§ 19. Mr. Pannellasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the contract, worth £10 million, which this country recently lost to Germany for goods to be supplied to a Latin-American State, in which this country's margin of profit was less than the Germans although our cost of production was higher.
§ Mr. MackesonI know of no such contract.
§ Mr. PannellI do not want to comment on that any further. I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order. This Question arose from a completely erroneous statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health during the Canterbury by-election. When I approached the Table to try to put a Question to the Prime Minister to find out whether erroneous statements of this sort represented the policy of the Government, I could not get it past the Table; and I am informed that Parliamentary Secretaries are not deemed to be responsible persons in relation to Governmental or Cabinet responsibility.
Events of this sort, fortunately, are rare, but I should be obliged, Mr. Speaker, if you would give me and the House your guidance, in case of the repetition of an incident such as this, as to what course is open to an hon. Member when a Parliamentary Secretary or Minister below the rank of Cabinet Minister makes statements in the country for which he cannot be held accountable to the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe rule is perfectly clear. Questions can be addressed to Ministers only with regard to those matters for which they are administratively responsible to the House. That applies also as regards Parliamentary Secretaries, but Questions cannot as a rule be addressed to Parliamentary Secretaries unless they have been specifically nominated to take charge of certain departments of the Administration. The hon. Member asks my advice. I can only say that these matters can be raised in debate and by counter-speeches, and 174 so on, but Questions cannot be used for that purpose.
I understand that this particular incident was settled by an apology and withdrawal, which was accepted by the Opposition, and I think that if that is the case it should not be raised again.
§ Mr. PannellI hope that you are not blaming me, Mr. Speaker, for raising a general point of order, bearing in mind that in my first sentence I said that I accepted the apology. Are there not precedents? Is it not a fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) made a speech that resulted in his leaving the Ministry of Food, it was pursued against him by Members on the other side? Might I ask you to consider the matter again?
§ Mr. SpeakerI was not in any way blaming the hon. Member for raising the matter as a point of order. The matter is discussed in May's "Parliamentary Practice," and the question which it is always open to ask is, from the Prime Minister, whether a statement made by a Minister represents the policy of the Government. That has always been allowed as a matter for which the Prime Minister is answerable. It does not, however, go further than that.
§ Mr. PannellFurther to that point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I have been put to a great deal of trouble over this matter, and I hope that the House will be patient with me. Are you now saying, Mr. Speaker, that in the matter of a statement made by a Parliamentary Secretary, one can ask whether it represents the policy of the Government?
§ Mr. SpeakerNormally, it is only Ministers of Cabinet rank whose statements can be made the basis of Questions which I have mentioned as being in order. As I say, there do exist plenty of other ways in which hon. Members can obtain a remedy for erroneous statements made in the country.