HC Deb 09 December 1968 vol 775 cc35-8
Sir F. Bennett

Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order of which I have given you a little prior notice? It re- lates to the treatment of Written Questions which I tabled about currency speculation by United Kingdom citizens.

On 2nd December, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful prosecutions for currency speculation by United Kingdom citizens or institutions authorised to operate in foreign exchange markets took place during the last four years. The Minister of State at the Treasury chose to answer my Question which he coupled with a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). My hon. Friend asked a much more generalised Question. The hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was: I regret this information is not readily available and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 345–6.] On 5th December, I was able to ask a Question identical in every respect except that I altered the period to the last 10 and four years. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of public funds of ascertaining the number of successful prosecutions of currency speculation by United Kingdom citizens on institutions authorised to operate in foreign exchange markets during the last 10 and four years … To that Question I received, as one would expect, a prompt and courteous Answer from the Financial Secretary, who said: No authorised dealers have ever been prosecuted under the Exchange Control Act in connection with operations in foreign currencies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 551.] In other words, the reply by the Minister of State that the answer was not available and would cost a disproportionate amount of money to obtain was dropped only three days later when another Minister answered the same Question. If I had not been persistent, a serious slur would have remained upon a comparatively limited number of institutions and citizens.

The question on which I seek help is simply this: if, at their own discretion, Ministers group Questions about different aspects of a subject, there is no protection for back benchers who want to probe. Any Minister can do this at any time by grouping Questions in such a way as to enable him to give an evasive reply. If you cannot help me today, Sir, may I request that you look into the question of Ministers lumping Questions together?

Mr. Taverne

rose —

Mr. Speaker

I think that I had better rule on that point of order.

I think that it would be regrettable if hon. Members frequently raised as points of order their dissatisfaction with Answers given by Ministers. I see, however, some substance in what the hon. Member is complaining about. One Minister told the hon. Member that it would be difficult to obtain the information while another Minister apparently said that he was able to provide it. Nevertheless, this inconsistency between Ministers is not a unique feature of this or any other Government. The dissatisfaction which hon. Members feel at Answers given by Ministers of any Government is something which runs right through history.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne)

Further to that point of order. Since the hon. Member's Question to me on Monday was a wide one, referring to citizens and institutions in general, and was correctly and reasonably answered, and since it was only subsequently, as a result of further Questions asked, including a different one, that it became clear that the hon. Member had in mind a much narrower point than that covered by his previous Question, and since both my Answer and that of my hon. Friend, which was not to the actual Question, but to a part of it only, were reasonable and not inconsistent, would it not be proper for the hon. Member to withdraw his allegations, which are totally unjustified?

Mr. Speaker

Order. What has just taken place is a complete justification of what I have said, namely, that it would be regrettable if we tried often to pursue by points of order hon. Members' dis- satisfaction with the speeches of other hon. Members or the replies of Ministers to Questions.

Mr. Maudling

Is not there a further point here, Mr. Speaker? In the case of an Oral Question, objection may be taken to the grouping of Questions which could lead to misunderstanding, but in the case of a Written Question objection cannot be taken, and, therefore, misunderstanding may arise.

Mr. Speaker

There is some substance in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It probably would be a better practice—indeed, it is the almost universal practice—not to group Written Questions. If there is a grouping of Oral Questions hon. Members have an opportunity of reacting in the proper way.

Several Hon. Members

rose —

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have pursued this matter for quite a time.

Sir F. Bennett

rose —

Mr. Speaker

Sir Frederic Bennett.

Sir F. Bennett

I was called upon to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, otherwise I should not have troubled to rise. I will not withdraw. Let hon. Members read the two OFFICIAL REPORTS for themselves.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the House was aware that the hon. Member was not prepared to withdraw.