§ Mr. Ellis SmithI desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on two Questions of mine which have been ruled out of order. My observations will have to be confined to very narrow limits in view Of the fact that the Questions have been ruled out of order. I feel in a strong position on this, because the whole House acquiesced in the interpretation put upon this matter a few years ago.
The difficulties about which I wish to ask you are these, and I will put them as briefly as possible. The British Railway Executive, without any explanation, have sold the North Staffordshire Hotel, which is in the centre of an important export industry, where travellers arrive to consult representatives of the industry in the area. The staff are in a very uncertain position, as under the Railway Executive they were allowed fare concessions and other concessions. We are not allowed to use our democratic rights in order to raise those grievances, and therefore I want to ask what steps I can take to deal with them.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member's question is related to the day-to-day activities of the Railway Executive, and until the Select Committee reports and some other procedure is adopted by the House, I have to exercise my discretion of only allowing those questions of administration which are of wide general interest.
The best advice I can give to the hon. Member is to communicate with the Minister concerned to see if he can help him. If there are circumstances of urgency about the hon. Member's problem, and if he explains them to the Minister, I have no doubt the Minister will do the best he can to help him.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithWith due respect, I shall accept that advice and endeavour to act on it. But those of us engaged in the industry do not look upon this as an everyday matter.
§ Sir W. SmithersWith regard to these Questions on nationalised industries, would it not be best for you, Sir, to take the lead in getting Questions answered where the taxpayer is involved, or where the ordinary citizen is involved, apart 844 from the ordinary working of that nationalised industry?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a rather broad and hypothetical question. I would not like to answer it without an example before me of the sort of Question which the hon. Member has in mind.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotFurther to that point, would it not be possible to consider this as rather more than a mere day-to-day action? After all, these hotels are accepted as centres of a great deal of social activity, and they are in some ways indispensable to the conduct of the life of a town. When they are disposed of, as occasionally they are, for office purposes, they cannot be regained for the use for which they were originally designed, and to which they have been put for so many years. I would put it to you, Sir, that it is an unreversible act and rather more than a day-to-day matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe position really is that Ministers, both in this Government and in the last Government, have generally adopted the attitude that they would refuse to answer questions of detail, for which they are not directly responsible, on matters which have been transferred to the statutory bodies for decision, and to be dealt with.
There is a compromise whereby discretion was given to my predecessor to allow certain Questions. He accepted that burden on the understanding that his decision would not be argued with, and I accepted it, I hope, on the same ground. I must carry on with that discretion until we get a new system from the Select Committee.
§ Mr. WoodburnFurther to that point. Is it not the case that if a situation arose that a Minister considered of such importance that he was prepared to give a direction, it would come within the purview of this House?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt might in that case, but it is not so in a case like this.
§ Mr. AsshetonMay I respectfully inform you, Sir, that the Select Committee, of which I have the honour to be the Chairman, have in fact reported on this matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerBut we have not yet worked out a system of questions which enables me to change my procedure.