HC Deb 29 May 1956 vol 553 cc33-5
Mr. Dugdale

I desire, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order with you of which I have given you previous notice. Last week I put down the following Question: "To ask the Prime Minister"—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion that if he is trying to raise a point of order on a Question which has been disallowed, it is quite out of order to attempt to read the Question.

Mr. Dugdale

Last week I put down a Question to the Prime Minister, and I have been informed that the Question has been disallowed on the ground that the Prime Minister has refused to answer it. This seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, a quite unusual degree of protection for the Prime Minister. I should like to know whether in fact this is a new Ruling, and whether it applies only to the Prime Minister or to other Ministers as well?

Mr. Speaker

It is not my Ruling; it is the rule of the House. There have been many precedents for it. The real reason for it is that a Question which has already been fully answered in the course of the Session cannot be asked again. Included in the category of Questions which already have been answered are those Questions to which the Prime Minister has refused to give an answer.

When—as clearly he has here—a Minister has refused to add anything to the statements which have been made—there is no harm in saying that they were about Commander Crabb—and given an absolute refusal to answer any more questions on the subject, I feel that the old rule was rightly applied in the case of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dugdale

With great respect, my Question refers to matters that have occurred since the original events about which the Prime Minister spoke, and I think in that case something quite different arises which might rightly be asked.

Mr. Speaker

I did not take that view of the right hon. Gentleman's Question. It was clearly covered by the refusal of the Prime Minister to add anything to the statement which he has made on this matter. The House will see the wisdom of that rule. It is clearly a waste of time to put down Questions on the Order Paper which will elicit only a repetition of a previous refusal to answer. There are other hon. Members very anxious to ask Questions on a variety of topics, and it is my duty to apply the rule of the House in this matter.

Mr. Fernyhough

On a point of order. Since a questioner may have new information and the Ruling is that a Question still cannot be put down, is there anything to prevent an hon. Member balloting for the Adjournment in order to raise the matter in that way? Or is a Minister who may be concerned freed from the obligation to answer a question raised on the Adjournment in the same way as he is regarding a Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker

In any case of this kind a Minister is at liberty, if he so chooses—and he is the judge—to refuse to give any information on the matter. That is the course which has been adopted here, and that is what I had in mind when dealing with the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dugdale

With respect, and further to that point of order. When the original Question was asked, the Prime Minister refused to give further information. In spite of that, you, Mr. Speaker, did allow a debate to take place, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's previous refusal. Why does not the same set of circumstances apply today?

Mr. Speaker

I did not allow a debate on the matter. What happened was that the Opposition, in the exercise of their undoubted rights and under our Parliamentary constitution, raised the matter in Committee of Supply as a question of Supply. That has nothing to do with me. As I have frequently told the House, there are many things which may be raised and questions which may be asked in debate which, at the same time, are not admissible as Parliamentary Questions on the Order Paper.