HC Deb 24 November 1970 vol 807 cc232-5
Mr. Dalyell

May I raise a point of order that concerns the relations of Members of this House and the Treasury? Question No. 77 was originally put down to be answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dealing with the costing techniques inside the Treasury of Indian Ocean bases. The point of order is not to do with whether we are for or against the Indian Ocean bases. The point of order which I seek to bring to the attention of the House is whether the Treasury can resist Questions in this House about design cost techniques. I submit that there is a point of principle here concerning many hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that it is not a point of policy that the hon. Member raises, but a point of order. The hon. Member was kind enough to tell me he would seek to raise this point of order. The simple answer is that Ministers are responsible for the transfer of Questions and that it is nothing to do with the Chair. It is purely a matter for Ministers to transfer Questions to what they regard as the most appropriate Department. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Blenkinsop

On a point of order. May I raise a question with you about how we can ensure with your help that we can get at least a decent proportion of Questions reached at Question Time? Due partly to the funereal process of answering we have only reached Question No. 21 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that we ought somehow to enable a few more Members to take part in Question Time.

Mr. Speaker

The answer is very simple. If the hon. Gentleman reads the evidence given by Mr. Speaker to the Procedure Committee he will see the answer. If Questions are concise, if answers are concise, more hon. Members will have an opportunity of putting Questions, and my experience is that the brief question is often better than the very long one.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

As my Question No. 27 was not reached, I will get a Written Answer. May I give notice now that if that Answer is no better than the answer to previous questions on the subject I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's notice is an act of supererogation.

Mr. Atkinson

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the Prime Minister today answered Question No. 4 relating to a speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In other words, he accepted responsibility for a speech made outside the House on a matter of Government policy. There are other Ministers making speeches outside this House dealing with major aspects of policy, yet when we attempt to put down Questions at the Table Office we are told that the Prime Minister has suggested that Questions about Ministers making statements outside the House on policy should not be accepted if those Ministers are under the control of a senior Minister with the new grouping system. When we attempt to put Questions to the senior Minister they say that they are not answerable for speeches made outside the House by their juniors if those speeches dealt with questions for which they are not responsiblie to the Prime Minister. When we then go to the Prime Minister and attempt to put questions to him I understand that he has issued instructions that none of these Questions be allowed to be tabled.

Is this not against the practice of the House and should there not be some sort of inquiry now that we have this new overlord system, which means that there are 11 Members of the Government who are being protected from questioning in the House by the new rules which, I understand, have been issued by the Prime Minister? Can you give us a ruling?

Mr. Speaker

The Ruling is quite simple. If the hon. Gentleman turns to page 351 of Erskine May, second paragraph, he will see: The Prime Minister may be asked whether statements made in the country by Ministers of Cabinet rank on public occasions represent the policy of the Government, but questions about statements made by other Ministers in the country are not in order. What the impact of the new structure of the Government is on this particular Ruling of Erskine May I would not know offhand. There may be Members of the Cabinet who are not members of the supersstructure of the Government, but the Ruling is quite simple.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Obviously no one wants to put you in a difficult position, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Government would wish to consider this again. It seems to me to be a change in practice. Surely it was made without the House being informed? Certainly it was the case under the former Government that speeches made by Ministers of so-called Cabinet rank—even that phrase is not a statutory one—outside the Cabinet could be the subject of questions to the Prime Minister in the House. Invariably when I took Questions on them I said that they were or were not the policy of Her Majesty's Government—

An Hon. Member

You never answered them.

Mr. Wilson

I answered every one of them, with one exception, with the words "Yes, Sir". Certainly that was unlike the evasive attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to help the right hon. Member. Would he not agree, through the Leader of the House, to get into discussion with hon. Members in all parts of the House about this? If I am right, in his White Paper he made clear that the Ministers referred to by my hon. Friend were to be regarded as Ministers of Cabinet rank. Within the Erskine May Ruling, therefore, it would appear that he should accept responsibility for saying "Yes, Sir" or "No, Sir" to Questions put to him. Surely this could be discussed between the Front Benches and Mr. Speaker could be protected from the kind of difficulties which have arisen.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

Further to that point of order. There has been no change of practice. I accept at once that the new departure, as I said to the House at the time, will require consideration. This it will be given, and I am pleased to respond to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we will certainly consider the implications of the new Departments and the implications for the Ministers of Cabinet rank in those Departments. There is no change in practice at all under present circumstances. I will look into the future.

Mr. Wilson

Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will confirm that Ministers of Cabinet rank not in the Cabinet will in future, as in the past, be subject to the kind of Questions which apparently are currently being refused?

Mr. Whitelaw

I have already responded to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that I would like to discuss the whole position of the new Departments. I should stick to that and say that what I promise to discuss I will discuss.