HC Deb 30 May 1951 vol 488 cc221-4
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting the responsibility of the Minister of Transport for answering Questions as to the effect on the public of the strike now going on in the road haulage industry? The precise point is a very short one, and it arises in this way. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was raised at Questions yesterday by a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Labour.

During the questions and answers I asked what steps had been taken to get the private road hauliers to come in to help shift the traffic which was immobilised. The Minister of Labour replied: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 38.] The question was pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and the Prime Minister replied to him that no doubt the Minister of Transport could have replied if notice had been given of the Question. Perhaps foolishly, I accepted the advice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour in this matter, and I did give notice of this Question, and submitted a Private Notice Question to you, Mr. Speaker, and you turned it down. I want to say at once that, of course, I do not rise to challenge your Ruling in any way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It came, as a matter of fact, as no surprise to me, because I have always found it extremely difficult to get any Question on an important matter relating to transport to the Minister concerned.

The point I wish to raise is this. I see it reported in the Press that consultations have been going on between the Road Haulage Executive and the Ministry on this very important matter as to whether the private hauliers should be called in or not. It is a matter which raises some quite grave issues. It is not a very simple one. It is quite clear that a decision on that could not be taken without consultation with the Minister concerned, and I rise to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what methods are open to us in this House to put Questions on matters of that importance to the responsible Minister?

Mr. Speaker

I am not responsible for any Minister's refusing to answer a Question. After all, the Question yesterday was to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the strike. [Laughter.] I mean, who is responsible for endeavouring to settle the strike. Then supplementary questions were asked concerning another Minister. I do not think I can give any guidance. It is a matter for the Minister concerned. He may not think it advisable in the public interest to disclose what steps he is taking. Personally, so far as it concerned me, I could see no urgency for the Private Notice Question, and I see less urgency for it now since the steps the hon. Gentleman proposed were announced on the wireless at one o'clock today as having been taken. So it seems to me that the responsibility lies on the Minister—not on the individual Member—for answering a Question.

Mr. Eden

May I put to you, Mr. Speaker, some considerations that arise? I am afraid I did not listen to the wireless at one o'clock, but that Question yesterday was, in fact, not asked of the Minister—to use your own phrase—who was responsible for the strike: we from this Front Bench addressed the Question to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour, whoever could most conveniently reply. It is a little difficult if, when we frame our Questions like that, the Minister of Labour then gets up and tells us, when we ask about the transport aspect of the problem, that it is not a matter for the Minister of Labour at all. That does make it a little hard for the Opposition when we are trying to discharge our duty and trying to get information for the public.

Mr. Speaker

It is not my affair whether the Minister refused or whether he did answer the Question; that is his affair. After all, it may well be that he thought that some announcement now might be rather provocative and help the strike to continue, and he must use his own judgment about that.

The Prime Minister

May I say that it does get us into difficulties if, on a Private Notice Question to one Minister, questions can be addressed to any number of Ministers. I always understood that supplementaries should be addressed to the Minister immediately concerned, and I should have thought that it was quite possible to put down a Private Notice Question on different aspects of the strike, to be addressed to the Minister of Labour in regard to the settlement of the strike and to the Minister of Transport on any questions of transportation.

Mr. Eden

Will the Prime Minister not agree that, since the Opposition put a question to the Minister chosen by the Government, it does seem to be a slightly narrow interpretation of functions to refuse to answer anything else connected with the dispute? However, in future, we will address questions to six different Ministers in order to get answers. We know that they will all be different.

Mr. Thorneycroft

I entirely agree with the view expressed by the Prime Minister, and that is exactly what I did. I put down a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Transport. The difficulty was that it was refused, and, as a result, we were no further forward. That is what I did; I tried to follow the Prime Minister's advice.

Mr. S. Silverman

What is puzzling me is how a supplementary question happened to be in order at the time it was put but that when it was put at a later stage as a Written Question it was out of order.

Mr. Speaker

I have never said that the Question was out of order. I merely did not allow it as a Private Notice Question; but not on the grounds that it was out of order. That is my responsibility and my choice.

Sir Ian Fraser

You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this Question could not be admitted, but you then went on to indicate that that was because you could not force a Minister to reply. May I venture to submit that the point at issue is not whether a Minister is willing to reply but whether the Question can be put? Could you make clear your reasons why you felt that this Question could not be put?

Mr. Speaker

No, Sir. I never give my reasons for anything. Right or wrong, I give no reasons.