QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (Hansard, 17 July 1978)

§ Mr. Canavan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could advise me and other Back Benchers how we may table substantive Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy without running the risks of those Questions being transferred. I am sure that you appreciate the difficulty, that the Chancellor of the Duchy is in a unique position as a Cabinet Minister. He has a wide-ranging and strange variety of duties and if we put down a Question to him, for example, on small businesses, it may be liable to be transferred to the Department of Industry. If we put down a Question about employment, it may be transferred to the Secretary of State for Employment. The Chancellor himself comes here only once in five weeks and only for 10 minutes. How on earth can Back Benchers demand accountability of a Minister with such a wide range of duties?

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You allowed a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr Gow) on Question No. 58, which is clearly a similar contrivance. Those living in the Duchy could presumably talk to my right hon. Friend about almost anything. What is the distinction between that Question and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)?

§ Mr. Speaker
There is a very clear distinction, if the hon. Member will read his Order Paper. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked a Question about money supply, to which there is a reference on the Order Paper.
With regard to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), I want to remind the House that a year ago almost to the day I first said that I would limit supplementaries on what are called shot-in-the-dark Questions to departmental Ministers. At the beginning of March this year, I told the House that there was no prescriptive right to be called to ask a supplementary question and that I might well exercise my discretion in such cases. Finally, in mid-April this year I stated plainly that I did not propose to call anyone to ask a supplementary question on a shot-in-the-dark Question of a departmental Minister until the House should instruct me otherwise.
I am sorry that the hon. Member should be the first to be caught by the ruling, but I am perfectly clear that, in not calling supplementary questions on these shot-in-the-dark Questions addressed to departmental Ministers, I am protecting the ancient and eminently sensible custom of the House at Question Time. Ministers cannot transfer Questions directly related to their departmental work, and five hon. Members succeeded in getting Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy this afternoon. All hon. Members, Back Benchers and Ministers alike, have a right to be given notice of the real Question an hon. Member seeks to ask.

§ Mr. David Price
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you apply that, if I may say so, eminently sensible ruling to Prime Minister's Questions, which have now got completely out of hand?

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that perhaps you should have a fresh look at this, since, first the Prime Minister does not have a Department as such and therefore we have to table Questions of this kind. Secondly, where there is a proper departmental role, you are justified, in my view, in saying that there are sufficient areas in which Questions can be tabled.
However, on this one, we are in some difficulty because the Chancellor of the 29 Duchy has a Department yet seemingly has none. There are many occasions when he is in and out of all other kinds of Departments. One could name at least five or six Departments in which my right hon. Friend has to some extent been involved, or seemingly failed to be involved, since he has had this job. I was always told that the Chancellor of the Duchy was a Minister without portfolio. It therefore seems occasionally necessary to put down Questions of a general kind such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) tabled today.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If any hon. Member has difficulty in seeking to hold me to account for any of my actions in government and finds difficulty with the Table in framing the appropriate Question, I shall readily give him all the assistance in my power. I do not doubt that I should be more successful than one or two of my hon. Friends have been.

§ Mr. John Ellis
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Irrespective of this question, I think that this is a momentous occasion in the House of Commons. It appears to me that you are saying that you will call supplementaries on shot-in-the-dark Questions to the Prime Minister but not on those to departmental Ministers. On extraordinary occasions, hon. Members need to raise matters of political importance—as they do during business questions. While it may not be exceptional in the present case for the House to accept your ruling, and the reasons for it, I ask you to consider that on occasions hon. Members on both sides might have to resort to the expedient of shot-in-the-dark Questions to a departmental Minister I would therefore ask you to reconsider your judgment not only because of how it has arisen at this time but also because, if you are to establish a method of dealing with these Questions today, there may be times when the House cannot achieve what it wants in future.

§ Mr. Ridley
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), it seems anomalous that we can ask the Prime Minister virtually only shot-in-the-dark Questions. Do you not think that it is remarkable, Mr. 30 Speaker, despite that, how often we manage to hit him?

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree with the interpretation that you are seeking to impose, but that is of course your right. However, for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, will you tell us tomorrow precisely what you mean by shot in the dark? It appears to me, that the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne is itself a clever device and not a Question which could arguably be addressed to my right hon. Friend. Almost any topic could be raised under the formulation used by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I genuinely want to discover what the Minister has been doing today, what Question do I put down?

§ Mr. Buchan
On a point of order. I am glad of this opportunity to raise a point about the happenings on Friday—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Shall I deal with this point of order first and the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards?

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to the present point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you clarify your ruling in one respect? The Prime Minister is paid as the senior Treasury Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury. Could you therefore draw to his attention your interdiction on transferring Questions put down to a departmental Minister, because the Prime Minister transfers Questions put to him on Treasury matters as head of that Department? He is also in the habit of transferring Questions put to him as departmental Minister in charge of the Civil Service Department. Could your ruling therefore be applied to the Prime Minister as well—that he should not transfer Questions put to him as the departmental Minister for the two Departments of State for which he draws a salary?

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps this is an opportune moment for me to remind the House that when the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made his maiden speech, I had the great honour to be called immediately after him and that I expressed the hope that I should hear 31 him often again. Not every one of my wishes has been fulfilled so adequately.
With regard to this point of order, if right hon. and hon. Members will do me the favour of looking at the statement which I made in April, when there was a crowded House, they will find that I made a distinction in respect of Prime Minister's Questions, because the Prime Minister is able to transfer Questions in a way that other Ministers are not.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said because I realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in a slightly different position. But the fact that every time that we come to his Questions there are Questions that he has to answer without their being open Questions indicates that we have not yet reached a position where hon. Members will not be able to question the Minister concerned.
May I leave the House with this thought? If the House wishes to change the character of Question Time—and it could be changed overnight, as Prime Minister's Questions were, and we could have a page of what I call shot-in-the-dark Questions asking the Minister his engagements for the day—the House should do that only after a conscious decision and not by accident. That is my opinion, and I take very seriously my duty to guard as best I can Question Time and the privileges of the House.