HC Deb 07 March 1978 vol 945 cc1228-30
Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the statement that you made about the putting down of Questions to departmental Ministers, such as "if he will list his official engagements".

I am certain that you did not want to mislead the House. You should leave that to the rest of us, because we can usually do that much better than you. You said that this practice should not be condoned or encouraged because departmental Ministers do not in fact transfer Questions. At least, that is the drift that I got.

I have news for you, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago I put down a Question, No. 8, to the Department of Employment. It was a very important Question regarding the necessity, or lack of necessity, for miners having to go to employment offices to sign on when they are ostensibly retired early. After getting to the important position of No. 8, I found subsequently, last Tuesday, that it was on the agenda of the Department of Social Services, the result being, of course, that it is now No. 46 or something like that.

I have a novel suggestion for both of us, Mr. Speaker. On the basis that you were to some extent wrong regarding the guidance you had been given and the fact that the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There was just a little shade of difference. As the Secretary of State for Social Services is here and as the Question is extremely important to many thousands of miners, will you encourage the Secretary of State to stand up and give me the answer that he should have given me in any case?

Mr. Speaker

I should tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers transfer Questions when they consider that they are not for their Departments. The point that I was making to the House was that if a Question was directed to a Minister's Department, by long and ancient custom that Minister was expected to answer it.

Mr. Adley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you were trying to help the House when you made your statement on my Question. But surely an open-ended Question of that nature helps hon. Members to raise current issues which may not be known about two weeks beforehand.

In addition, I should like to illustrate the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with another specific example of the transferring of Questions. I have tried to question the Department of Transport about British Rail's attitude to development land tax, but that is out of order because that Department is not responsible for taxation. I am equally unable to question the Treasury about British Rail's attitude, because it is not responsible for British Rail. Therefore, there are occasions when hon. Members have to resort to this tactic to raise a particular issue.

Mr. Speaker

I must stand firm by what I said to the House this afternoon. If the House wishes to change a custom that has endured for many years and to change the whole character of Question Time, the House must consciously take a decision to do so.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I may raise the question of hospital waiting lists which arose on Question No. 11. I invited the Secretary of State to recognise that, in an earlier Answer at the end of last year, he had misled the House about the expenditure of £9½ million for the National Health Service to reduce waiting lists. The Secretary of State denied that he had misled the House. On 22nd November last year he said: The amount of money available to assist the Health Service has also increased. The health authorities are spending £9½ million this year."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1291.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should make a point of order that I can answer rather than score a point.

Mr. Jenkin

I wish to establish that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were misled and that, indeed, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in another place was misled. In those circumstances, is it not open to you, Mr. Speaker, to invite the right hon. Gentleman to say that, however inadvertently, he did in fact mislead the House?

Mr. Speaker

The general custom is for a motion to be put down on the Order Paper rather than to seek to raise the matter in this way.

Mr. Ridsdale

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to Question No. 1, the Prime Minister said that there was to be a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade about Japanese cars. Am I to understand that there is to be no such statement?

The Prime Minister

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may clear up that matter quickly. I certainly meant to say that the Secretary of State was to answer a Question on that matter. There is a Written Question on the Order Paper about that issue.