Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Prime Ministerial Responsibility—Confidence in Ministers with Party Roles 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Prime Ministerial Responsibility—Confidence in Ministers with Party Roles 
[Volume:667;Page:14191] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I indicated that I would give further consideration to the acceptability of questions to the Prime Minister concerning confidence in Ministers where those questions had a party connection. The Leader of the Opposition’s primary question asked the Prime Minister whether one of his Ministers had shown good judgment and had his support to which the Prime Minister replied “Yes.” A supplementary question put a particular circumstance involving the Minister to the Prime Minister and asked how that was good judgment. The circumstances related to the actions of the Minister. It had a party connection but the Speaker does not rule a question out of order simply because it has a party connection. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 147/1. 
The supplementary question did not ask the Prime Minister to take responsibility for a party matter. It did not ask for party information or seek a party opinion. In effect it asked for the Prime Minister’s opinion of a judgment made by a Minister a matter that may be relevant to the Prime Minister’s confidence in a particular Minister. Had the supplementary question been a primary question it may well have required authentication. But in the House the Speaker must make an instantaneous judgment. There is no time for analysis. Where there is doubt the practice of Speakers is to allow the question rather than taking the initiative in ruling it out. Having considered it further I stand by my judgment to allow that supplementary question. 
That said where a question does contain a party connection it will undoubtedly have implications for the reply. A Minister is under no obligation to address the party connection part of a question in his or her reply. The Prime Minister gave a reply to the supplementary question. Clearly it did not satisfy the member who asked the question and I myself had some concerns. I have reflected on that situation. The question in effect asked for an opinion and it contained a party connection. In such circumstances the Speaker cannot judge the adequacy of the reply. It is up to the member to clarify the reply through further supplementary questions. 
The basic rule in respect of questions to Ministers is set out in Standing Order 369. Questions must relate to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. In practice a wide view is taken of the concept of ministerial responsibility. The scope for questioning Ministers and in particular the Prime Minister is broader than simply the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. In the same way that Ministers may be asked about the general conduct of their departments the Prime Minister can be asked about the conduct of his Ministers. Although the Prime Minister is not answerable for statements or actions taken purely in a non-ministerial capacity such as those taken as a party leader or in a personal capacity the Prime Minister can be asked about how such actions or statements may or may not affect his view of a Minister’s judgment and his confidence in a Minister.