§ Mr. Churchill(by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that, following on his statement of 4th December, Questions from Members relating to the various industries that have been nationalised during the present Parliament are not accepted at the Table, and whether, as this situation affects the rights of Parliament in respect 1815 of large spheres of public business of widespread concern to the nation, he will allow an early opportunity for a full discussion of the far reaching issues involved.
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)In my statement of 4th December, I was explaining the circumstances in which Ministers would give information in reply to Questions about the conduct of socialised industries. I should never presume to try to influence Mr. Speaker or the Table in their acceptance of Questions, though I might, perhaps, add that I have always understood a Parliamentary Question was only accepted if the Minister concerned had some responsibility in respect of the matters which were the subject of the inquiry. If it is desired to have a Debate on this subject, the necessary arrangements can no doubt be made, through the usual channels, for a Supply day to be set aside for the purpose.
§ Mr. ChurchillThe right hon. Gentleman will, I trust, agree with me in the general principle, that Members should have the freest possible right to put Questions on the Paper without prejudice to the undoubted right of Ministers to refuse to answer them if they consider the public interest is involved and if they are supported by the general feeling of the House? That is the only principle that I am wishing to assert. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at the present time, whole blocks of very important topics, in which enormous numbers of people are interested and concerned, are ruled out because it is thought that Ministers do not wish to have those Questions answered, and because it is alleged that Ministers have no particular power over the nationalised industries in question, whereas, in the case of a good many of the industries that have been nationalised, specific powers have been retained by the Government both in regard to the securing of information from the industries and in regard to control over them? Will he bear this in mind, that there is no question at all of denying the ultimate right of a Minister to refuse to answer Questions provided he can carry with him the support of the House of Commons, but that there is grave objection to whole 1816 classes of Questions being excluded even from being placed upon the Order Paper as a result of some Ministerial utterance? On the question of the Debate upon this subject, we gladly receive the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that conversations may take place with a view to fixing a date; but I must submit to him that this matter is not a party matter, that the Questions come from all parts of the House, that it concerns the Procedure of the House of Commons, and that, therefore, we consider most strongly that it rests with the Leader of the House to offer reasonable opportunity for this discussion in the Government's time.
§ Mr. NallyOn a point of Order. I wonder if I may seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a particular point that arises from what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said? As I understand it, there is no dispute at all that a Minister is entitled to refuse, for reasons that seem to him good and sufficient, to answer a Question. The point at issue, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, is whether or not the Table has a right to refuse a Question or a series of Questions. Is it proper that a Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about what is assumed to be, or is said to be, a mistake on the part of the Table? Is it correct that the question should be raised in that way?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can explain to the hon. Member exactly what happens. It may help to clear up the situation. I am responsible, first of all, for seeing that the Question is in Order. A Question is not in Order if it does not involve Ministerial responsibility. That is the first proposition. Very well: a Question comes to the Table; the Table thinks that it does not involve Ministerial responsibility; then, possibly, the matter is put to me—but more usually, I think, I am by-passed to save trouble. Anyhow, it does sometimes happen that a Question comes to me, and I have to give a Ruling. The Question, we will say, is about the transport industry or another of the nationalised industries. It comes to me, and the question I have to answer is, whether this is a matter of internal administration within the industry, or whether there is Ministerial responsibility. I am not prepared to answer questions about railways, about civil aviation, about telegraphs, 1817 about everything else that is nationalised. The only thing I can do is to go to the Minister, or telephone him, and ask him what his opinion is, and whether this is a matter for which he has responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the only possible course. Can I know all about these industries, and say whether every Question about them is in Order or not—that it is a matter affecting a Minister's responsibility or not? I am bound by the Rules of the House to see that only Questions that are in Order are put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, if a Minister says that it is not his responsibility, then the Table does not allow the Question. I hope that makes the situation plain.
§ Mr. ChurchillWith very great respect, I am a little taken aback by the extent of the Ruling which you have given on this matter, Mr. Speaker. For a great many years, Sir, I submit to you, there has grown up the custom that the Table—and we have the greatest respect for the manner in which the Clerks at the Table discharge their duties—have only refused, say, questions of a particular class affecting individuals, and reflecting sometimes upon them. This has grown up by custom of the House. But now, suddenly, a vast mass of topics—whole series of topics on vitally important business affecting millions of people—has come under this bar.
Are we to understand that the Minister of a Department concerned will be the final judge of whether a Member is to put a Question on the Order Paper, irrespective of the Minister's right to say he does not wish to answer the Question? Is he to be the final judge even of whether a Member is to be allowed to put a Question on the Paper—if a Minister says it is one he does not want to be asked? May I respectfully submit to you, Sir, that this is no new issue? In the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation in the war the Minister of Information frequently refused—and very properly refused—to answer Questions. But that did not prevent—unless there was war danger—Questions from being asked. May I also submit to you, Sir, that the mere placing on the Paper of a Question is a certain discharge by a Member of his duties to his constituents, and is also a certain ventilation of a topic, and, therefore, that there is a great difference between the right to ask Questions and the obligation 1818 of a Minister to give a precise answer? I would most respectfully submit to you these matters, on which, I hope, your statement may be somewhat amplified.
§ Mr. SpeakerI had hoped that I had made what is the present situation quite plain. As I understand we are to have a Debate on the matter I thought it might help the House to make that explanation. We must, however, remember that this only follows the precedent set in the war, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation, when the Table refused Question after Question which Members put down on the administration of the Corporation.
§ Mr. MorrisonPerhaps I might refer to the original supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to say that the Government do not presume to make any decision as to which Questions Mr. Speaker or the Table will accept. It would be quite improper on our part so to do. However, the Table and Mr. Speaker are sometimes in difficulties on a point of fact to know whether a Minister can or cannot take action. That is the only point upon which the Government might come in. That really is the point in dispute—as to whether there is Ministerial responsibility or not.
I am bound to say, I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman taking this line, because in the war the Minister of Information was absolutely responsible for everything the British Broadcasting Corporation did—everything—and, as hon. Members may remember, the then Minister of Information, now the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), used to stand at this Box and flatly refuse to answer Question after Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "They were on the Paper?"] Yes, they were on the Paper; and to my amazement he got away with it. At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman is advancing, and his cheerful followers are blandly accepting, the argument that any hon. Member who wishes to put any Question has a right to have it on the Order Paper. I have been a Private Member of this House before, and I have had no end of struggles with the Table as to what they will accept and what they will not[...] and I am afraid it will go on.
§ Mr. ChurchillWhy does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that in the war the 1819 Minister of Information "got away with it "—to use his own colloquial expression?
§ Mr. Morrisonsaid I was surprised.
§ Mr. ChurchillWas that not because he was supported by the majority of the House of Commons? Is that not the right foundation on which Ministers can rely for the endorsement of their discretionary powers as to whether or not they should answer a Question? If Parliament, by a majority, supports them, and if it is the general feeling, no one wishes to run counter to the wishes, decisions and feelings—[Interruption.] Just listen. No one wishes to run counter to the wishes, decisions and the majority of the House in these matters. But with regard to putting a Question on the Paper, surely the presumption should be that any Question may be put on the Paper unless barred by those long customs of good taste and non-assailment of individuals, which have been accepted by the House for generations. The presumption is that anybody may put a Question on the Paper. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we are not objecting at all to the power of the Government, supported by the House of Commons, to refuse to answer Questions? What we are criticising is the institution of an arbitrary and mechanical bar to the placing of those Questions on the Paper.
§ Mr. MorrisonThe right hon. Gentleman amazes me. He really does. The right hon. Gentleman has been in this House for about 40 years—longer than I have—
§ Mr. ChurchillOh, yes.
§ Mr. MorrisonYes, much longer—and I cannot understand why he does not know that there is a whole series of rules and practices which govern the admissibility of Parliamentary Questions. One of the first things I was told on entering the House was that there were 17 rules or practices governing the acceptance or non-acceptance of Parliamentary Questions. If anybody asks me now what the 17 rules are, I cannot tell them; but they are there. As to how the Minister of Information got away with it in the war, I would not like to say. It would not improve the situation at all.
§ Mr. DribergFurther to the point of Order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), and taken further by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I submit to 1820 you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that it was quite clear from some of the answers given by the Minister of Transport on Monday of this week that the Minister always, naturally, retains the right to make representations to the board or commission of a nationalised industry, even on matters for which he is not directly responsible. Therefore, would you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to indicate to the House, for our assistance, how we are to distinguish between Questions which fall within the direct responsibility of the Minister and Questions which do not, but on which he can retain the right to make representations?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs we are to debate the matter, that is eminently a question which could be elucidated during the Debate.
§ Mr. Henry StraussMay I put to you, Sir, with respect, one point arising out of your recent statement. The Leader of the House said that whe[...] you consulted a Minister you were ascertaining facts. I am sure that that is the understanding of the Minister, and that that was your understanding when you asked the question, as you say, by telephone. May I put it to you, that it is very often a question of law, and depends on the statute applicable to the particular industry? With respect, I would suggest that, while the House fully understands that you would need to consult somebody before giving an answer, if it is a question of law it would be more appropriate that you should consult your legal adviser rather than the Minister.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member will not imagine that I make these inquiries personally in every case. I have all the officers of the Table, and I also have a legal adviser. One must assume that all those channels are used when inquiries are made as to whether a Question is one of fact, of law, or what.
§ Lieut.-Commander Gurney BraithwaiteCould the Leader of the House give us the assurance that neither he nor his colleagues will make use of the precedent of wartime security—which is a necessary reason for refusing to answer—for ordinary routine peacetime questions.
§ Mr. MorrisonIf a definite issue of security arose we should have to consider it. In the war there was a very wide sphere. The answer is: Certainly not; no, Sir, not at all.