QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER (Hansard, 5 May 1970)

§ Mr. Tom Boardman
On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the increasing practice of Questions put down for Oral Answer by the Prime Minister being transferred to other Ministers?
At the beginning of last week I tabled for Oral Answer today to the Prime Minister a Question asking whether 200 he will initiate an inquiry into the cause of the decline in the rate of house-building? Yesterday, I received notification that this Question had been transferred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Erskine May, on gage 350, on the matter of transfer of Questions, says: A question should be addressed to the Minister who is primarily responsible "—

Mr. Boardman
Wait for it: and misdirected questions are transferred by the clerks at the table on the notification of the departments concerned. The issue here is who has primary responsibility for inquiring into the decline in the rate of house-building. I suggest that it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Housing to take that responsibility. This is an issue on which the Prime Minister, on many occasions, has accepted personal responsibility. I need say no more than perhaps quote from his well-known speech, in which he assumed that responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] He said, when he pledged that Labour would build 500,000 houses—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not wander from his point of order to a point of political argument.

§ Mr. Boardman
I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, but, according to Erskine May, the question is one of primary responsibility. This responsibility rests on the Prime Minister and I am entitled to pray in aid the words from his own speech so that there can be no doubt about that acceptance. I hope that you will bear with me if I quote the relevant passage— [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The Prime Minister, referring to his pledge of 500,000 houses, said: This is not a lightly given promise. It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target and we shall not allow any developments, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim. In subsequent debates, when the Prime Minister has been challenged on this subject, he has prayed in aid devaluation. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] That could not be the primary responsibility of the present Minister of Housing. I would suggest, therefore, that the Question was not misdirected to the Prime Minister. Since there is a conflict in what the effects of devaluation may be, 201 I would say that immediately after that the Prime Minister, in a broadcast, referred to the priority programme—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting from his point of order. He must not make a political speech.

§ Mr. Boardman
I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, and I abide by your Ruling. But so that I can establish the primary responsibility for inquiring into the rate of house-building, and the fact that the Prime Minister is shedding responsibility by transferring his Questions, I believe it right to seek to put forward those occasions on which, in various ways, he has accepted that personal responsibility. If it be that having failed in his pledge he seeks to shift the responsibility on to the Minister of Housing—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is again drifting into a political speech.

§ Mr. Boardman
I must, of course, again accept your Ruling, but I think that my point is made.
If the Prime Minister, by transferring this Question, denies primary responsibility for the declining rate of house-building, I must accept that. But let him say so. I feel that this was a Question tabled to him for Oral Answer which he should have answered and not transferred to another Minister.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am seized of the point of order which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has made. It is not unknown for an hon. Member to be dissatisfied with the transfer of a Question from one Minister to another. But I must rule against the hon. Gentleman. This is a repetition of a Ruling that the Chair has given many times this century. It has been ruled on numerous occasions by my predecessors, as well as by me, that the transfer of Questions from one Minister to another is not a matter for the Chair.
According to page 349 of Erskine May, my responsibility in regard to Questions … is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House. The basic rule is that there must be some degree of Ministerial responsibility for 202 the substance of a Question. But, once a Question has been accepted, the Ministers have the right to decide which one of them can most appropriately answer it.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to reflect on whether we have heard a speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West i Mr. Tom Boardman) in favour of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, or a long harangue of parliamentary cheating?

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his opinion.

§ Mr. Kenneth Baker
Further to that point of order. This is a serious matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
It is a serious matter, and it is a serious matter on which the Chair has ruled. Mr. Speaker has ruled categorically that the transfer of Questions by Ministers is not in any way a matter for the Chair or a matter for order. It is a matter for the Ministers themselves.

§ Mr. Kenneth Baker
My point is this, Sir. Back-bench hon. Members are having increasing difficulty in pinning anything on the Prime Minister [Laughter.] The Prime Minister is responsible for the overall conduct of his Government, I think. But it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in the first part of his point of order. But the issue that he is raising now is identical with the one on which I have ruled. The transfer of Questions is a matter for the Ministers. It is not a matter of order, or a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Snow
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With no disrespect to you, should not we be discussing Cambodia?

§ Mr. Speaker
I had an idea that that was in the minds of most right hon. and hon. Members.

§ Sir W. Bromley-Davenport
On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker. We on these benches—and I speak for all on these benches—have found ourselves in a quandary this afternoon. Some time ago. my hon. Friend the Member for 203 Banbury (Mr. Marten) put down Question Ql. on the Order Paper—[Interruption.] Has that sunk into the oafs opposite? I worked out, as we all do on these occasions, a "humdinger" of a supplementary. Earlier this afternoon, I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to let me get in my "humdinger" before he got his in, because he had one which was much bigger than mine.
This is my point of procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked his Question. In a blast of halitosis, the Prime Minister gave a short answer. My hon. Friend then asked a supplementary, which received another short answer. Then one of the uglier Members on the back benches opposite asked a supplementary, and the Prime Minister proceeded to give a long, flannelling answer.
What are we to do in those circumstances?—[Interruption.] This is procedure—[Interruption.] Ugly brutes! My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to put a supplementary, as I did. My right hon. Friend wanted to give me the opening ball. However, Mr. Speaker, you did not call me, and, as a result, you did not call my right hon. Friend.
My suggestion is that, in order not to do my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench out of their supplementaries, they should raise one or two fingers as the case may be to indicate that they wish to ask supplementary questions. I do not mind being done out of mine. I am always done out of mine. But I think that any one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench ought to have a chance.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Again, I remind the House that we have one of the gravest debates ahead of us. All that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) has done is call attention to the fact that, from time to time, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides do not get called for supplementaries which they think are most important and which the hon. and gallant gentleman thinks are "humdingers". That has happened throughout history.