§ Mr. BOOTHI wish to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter 1339 arising out of Motions upon the Paper, and their bearing on Standing Order No. 10, relating to asking for leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. Perhaps you will have noticed that there are two Motions in my name on the Paper relating to a proposed Ministry of Health and to the co-ordination of health matters in dealing with the Insurance Act. I put those down to indicate my desire that these subjects should not occupy the time of the House at present, but I have no desire that they should be a permanent barrier to any group of Members who wish to raise the issues. I wish to ask you whether, if I withdraw those two Motions, you will be able to allow as a matter of urgent public importance an appeal for the Government to bring in legislation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) will remember that last week when this question was raised I then held that the Motion standing in his name acted as a block to the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth (Major Astor), who was anxious to move the Adjournment of the House on the ground that His Majesty's Government had not brought in a Bill dealing with a Ministry of Health. I still think that that was a sound ruling. I did not commit myself on that occasion to the statement or suggestion that if these blocking Motions had been absent, the hon. and gallant Member would have been entitled to ask leave to move the Adjournment on the ground specified.
I have been looking further into the question, and have come to the conclusion that I could not accept a Motion to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the fact that the Government have not produced a particular Bill in which it is possible that a group of forty Members or more might be interested, because, if I were to do so, it would open a door which might be pushed at by any group of forty Members on almost any day in the Session, and if any group of Members desired to raise a particular topic in which they were interested all they would have to do would be to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss that particular topic. I am sure that the Rule was never meant to apply in that way. I may also add that the general principle we have always applied is that on Motions for Adjournment discussions of 1340 legislation or projected legislation are not relevant. Therefore, I should feel bound if the Motion were made again, to hold that it did not come under that Rule.