards have been set up to run socialised industries on business lines on behalf of the community; and Ministers are not responsible for their day-to-day administration. A large degree of independence for the boards in matters of current administration is vital to their efficiency as commercial undertakings. A Minister is responsible to Parliament for action which he may take in relation to a board, or action coming within his statutory powers which he has not taken. This is the principle that determines generally the matters on which a Question may be put down for answer by a Minister in the House of Commons. Thus, the Minister would be answerable for any directions he gave in the national interest, and for the action which he took on proposals which a board was required by Statute to lay before him.

It would be contrary to this principle, and to the clearly expressed intention of Parliament in the governing legislation, if Ministers were to give, in replies in Parliament or in letters, information about day-to-day matters. Undue intervention by the Minister would tend to impair the board's commercial freedom of action. The boards of socialised industries are under an obligation to submit annual reports and accounts which are to be laid before Parliament. In the Government's view, it is right that Parliament should from time to time review the work of the boards, on the basis of the reports and accounts presented to Parliament.

Sir W. Smithers

Are we to take it, Mr. Speaker, that the words "socialised" and "nationalised" are synonymous?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks many curious questions, and this is one which I feel I cannot answer at short notice.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

In view of the fact that there are no independent boards for Scotland, who will be answering Questions affecting the railways or other socialised industries? Will it be the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Morrison

The normal Parliamentary practice will be followed. In so far as there is Ministerial responsibility, the appropriate Minister will answer. In the case of transport, it will be the Minister of Transport.

Mr. H. Strauss

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman has just informed us what questions will be answered by the Government, or is he purporting to give a statement on what questions will be accepted at the Table? If the latter is the case, has the answer been given after consultation with you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Morrison

I was asked a Question on the Government's view of what they should answer and what they should not answer. I have given the answer, and that is the view of the Government. Of course, it in no way binds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Strauss

That means that the right hon. Gentleman's answer does not in any way indicate what Questions will be received at the Table, if put down to Ministers. It may be for the Government to determine whether or not they are to be answered.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any line of delimitation between what appointments will be the subject of Questions in the House and what appointments will not? He will realise that the appointments, salaries and conditions are matters of great interest to Members.

Mr. Morrison

It is not a question of what is of great interest to Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not. It is a question of the normal and proper accountability of Ministers to Parliament. It is quite well known that the proper accountability of Ministers to Parliament is either action they have taken, or action they could have taken and have not taken. That is the normal rule. Therefore, if the Minister is responsible for the appointments, or it is provided that he is consulted about appointments, it would be right for the Minister to be open to Questions and answers; but if he is not responsible, then I suggest that the Minister should not be expected to answer, because it would not be his responsibility.

Mr. Speaker

I was asked a question by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). I ought to say that I was not, of course, consulted about this, but that the Table will follow what has hitherto been the usual practice. We had precedents during the last war, which will govern any Questions put to the Table.

Mr. Beswick

Will my right hon. Friend say, in regard to day-to-day matters of administration, whether he agrees that there should be some machinery through which not only the workers in nationalised industries, but the consumers, will be able to put forward questions and complaints? Is he satisfied that the provisions in the nationalised industries so far set up are adequate, or would he consider, in the light of experience, to set up a committee to investigate this most important and interesting aspect of nationalisation?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that question arises. This is a matter of what Questions the Government are to answer. We cannot discuss the whole matter in detail.

Mr. Pickthorn

I wish to raise a small point. I think the Lord President of the. Council may have been inadvertent, and it may be right to ask for a correction or confirmation. In the answer he read out, he spoke of a Minister being responsible for action he has not taken. In a supplementary answer, he spoke of being responsible for action Ministers could have taken but have not. The two things are quite different—[Interruption.] If we are not to have accuracy in these things, where are we to get to? I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman's unbriefed remarks really represent what he means, but it ought to be clear in HANSARD what he did mean.

Mr. Morrison

I do not think there is any inconsistency between the two observations. In the first place, if a Minister takes action, he is answerable to Parliament. In the second place if he is authorised by Statute to take action and does not take it, he is answerable to Parliament for not taking it. I think that is what I said in both cases.

Captain Crookshank

As this matter is exercising a great deal of interest, and is not clear, I suggest the time may come when we would like to have further discussion on it.

Mr. Speaker

I have also found it rather difficult. Had we not better study the statement of the Lord President of the Council, and then hon. Members can study what Questions there are from the Table's point of view. Possibly it may then be a matter suitable for an Adjournment, or some other Debate; but it seems to me that now is hardly the time to ask a lot of supplementary questions which are not very clear.

Mr. C. Poole

If it is understood that the House, by allowing this to go now, is not surrendering its right in this matter, that may be acceptable, but I respectfully suggest that an Adjournment Debate is not the occasion on which we could suitably discuss this matter, which some of us regard as of fundamental importance, because we feel that we are being deprived of Parliamentary rights at the present time because of our inability to get Questions put down.

Mr. Speaker

There is always the Table on which to rely. I reminded hon. Members that the Table would act according to precedent. May I also say that I am bearing in mind that the Christmas Adjournment is not very far ahead, and that would be better than the half hour's Adjournment which we would get now?

Mr. C. Poole

As we have never had a nationalised or socialised undertaking before—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes, we have."]—at any rate, in the same form as we have them now, in which a Minister has renounced all responsibility for the appointment of his Board, there is no established precedent.

Sir T. Moore

The Lord President has laid down what is the responsibility on the Minister. Do I understand that the gentlemen at the Table will now subordinate their judgment to what the Lord President has just said?

Mr. Speaker

Certainly not. The Table is quite independent of the Opposition, the Government or anybody else.

Mr. Bowles

Leaving out the matter of Parliamentary Questions, the right hon. Gentleman said, at the end of his reply, that reports and accounts would be submitted and laid on the Table of the House from time to time and Debates would accordingly take place. How does he visualise Debates taking place on the reports of the socialised industries? Will they depend on the Opposition asking for a Supply day? Or does he visualise giving one day to each industry a year?

Mr. Morrison

There have, of course, been a number of socialised industries, and this problem does not appear to have arisen. I think, however, that it does arise. The annual reports will be presented to Parliament, and I suggested that I thought that, from time to time, it would be right that the House should have discussions about them. I think that that would be a good thing. It does not follow that each report would be debated each year. There is no automatic debate on the many reports presented to Parliament, but I think that, from time to time, there ought to be Debates. This is a new thing, and whether the question of having Debates in relation to Supply comes up or not should be considered. I think that it is eminently a matter which might be discussed through the usual channels with a view to arriving at an amicable and agreed solution.

Captain Crookshank

The right form would have to be discussed, because, at first sight, I do not see how this can come in on a Supply day when the Minister has specifically dissociated himself from any responsibility.

Sir W. Smithers

May I ask if now or at some future time you, Mr. Speaker, would give a ruling on this point. If the Minister has refused to answer a Question on a certain point, is that sufficient reason for the gentlemen at the Table to refuse to allow a further Question to be put down?

Mr. Speaker

The Minister is always entitled on public grounds to refuse to give an answer. That is perfectly clear. If he refuses to give an answer, that is the Minister's responsibility, and it has nothing to do with me. Therefore, I cannot authorise the Table to go behind the Minister and insert a Question a second time. The hon. Member's remedy, and the House's remedy, is to put down a Motion of Censure on the Minister, or something of that sort, for refusing to reply. That is outside my control.

Wing-Commander Millington

Is it not a fact that, should such action arise and any hon. Member feel that the Minister is not fulfilling his duties to the House, on that specific issue, the Member is perfectly right to raise a point of Order and get your Ruling at the time?

Mr. Speaker

No, I cannot go as far as that. If the Minister said that it was not in the public interest to give an answer to a Question, that is the responsibility of the Minister, and I cannot overrule him.

Brigadier Head

You said, Mr. Speaker, that, in making up their minds, the Table would be able to draw on precedents available to them which were established during the war. Is not the situation that obtains today fundamentally different from that obtaining during the war?

Mr. Morrison

On the point of Order which was raised, I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration that the situation was entirely different during the war. Under the controls of transport, for example, the Minister was directly responsible for all the railways did, but under this Statute, as passed by Parliament, he is not so responsible for everything they do.

Mr. Speaker

I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the precedents of the war are two-way precedents. There were precedents the other way during the war. There are older precedents still as to how Questions should be answered. I think that we can go back to Parliamentary practice without any difficulty whatsoever.