§ Mr. BoardmanMay I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, relating to a Question which I put down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The "Manchester 1890 Evening News" reported, on 11th February, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had addressed the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and during his speech had made but a single reference to the state of the cotton trade, but nevertheless a very significant reference, in so far as he said that he appreciated the difficulties of Lancashire and so far as might lie within his power he would help to solve its problems.
Last week I put a Question on the Order Paper
To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet decided in what way he intends to implement his undertaking to the Mersey-side Chamber of Commerce to help the Lancashire cotton industry with its problems.Yesterday I received a note from the Treasury telling me that, at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my Question had been referred to the President of the Board of Trade. It may be one of those strange Parliamentary coincidences that today the Chancellor of the Exchequer was first on the list for Questions and those addressed to the President of the Board of Trade have not been reached.The point about which I am concerned is that my Question was altered without my permission to read
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet decided in what way he intends to implement his undertaking to the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce to help the Lancashire cotton industry with its problems.That makes an utterly stupid Question which I have no option but to withdraw. I am not aware that the President of the Board of Trade has been to Liverpool. Neither am I aware that he has made any promise in the same manner as the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a promise to the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce.I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because, short of some reasonable explanation, I am bound to come to the conclusion that this is rather a blatant case of Ministerial "passing the buck."
§ Mr. SpeakerSo far as I am concerned, as I have frequently said in this House, I have no control whatsoever over the transference of Questions from one Department to another. Ministers are the judges of their own spheres of responsibility, and it is probably in that sense that this Question has been transferred. As regards any alteration made 1891 in the form of the Question, I understand that in its original from it did not strictly comply with the rules of order, in that it referred, I think, to a newspaper, one of the things one must not do in a Question. Furthermore, the area within which Ministers can be questioned as to speeches made outside this House is somewhat limited. I understand that any alteration made was done to make the hon. Member's Question conform to the rules of order. As to the transference, I am afraid that I have nothing to say.
§ Mr. GaitskellFurther to that point of order. While it may be that my hon. Friend's Question was not correctly drafted, it was surely very surprising and odd that the Government should have redrafted it without seeking his consent or authority?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Government did not redraft it. I understand that any change in the phrasing was made by the learned Clerks at the Table to make it. conform to the rules of order. I do not think that the Government had anything to do with it at all.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerSurely, Mr. Speaker, even if the alteration is made by the Table, it is only proper that they should consult the hon. Member concerned and should not make any alteration at all without consulting or informing the hon. Member?
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that was done.
§ Mr. BoardmanIt was, indeed, the Treasury which altered the Question. The Table deleted the reference to the "Manchester Evening News." This Question appeared on Friday's Order Paper, and then it was altered to read
To ask the President of the Board of Tradeinstead ofto ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that the alteration in the phraseology was made by the Table in order to make it conform, but that the transfer was done by the Treasury.
§ Mr. M. StewartFurther to that point of order. Could you give us guidance on this point, Mr. Speaker? Surely, the effect of the transfer was to alter the whole substance of the Question. It is a rule, I believe, that an hon. Member is responsible for the accuracy of any statement made in a Question. Once the lesser error in form had been corrected, my hon. Friend's Question was accurate in fact. It referred to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Question was transferred, it then became inaccurate in fact, because it referred to a guarantee given by the President of the Board of Trade which had never been given. Not only has my hon. Friend had his Question transferred by the Government without his knowledge, but he has had his Question turned from one which was accurate into one which contained an inaccuracy.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is clear that in this case any such inaccuracy was by no means the fault of the hon. Member who put down the Question. As to the transference, there is nothing more that I can say about it. I think that it was open to the hon. Member, when he found that an inaccuracy was imported into the Question by its transference to another Department, to withdraw it or to have taken some other steps. I am afraid that we cannot use more time on this matter at this stage.
§ Mr. StokesFurther to that point of order. Surely, Sir, it would clear up the whole matter if we could now have the answer, when we could see how sensible it is?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt might clear the matter up, but, even with that object in view, I am afraid that I could not allow it.
§ Mr. OdeyMay I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Should not the hon. Member concerned be consulted when a Question is transferred from one Minister to another?
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that on this occasion the hon. Member was informed.