Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. It is whether it is possible for you or for the House to take any action to prevent Ministers transferring Questions to other Ministers in cases where the Minister to whom the Question was first addressed is obviously a responsible Minister who should reply to the House.

I base my request to you on an incident that occurred today. I wish to refer you to Question No. 83, which I addressed to the Chancellor of the exchequer. He has transferred it in the meanwhile to the Paymaster-General. I originally asked the Chancellor: what inquiries he made as to whether the building of the new strip mill at Colvilles had received the approval of the Iron and Steel Board before he authorised the loan to the company of £50 million for this purpose. I submit that the Chancellor should answer that Question, for two reasons. First, he is the Minister who was responsible for authorising the loan and he could make, and he should have made, inquiries to see whether the duties of the statutory body set up for this very purpose had, in fact, been carried out by that body.

The importance of the matter arises from the fact that, according to the Economist of 14th February, Sir Andrew McCance, who is the Chairman of Colvilles, denied that the matter had ever been before the Iron and Steel Board. According to the Economist, Sir Andrew McCance said: He made one interesting disclosure: that the project has not yet been submitted to the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Iron and Steel Board for their 'consideration and approval'. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who granted the loan, should have inquired whether the Board had, in fact, investigated the matter and given its consent, as, indeed, it must according to the Act of Parliament. Moreover, there is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have stated that he had made inquiries from the Minister of Power, or that he had made inquiries direct from the Board, or that he had made no inquiries at all. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that on this, as on many other occasions, the Minister responsible should be expected to reply and not to pass the Question over to another Minister who has a minor responsibility in the matter.

I must repeat what I have frequently said in the past, that I have no control over this matter. The question of Ministerial responsibility is one for Ministers themselves. I suppose that, in theory, all Ministerial actions are actions of the Government as a whole. The question of responsibility is Departmental in that sense, namely, that they are Departments of the Government and which Minister is judged by Ministers to be the proper one to answer a Question is certainly not a matter for me. The only advice I can give to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is to wait and see what answer he gets from the Paymaster-General. It may 'be that that will resolve the point which is troubling him. If it does not, no doubt he can seek another opportunity of returning to the matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the exchequer—

On a point of order—

I am already dealing with a point of order.

You indicated it was not a point of order, Sir.

The right hon. Gentleman used the introductory words. "Further to that point of order".

Further to what was not a point of order?

Further to that point of order. I appreciate your difficulty in the matter, Mr. Speaker, but it is a fact that the Chancellor today answered a detailed Question about the amount of steel required this year. That was Question No. 7.

May I point out the difficulties in which Members of the Opposition are placed in a case such as this where the Paymaster-General does not come before the House for questioning until after Easter? It is so important, so that we can find out the truth of the matter, to cross-examine the Ministers concerned and find out exactly where the truth lies. By the action which has been taken I am unable to do it.

I repeat what I have said before, namely, that a Written Answer will no doubt reach the right hon. Member in the course of this afternoon. It may resolve his doubts. It may not. I can only advise him, if it does not, to use some other proper means of dealing with it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there is or is not a distinction to be drawn between two different kinds of Ministerial responsibility? Normally, in Questions on the Order Paper the responsibility of a particular Minister is a matter of convenience in the Government itself as between one Minister and another. Nobody has ever objected, when a Question has been put down to one Minister, to that Minister handing it over to someone whose Departmental responsibility may be more apposite. There is another kind of Ministerial responsibility, is there not, where, by Statute, the responsibility in a particular matter is squarely placed on the shoulders of a particular Minister? Where that kind of responsibility is involved, is it proper that it should be shuffled on to some other Minister?

Mr, Speaker:

Normally, if a Statute places a responsibility upon a Minister it would be his duty to answer, but it is very difficult to make general Rulings upon these subjects until one has the actual facts before one. I do not know what answer the right hon. Gentleman will receive from the Paymaster-General. I am not without hope that it will dissipate his doubts and answer his Question satisfactorily.