HC Deb 22 February 1977 vol 926 cc1223-6
Mr. Allaun

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will not regard me as one of the more contumacious members of your flock in the raising of points of order, but I put down to the Secretary of State for Defence some weeks ago a Question asking: … if he will consider switching some or all of the 300 employed by the Defence Sales Organisation from promoting the export of arms to promoting the export of non-military engineering and other products; and if he will make a statement. On 13th January, I received the following reply from the Minister of State: The promotion of non-military engineering exports … is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade."—[Official Report, 13th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 561] Therefore, although the Defence Sales Organisation is within the Ministry of Defence, I tabled the same Question to the Secretary of State for Trade. To my astonishment, the Question was transferred back to Defence and I received a reply from the Minister of State saying: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13th January."—[Official Report, 16th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 276.] In other words, having been told that the matter was the concern not of Defence but of Trade, I found that the Question had been put back to the Secretary of State for Defence. That means that neither Minister will reply.

As an ordinary layman inexperienced in this bureaucratic buck-passing, I regard that as a glorious example of nonsensical governmental obscurantism and refusal to answer. "Catch 22" had nothing on this. The practice is making a mockery of parliamentary democracy.

That is not the end of the story, Mr. Speaker, because you arc involved. I thought that you were about to interrupt me to say that this was none of your business. However, last week I went to the Table Office to put down the same Question again, this time for the third time, to the Secretary of State for Defence, but I was told, "You cannot table this Question since it has already been answered." It would be more accurate to say that it had already been non-answered. You are responsible, Mr. Speaker, for the Table Office.

This malpractice could spread to other Questions in future, unless it is stopped. It could provide a means for Ministers to evade awkward Questions. One of the purposes of Parliament is to provide Back Benchers with the opportunity to ask awkward Questions of the Government of the day. Thus, as the upholder of the right, Mr. Speaker, you are involved, and I ask you to intervene by allowing me to put down this Question once again and requesting that one of the two Ministers involved should give me a proper answer.

Mr. Ashley

Further to the point of order. There is a further way in which Ministers are dodging Questions—not quite in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has so articulately described. When hon. Members put down a large number of Questions which are accepted by the Table Office and by the responsible Minister, the Questions are then evaded by the giving of monosyllabic answers, thereby evading Questions just as effectively as the practice of which my hon. Friend has complained. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can solve the paradox that you are not responsible for the answers of Ministers but, on the other hand, that you defend the rights of Back Benchers to have replies from Ministers, who are now beginning on a large scale to evade Questions?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has raised two questions. In reply to the first, I must refer him to the answer that I gave to the House on a similar point of order about rearrangement of Questions on the Order Paper. If Ministers seek to transfer Questions, that is not my responsibility. However, I must tell the House and Ministers that if I were in the hon. Member's position I would be raising this matter as well. But I have no authority to direct any Minister about the transfer, or indeed the content, of his reply. That would put an unbearable burden on the Chair and one that the House itself would never accept.

Mr. Allaun

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to pursue this, but I maintain that your Office should be ready to accept the Question and it is your Office which has now refused me leave to put it down again.

Mr. Speaker

I shall gladly look at that, but, as all hon. Members who have been in the House any time know, there is a long understanding that if a Question has been answered—

Mr. Allaun

It has not.

Mr. Speaker

—however unsatisfactorily, it cannot go down again. However, I will look at the matter to see what can be done.