§ The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
§ 85. Mr. S. SILVERMANTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to obtain an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice at The Hague respecting the propriety under international law of rendering large areas of the high seas for substantial periods dangerous to peaceful shipping sailing the high seas upon its lawful occasions.
§ 86. Mr. S. SILVERMANTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what foreign countries Her Majesty's Government has concluded agreements by which ships of those countries will be restrained from sailing upon any part of the high seas during any period in respect of which Her Majesty's Government has notified its intention to conduct experimental tests of hydrogen-bomb explosions.
§ 89. Mr. S. SILVERMANTo ask the Minister of Supply what steps he will take to restrain peaceful shipping sailing the high seas from entering specific areas of the high seas during the period of the forthcoming hydrogen-bomb tests; to what extent he is prepared to use force in exercising such restraint; for how long after the last test the prohibition will be enforced; and what forces will be charged with this task.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanMay I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a question in respect of which, first, I must apologise to you for not having been able to give you fuller notice than I did?
It concerns the procedure adopted in relation to Questions Nos. 85, 86 and 89 on the Order Paper, two of which are shown as being addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the last of which is shown as being addressed to the Minister of Supply. I submit to you, Sir, that what has happened in this case is an abuse of the procedure of the House, and amounts to a denial of the right of private Members to question Ministers about Government policy.
I can put my point most conveniently and shortly, although it refers to all three Questions, by concentrating on Question No. 89, which I had sought to ask of the Prime Minister. I fully recognise the right of a Minister, who has a Question addressed to him, to transfer it to the Minister within whose immediate competence and jurisdiction such a Question may lie, but it is obvious that the Minister of Supply could not possibly be the appropriate Minister to take steps to restrain peaceful shipping sailing the high seas or using force to prevent it from entering specific areas or for determining what forces in that event would be used.
I submit to you with respect, Sir, that it is a total disregard of the rights of private Members to transfer a Question 1347 from the Prime Minister, in whose competence the Question obviously lies, to a Departmental Minister who, plainly, had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and that the only possible purpose of transferring a Question in that way was to prevent the Question from being asked at all.
To a less degree the same considerations would apply to the other two Questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Clearly, because all these Questions raised separate points about different aspects of a policy of major international importance which could not be answered in isolation from one another, and for which ultimately it is the Prime Minister who is responsible. I ask you, Sir, how hon. Members can be protected from the abuse of what is an undoubted right of Ministers for a completely unworthy purpose.
Mr. SpeakerI have frequently said in the House that I have no control over the transference of Questions. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is aggrieved by the action that has been taken, it is entirely a matter between him and the Minister. I cannot intervene, because I have no power in these matters.
§ Mr. SilvermanFurther to that, Sir, would it not be possible, using the discretion and the authority of the Speaker of this House— which has always been exercised on behalf of private Members against official Members, where there is evidence that something improper has been done whereby the rights of private Members are curtained— to make certain that when a Question is transferred it is not transferred to a Minister who, plainly, has no connection with the subject matter of the Question? That is not merely a grievance of the private Member and the Minister concerned; it is a denial to all hon. Members of the House of what is their obvious right.
§ Mr. ShinwellOrdinarily, Mr. Speaker, when a Question is presented to the Clerk at the Table we are told that it can be accepted only if the Minister to whom the Question is addressed has responsibility. Clearly, Question No. 89, addressed to the Minister of Supply, is addressed to the wrong Minister, because the Minister of Supply obviously has no responsibility 1348 for anything that happens on the high seas. I think that that is accepted by both sides of the House. What is the position then? Are we to accept the decision of the Clerk at the Table and address Questions only to the Minister who, in his opinion, incurs responsibility, or are we to address our Questions to the Minister whom we think has a responsibility in the matter?
Mr. SpeakerAn hon. Member is at liberty to address his Question to the Minister whom he thinks has responsibility in the matter. That will not be objected to by the Clerk unless, on the face of it, the Minister obviously has not responsibility. This is a case, I understand, of the transference of a Question. Transference is not done by the Clerk, it is done by Ministers among each other, and we have to print the notice as we get it.
§ Mr. ShinwellThis is a matter that obviously affects the rights of all hon. Members on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker. What is the prerogative of a Minister who causes a Question to be transferred to another Minister who obviously has no responsibility? How is that to be determined? May we have an answer from the Government Front Bench?
Mr. SpeakerThe general theory upon which it works is that Ministers themselves have a more accurate idea of the limits— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the general theory on which the practice proceeds, that Ministers are supposed to have a more accurate knowledge of the limits of their responsibility than either I or the Clerk at the Table. Therefore, the action of transferring a Question is the action of the Minister. The Prime Minister.
§ Mr. Silvermanrose——
Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked me what assistance I could be to him in this matter. I think that he ought to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.
§ The Prime MinisterThe transference of Questions has been for a long time a matter of some difficulty. I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that I have no desire to evade answering 1349 Questions put down to me. In point of fact, I think that they are more likely often to reach a position of being answered if they are put down to other Ministers, as we have seen today, for instance, in the case of some of my Questions. Of the three Questions concerned — and all these were dealt with in the ordinary routine way— clearly, two should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary, and I think that he would feel that, at any rate, there was a case for that.
One of the Questions asked with what foreign countries Her Majesty's Government had concluded agreements. Surely [that is very much a Question for the Foreign Secretary. The other asked about an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. That clearly comes into the Foreign Office category. The third concerned certain arrangements made about the holding of the tests. It was thought that as the Minister of Supply is in charge of this matter— is to give the warnings and to say when the operation is over, when it is safe to proceed, and so forth; as my right hon. Friend is running this affair entirely— it was right for him to take the Question.
However, I certainly do not want to rest upon what are matters of marginal arrangement, and if at any time the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, will ring me or my private office and ask for a Question which; he particularly wishes me to answer not to be transferred, I shall, of course, be ready to comply. This has gone on for the thirty years I have been in the House of Commons. There has always been a little difficulty but, on the whole, I think there has been give-and-take about it.
§ Mr. SilvermanWould it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to say that I think we are all grateful for the spirit in which the Prime Minister has now dealt with this matter? But, having said that, will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that it ought to have been obvious to him, when the three Questions appeared on the Order Paper, that they had a common theme, though no doubt they dealt with different aspects of it? The common theme concerned the right, or absence of right, of this country to impede or make dangerous the passage of the high seas to peaceful shipping— [Interruption.] I am not developing this——
§ Mr. SilvermanAll three Questions were obviously connected with that, and were most conveniently to be answered together by the really responsible Minister. The effect of transferring— [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SilvermanThe effect of transferring the last Question to the Minister of Supply was to produce a manifestly absurd result.
Mr. SpeakerOf course, all these things are matters of opinion. I have now heard both sides of the question and it is clearly not one on which I can rule.