Parliament
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1944.tb00977.x |
| Date | 01 July 1944 |
| Published date | 01 July 1944 |
144
MODERN LAW REVIEW
July,
1944’
PARLIAMENT
Ministerial Statements
and
Explanatiom
There has been some controversy over the proper method of placing
ministerial policy before the House. In the past various methods of doing
this
have been used. Where
it
has been thought necessary to set out
policy in some detail
it
has become usual in recent years to issue a White
Paper, as in the case of the Government’s proposals for educational
legislation. Time
is
afterwards provided for
a
debate. This method has
the advantage of giving members a good opportunity to master the points
involved, and to prepare themselves for debate.
It
also provides
a
convenient means of placing the Government’s policy before the public.
To move the adjournment of the House, which
is
an alternative method
often used,
is
less satisfactory as the consequent debate
is
less likely to
produce considered views, and is also apt to be limited by considerations
of time.
It
could satisfactorily be used where the point involved
is
fairly
clear cut, and the immediate reaction
is
all that is required.
A
third method which has the sanction of long precedent
is
for the
ministerial statement to be made
at
the end of questions, but
it
has of
late met with some criticism. The objection to it was well put by Mr.
Arthur Greenwood on 8th March,
1944,
in the House of Commons (Official
Reports for that date, col.
2058),
when he said: “There is growing up
a
very strong feeling against
a
large number of ministerial statements being
made
at
the end of Questions, not merely because such statements
waste
an amount of debating time, but because the House
is
not in
a
position.
under its Rules, to debate the statement which has been made.”
The occasion for
this
remark was the proposal of the Minister of Health
(Mr.
Willink)
to
make such
a
statement on the Government’s housing
policy for the immediate post-war period. This was objected to by Mr.
Aneurin Bevan and other members, who took the view that this third
method should only be used for “statements which it
is
in the public interest
to hear at the earliest possible moment”
(ibid.,
col.
2054),
which they con-
tended that post-war housing policy was not. The Speaker ruled, however,
that
“a
Minister may,
at
any time, make
a
statement”
(zbid.).
He also
pointed out that after such a statement the House could always insist
on
a
debate
if
it
wanted. To which Lord Winterton replied that the
previous Speaker had always on such occasions refused to accept
a
motion
for the closure on the ground that
it
was iiot
a
matter of
I‘
definite and urgent
public importance” (col.
2056).
Mr. Maxton also took the point that in the
absence
of
debate the Press might form an erroneous impression of the
temper of the House and in this way considerable damage might be done
in the country
(ibid.,
col.
2055).
A
fourth method which
is
often used
is
for an arranged question to be
asked. This may lead to something in the nature of
a
debate in the form
of supplementaries, though that
is
not a desirable procedure. This method
does not seem to have any very obvious advantage over that last men-
tioned, which can also be turned into something resembling a debate by
a
fire of questions as occurred in the present instance.
Ministerial
Consultations
with
Outside
Bodies
When the Minister of Health came to make his statement about
post-war housing which gave rise to the discussion commented upon
To continue reading
Request your trial