HC Deb 24 June 1948 vol 452 cc1573-5
Mr. Platts-Mills

May I be allowed, Sir, to mention your Ruling yesterday, which is in HANSARD, column 1358? While I fully accept your Ruling, would it be possible for you to say a word further by way of explanation in that connection?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member was reproved by me yesterday, and let me make it perfectly clear that I reprove no one for their views. Every hon. Member of this House is entitled to his own views; this is a free House in which there is a free expression of every opinion; but I reproved the hon. Member, and it is my duty to do so, because he was not obeying the rules of Questions. Had this Question perhaps been in another form I should have said nothing at all.

May I, perhaps, for the guidance not only of the hon. Member but, if I may say so, of a good many other hon. Members of this House, read some Rules about Questions and the Rules of Order regarding the form and content of Questions, and I quote four lines: The purpose of the Question is to obtain information or press for action, and it should not be in effect a short speech or limited to giving information or framed so as to suggest its own answer or convey a particular point of view. I think the hon. Member will agree at once that his supplementary question on which I reprimanded him—and I think one before that—was not merely suggesting its own answer, but was also conveying a particular point of view. I took it also as being somewhat an inference and an imputation upon a friendly foreign country.

I hope that explanation will help not only the hon. Member but hon. Members generally about Questions.

Mr. Platts-Mills

I am extremely obliged, Sir, for that clarification, but does it mean this—that while it was quite wrong yesterday for me to ask a question concerning naval policy: "Will the Minister now admit that Naval policy is laid down in Washington and not in London," it would have been perfectly correct for me to have asked: "Is Naval policy now laid down in Washington, or is it laid down in London?"

Mr. Speaker

That would have been a perfectly direct question and, presumably, the hon. Member is entitled to his own opinion that it may be laid down in Washington. That would be asking for information and I could not find fault with it.

Mr. Gallacher

Mr. Speaker, there is very serious trouble in the railway stations in Scotland owing to concessions having been given to certain private taxi companies at the expense of independent owner-drivers, who are kept outside the stations. I want to put down a Question about that and I cannot get it put down. Will you advise me Sir, how I could get that put down? It is a very serious matter; the owner-drivers cannot get into the station.

Mr. Speaker

I have not seen the Question which the hon. Member wants to put down, but that appears to me a matter of internal administration by the railways. I do not know, I have not seen the Question, but I promised always to look at Questions of general national importance. If it were submitted to me and I thought it was a matter of national importance, I have no doubt a Question could be put down. So far, however, I have not seen the Question.

Mr. Baldwin

May I press the Leader of the House on the question of the agreement with Eire—

Mr. Speaker

We have left that; we are now on a point of Order.

Mr. Scollan

Further on that point of Order. We are allowed, I understand, to put Questions to the Minister with regard to the policy of the Transport Board—on questions of policy. I had a Question, but I was told it was a matter in internal administration. It was a matter of policy in regard to overseas visitors who come to this country having facilities placed at their disposal to visit Scotland. I was told that no Question could be put down on that. Can you advise me, Sir, as to how I could get that put down?

Earl Winterton

May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Ruling which you very distinctly gave some while ago when we first discussed this matter? You said that in no circumstances could you permit a point of Order to be put about an individual Question. Do I understand you have now altered that Ruling?

Mr. Speaker

I had not seen any of these particular Questions, and I did not know that they were to be asked. Had they been submitted for my decision one way or the other I should not have permitted any discussion about it. That is a Rule of the House. However, that question in relation to these particular Questions is somewhat hypothetical, for I knew nothing about them, and any Ruling stands.