§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. On Wednesday, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) drew my attention and that of the House to the fact that the meaning of a Question which he had addressed to one Minister had been altered by virtue of its transfer to another Minister without any amendment of its text.
It has long been accepted, and is laid down in Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 322, that
The clerks at the table have full power to sub-edit questions …This power sometimes needs to be used when a Question is transferred; the most obvious example is when the personal pronoun denoting the sex of the Minister requires to be changed. Although the present instance is not quite as clear-cut as this, I am of the opinion that it is of such a nature that the use of the sub-editing power would be entirely appropriate.I understand that the bon. Member's Question is down for answer on a future date, and I accordingly direct that it be amended on the Paper by substituting, for the word "him", the phrase "the Prime Minister ". Although the final decision whether or not to sub-edit in any particular case must remain in the hands of the authorities of the House, it would be of assistance if Government Departments, when instructing the transfer of a Question, could indicate to the Table Office any textual alterations of this nature which they believe ought to be 1772 made in order to preserve the sense of the Question.
Finally, I wish to make it clear beyond all doubt that in giving this Ruling I am not in any way suggesting that the actual transfer of the Question was improper; it is for Ministers, and Ministers alone, to decide which one of them is responsible for the matter to which a Question relates. All that I am concerned with is to ensure that such matter should remain accurately described.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisMay I first express the thanks of myself and, I am sure, the whole House for your kindness and courtesy in dealing with this matter, Mr. Speaker. May I say how much I should like to record my appreciation of all the Clerks in the Table Office, especially the Principal Clerk at the Table, who I see is present, for his personal kindnesses to me.
I am quite happy about this, because I appreciate that obviously one cannot interfere with transference of Questions, which is a Ministerial responsibility. But, as I now take your Ruling, that if the Table is not advised by the Department, and the Department, either accidentally or, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, with malice aforethought, does not advise the Table, I take it that the Member could point out that in the Department trying to switch, if it tries to switch in such a way as to lose the whole import of the Question, your Ruling would mean that we could then go to the Clerk at the Table and point out that the Department had made a slip.
My point is that if I were to ask the Prime Minister whether he would pay a visit to my constituency—God forbid—I would not expect him to transfer that Question to the Solicitor-General, because, with great respect to the Solicitor-General, I do not want the Solicitor-General to visit my constituency. Provided that we have this as an understanding, I should have thought that we could say that we are all very pleased.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member would be quite in order in making the appropriate representations if he thought them necessary.