§ Mr. BennMr. Speaker, I rise to ask your guidance on a point of order. Following the, statement made by the Prime Minister, two weeks ago, about the Anglo-American Agreements on atomic co-operation, I sought to table two Questions asking for clarification of the Agreements and was told that it was not possible to put down Questions asking for clarification of international agreements. I was, indeed, referred to Erskine May where, in page 344, in the rules relating to Questions, occurs the following passage:
Seeking an expression of opinion on a question of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, or of an international document, a Minister's own powers. …I looked up the references given by Erskine May to support this ruling and found that they all referred to domestic laws, to questions that Members had sought to ask about the powers of magistrates, and points of general law and that none of them dealt with international agreements. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would rule on the admissibility of Questions addressed to Ministers on this subject, whether you would review the very wide prohibition 961 given against them in Erskine May, and whether you could, if possible, give precedents in the practice of the House which might support Erskine May's view if any precedents exist?May I submit, briefly, that a differentiation ought to be made between domestic laws and international laws in that in the one case they are subject to interpretation by the courts whereas, in the other case, they are not; and, secondly, that the practice of the House as laid down only refers to domestic law and not to international law and that you do in fact, as Speaker, admit verbal questions to Ministers when statements are made, immediately after such statements are made.
Finally, may I invite you to rule that it is in order for a Member to put down a Question seeking clarification of treaties or agreements or inquiring into their meaning or likely consequences, whether before they are ratified or afterwards, subject only to the other rules laid down for Questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was good enough to give me notice of the point he has raised and I have had time to consider it.
The difficulties sometimes experienced by hon. Members in appreciating the rules governing Questions to Ministers arises from the difference between these rules and those governing our debates. The main purpose of the House is debate, and it is fundamental to our whole procedure that debate can only proceed upon a Question proposed from the Chair after a Motion has been moved by a Member of the House. In debate, subject to the rules of order and relevancy to the Question proposed from the Chair, hopes and fears may be freely expressed and, in particular, opinions may freely be interchanged. I adopt the dictionary definition of opinon: "what seems to one to be probably true." Indeed, the expression of opinion, in this sense, is the main content of debate.
The useful practice of putting Questions to Ministers, which grew up during the last hundred years, has, from its start, been governed by quite separate rules. At Question Time, there is before the House no Question proposed from the Chair, and, therefore, there can be no debate. 962 Consequently, there is no place for the expression of opinion. A Question asking for an opinion has always been out of order.
A Question asking a Minister to interpret the domestic law offends against the rule of Ministerial responsibility, since such interpretation is not the responsibility of a Minister. That the hon Member has himself admitted. But it also offends against the rule that a Question may not ask for a Minister's opinion. The interpretation of written words is a matter of opinion. It is for the latter reason, I think, that the rule has been applied to the interpretation of an international document. This application of the Rule has been the constant practice of my predecessors at least since the 1920s but, as its validity has not been hitherto contested, there is no reference which can be quoted in Erskine May.
I think that the rule of Questions against seeking a Minister's expression of opinion is fundamental and must be maintained. But if a Question seeks only to ascertain the policy of a Minister, either about the subject matter of an international agreement, or arising out of any of the clauses of a document to which he is a signatory, then I think that it would be in order. The distinction may sometimes be a narrow one, but I feel that it should prove wide enough to enable Members to obtain information on policy without infringing the Rule against asking for an opinion.
§ Mr. BennI thank you very much for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker. As you have said, it is the first time a Ruling from the Chair has ever been given on this matter. I have wondered whether it is not just the legalisation of twenty years of undetected crime. May I ask you whether you expect that in the future it will be possible or easier for hon. Members to detect the intentions of Ministers from the sometimes calculated ambiguities contained in international documents and agreements?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that with a little ingenuity and the assistance of the learned Clerks at the Table, who are always willing to help hon. Members in these matters, the hon. Member can so frame his Question as to comply with the rules of order and not transgress this fundamental principle. The hon. 963 Member is not quite right in saying that there is no precedent for it in Erskine May. I had the industry to look up the first edition of Erskine May, which was published in 1844. In that edition there was no reference at all to the subject of Questions to Ministers, Questions to Ministers are of recent growth but in the second edition, which was published in 1851, there appears this comment:
On 13th December, 1847, a Member was proceeding to put a Question relating to the affairs of Switzerland, but the Speaker interposed and explained to him that his Question involved an opinion and an argument.It was, therefore, disallowed. The Ruling is, therefore, quite old and has always been accepted by the House.
§ Mr. BellengerWithout seeking to appear to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, does it not follow from what you have said that if a Minister expresses Government policy, that policy must have been formulated on a prior opinion by the Government—or are we to understand that Governments express policy without first of all forming opinions?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is in debate. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said that I allowed questions following a statement about a treaty by a Minister. That is quite true, but a statement by a Minister, made at the Box, is not an international document. What I mean by an international document in this context is a document to which some other country or group of countries besides this country is a party—in other words, a document which cannot be altered unilaterally. That is what is called an international document for the purpose of the Ruling which I have given.
If a Minister makes a statement about what is happening, that is like any other Ministerial statement and subject to questions, but when the document has been reduced to writing and other people are parties to it, then the interpretation of what the words mean is a matter of opinion, and the opinion of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East on that matter of interpretation is just as valuable as the opinion of the Minister.
§ Mr. BennIn your last comment, Mr. Speaker, you drew a distinction between a ratified and an unratified document, if I understood you correctly. If I recall 964 them, your words were that once a document had been reduced to paper it could not be unilaterally repudiated. I understand that the Agreements on atomic energy co-operation have been initialled but not ratified. Could you rule whether, before ratification, the opinion as to the meaning of a document may be sought from a Minister?
§ Mr. SpeakerI said that a Ministerial statement was not a document at all. It is not an international document. When the terms of the agreement have been reduced to writing, however, various other countries besides this country are parties to the document, and if the document cannot be altered unilaterally by this country it is an international document within the meaning of my Ruling and that of my predecessors.