HC Deb 24 February 1949 vol 461 cc2030-40
Mr. Osborne

With great diffidence and respect to you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if you can state as a matter of general guidance to the House, the reason why I was not permitted to raise the question of the financial aspects of the potato situation on the Adjournment last night?

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. Member for asking the question. I think I can make things perfectly plain. The House will remember that recently we had a Debate on the Adjournment with no Minister present and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) took part. At the end of it, I said that I protested and that this was against the tradition of the House, as there was no Minister present to answer the Debate. We are not merely a talking shop; we are here to make charges and to answer them. I was sorry, because the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) did get second place for the Adjournment last night and it so happened, I understand, that urgent inquiries were made and a Minister could not be present. Therefore, I indicated to the hon. Member that I thought it would be wrong—and I think he agreed with me—to raise the matter when there could be no answer given by the Government and therefore, quite willingly I think, he withdrew his Adjournment.

It is perfectly clear that when a Member wins a place in the Ballot and has the Adjournment, when due notice is given, the Minister is bound to be present; but if by chance the House looks like rising early on one afternoon, Ministers have their responsibilities as well as other hon. Members. They may have engagements outside, and it really must be taken into consideration that all Ministers cannot wait here on the chance that the Adjournment might come. That must be taken into consideration also. I think second and third Adjournment Debates ought to be dependent on the availability of the Minister, and I have no doubt that on the whole, Ministers would be willing to come and answer if they could. That seems to place the position clearly.

Mr. Osborne

May I put it this way? There were two Ministers concerned, and in this case I was fortunate enough to find that one was in the House. Is not the rule that the Minister's first responsibility is to this House, to be in the House, and are we not entitled to expect Ministers to put off outside engagements?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that ever came into the original arrangement when the Lord President of the Council, the Leader of the House, gave this extra half-hour.

Captain Crookshank

With the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a very novel Ruling you are giving. It has been a prerogative of hon. Members, should time be available on any night, to raise on the Adjournment any subject. The fact that the Debate may be rather less useful in the absence of a Minister is quite another matter. The right of Private Members and of all Members is surely quite distinct, that they can raise a matter. As far as that goes, even if the responsible Minister is not present, there is the doctrine of collective responsibility and in the past, Whips have taken notes and have even taken part in Adjournment Debates. In my own recollection there have been occasions on which at the beginning of even a main Debate there has been a considerable time when the responsible Minister was not present. I put it to you Sir, with all due respect that, unless the House gives a decision that this should be practised in future, perhaps you are going a little far in giving this Ruling.

Mr. Speaker

I did not give a very definite Ruling. I said I thought it was a mistake. I think the hon. Member for Louth will say that I advised him that I thought it was wrong to initiate a Debate to which the Minister concerned could not answer. I hold the view quite strongly that if there is to be a Debate it is much better to have the Minister present to answer. It is perfectly true that I have no right to stop it, but, of course, I have the right to choose who will catch my eye and I might not choose the hon. Member wishing to raise an Adjournment Debate when I knew the Minister would not be here.

Captain Crookshank

With all due respect, how was it that another Debate took place? Was that because it was found the Minister could be present? It was not as though the House rose after the first discussion. The hon. Member for Louth was to have spoken on the second Adjournment Debate and there was a second Adjournment Debate on another subject, in spite of the fact that he was not able to take part.

Mr. Speaker

Yes, there was another Adjournment Debate and the Minister concerned was present to take part in it.

Mr. H. Morrison

I should like to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food would be the last person to be discourteous to the House. In fact, in answering Adjournment Debates, Prayers and so on she has been a most hardworking Minister. On this new practice of the Ballot where a matter is fixed in advance, it is the practice for Ministers to be prepared, but I think there has been a slight tendency lately for some hon. Members to get these Adjournments rather quickly, without notice. There are two points to consider in respect of Ministers, of whom, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman is not complaining. First, their convenience has to be taken into account although, of course, their first duty is to the House. Secondly, they have to be prepared for these things and they have to be contacted. We say that, without notice, it is not good business. I may say finally, with respect, that although it is competent for the House to talk in the absence of a Minister, it is not altogther right or dignified, and I do not think it is fair in those circumstances that one side of the case should be heard and not the other. There is a tendency now and again for these Adjournments to come on the spur of the moment, which does not seem to me to be good Parliamentary business.

Mr. Clement Davies

While one appreciates that it is right that the convenience of Ministers should be consulted at all times, and that it is desirable that an answer should be forthcoming to any Question raised by an hon. Member of this House, surely, Mr. Speaker, you are not ruling that, this being a deliberative assembly, an hon. Member who should happen to catch your eye is not entitled then to call the attention of the House to what is uppermost in his mind and what he desires to bring before the House? If I may explain it a little further, surely if there is no Minister present, there is a collective responsibility upon Ministers that somebody should be here to draw the attention of the Government to matters that have been raised? One final thing: while Ministers are sitting on that Front Bench they are not here as mere Ministers, but as Members of this House taking part in the deliberations of this House, and surely there should be no Ruling—

Mr. Speaker

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misconceiving the situation a little. I think that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will confirm what was a private conversation between myself and him. I did not say, "You shall not have it." I suggested to him that I thought it would be a bad thing. I think he agreed with my view. It is right, if hon. Members so wish, that they shall raise matters, but I repeated that I thought it was a mistake, because the Minister could not be here, and that is the view which I hold quite distinctly and determinedly. I think that there ought to be a reply if there is a question. I do not think it was in the form of an order by me that he might not raise the matter; it was a recommendation by me. I thought it would be a mistake, and I stick to that opinion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

While, of course, the practice of the House has changed a little in this Parliament—when so many people have wanted to have an Adjournment, so many more than used to be the case—I take it, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling does make it clear now that, ultimately, the question of whether an hon. Member, who is discontented and desires to speak on the Adjournment, should do so without the Minister, or should wait until the Minister is available, must in the last resort be for the discretion of that hon. Member and not for the House.

Mr. Speaker

It is a matter of who will catch my eye, and that is a consideration for myself.

Mr. Stanley

If, as is now the practice, notice is given to you of a Member who wishes to speak on the Adjournment, and if that Member rises and there is any competitor, he will not necessarily catch your eye, even though he may have been the first to give notice that he wished to raise the matter on the second Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker

I think that we are mixing up the extraordinary Adjournment and the ordinary Adjournment. The ordinary Adjournment is a regulated matter and the person who has it, catches my eye automatically.

Mr. Stanley

I was referring to the second Adjournment. In a case such as this where an hon. Member did communicate to you that he intended to raise a matter on the second Adjournment—I understand my hon. Friend was the first hon. Member to communicate to you with regard to the second Adjournment—do we understand now, in view of the fact that no Minister was going to be present, that if he had risen at the end of the first Adjournment and another hon. Member had risen to raise another subject where a Minister could be present, it would have been the other hon. Member and not my hon. Friend who would have been fortunate enough to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think there is anything definite on the second Adjournment. It has not been balloted for. It is a matter between my office and the hon. Member. That is a matter within my discretion and not entirely a matter of those who catch my eye. There are many people who get up, and surely it is a matter for my discretion in the interests of the debating position.

Mr. Stanley

I am sorry to press this matter but it is one of great importance. I understood, Sir, that the practice has grown up, with your consent, of communicating to your office the intention to raise a matter on this second Adjournment. We had assumed the practice was that anybody who first communicated his intention would be the hon. Member who would be likely to be called for the second Adjournment. Are we to understand now that that practice of communicating with your office has no validity, and that after the first formal Adjournment is over, anybody can get up on any subject, provided a Minister is there, and you will then choose between them, even if they have given no previous indication?

Mr. Speaker

On any Adjournment anybody can get up. It depends whether they catch my eye, but I like to know and I do endeavour to arrange matters, if notified. If anybody wants the second Adjournment they should notify my office. It is unofficial, and I will not regard it as being the same as the official Adjournment which has been balloted for. I feel that I must regard the debating position of the House as a whole. Those who want the second Adjournment will practically always get it, but I feel I have some duty to the House and I do not think it is a right, just because anybody puts down his name for the second Adjournment. If nobody can be there to answer, I may feel that another subject might more usefully be discussed. I feel that the second Adjournment Debate is a matter which lies within my discretion. After all, anybody can get up and catch my eye. I can see anybody. I can lay down no Rule that merely because somebody puts his name down for the second or third Adjournment, he must automatically be called.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

Some months ago, Mr. Speaker, you rebuked me on an Adjournment for speaking somewhat away from the main point that was being debated. I said that I was under the impression that any subject could be talked about on the Adjournment. You said that you thought that subjects might only be talked about on the Adjournment if there was a Minister directly responsible. In fact, you doubted whether the affairs of the Kitchen Committee could be talked about on an Adjournment. I rise therefore to ask whether, according to the traditions and rules of this House, it is open for an hon. Member to speak on any subject in the world, or out of it if he so desires, whether a Minister is responsible or not?

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the matter. I should like him to look up the reference in HANSARD. The Speaker is not allowed to make a wager, but I am perfectly certain that I have never given a Ruling of that kind.

Mr. Nicholson

I did not mean that you gave a Ruling. You rebuked me for speaking away from the point. This was in a private conversation afterwards. I hope I am not doing wrong in raising it, but may we have a Ruling on that point?

Mr. Speaker

I quite agree that I may have said on an Adjournment that we were discussing a certain subject and that I thought it would be a great pity to go away from that subject. Officially anybody can talk about anything they like, provided it does not involve legislation.

Mr. Mikardo

Is it not a commonsense interpretation of the opinion given today, with which I am sure most hon. Members would agree, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those hon. Members who seek to use the Adjournment to represent their views to Ministers, and those hon. Members who seek to use the Adjournment to represent their views to their local newspapers?

Mr. Speaker

No. This was an Adjournment of some considerable importance and I should have been very glad if a Minister could have been present. Potatoes are an important subject not merely to the constituents of the hon. Member for Louth but to everyone concerned. I did not mean that.

Earl Winterton

In view of what has just been said by the hon. Member, although I am sure it is not necessary to ask you to make it clear, is it not a fact that the Chair never takes notice of the motives of hon. Members but assumes that the motives of any hon. Member are honourable?

Mr. Speaker

I quite agree with the noble Lord. I never think of motives.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is it not the case that the basis of all the rules about the Adournment Debate is this: that when the Government business for the day is over, then the time left is at the disposal of any Member of the House to raise any subject which he likes, provided that legislation is not involved, and that this business of signing the book and giving notice to your office and having a ballot for the order of precedence in Adjournments has only arisen in this Parliament and is only a matter of convenience between the various claimants for Adjournment Debates, but that this is quite without prejudice to the rights of the House and the Private Member to use any time available after Government business is concluded to raise any matter?

Mr. H. Morrison

I wish to put it on record that I think it would be grossly unfair if the Adjournment were regarded absolutely in the way in which my hon. Friend has put it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Government are entitled to put their point of view and to claim justice for themselves. I only say that if, on the Adjournment, the House is permitted to discuss in an abstract way what the exact shape of the moon is, I am not greatly worried, if that is in Order. But if the Government are to be attacked, or if a Minister or a Department is to be attacked, surely it is reasonable equity and fairness that private notice should be given and that the Minister concerned should be given an opportunity to reply. Otherwise we might have in the House on the Adjournment, the most wild and irresponsible charges against a Minister without the Minister having a reasonable opportunity to reply.

Mr. Osborne

May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the reply you have given? I should like to point out to the House that I rang up the office of the Minister responsible. I gave the secretary the details I wished to raise and I gave the number of the House of Commons official paper with which I intended to deal. Afterwards, I saw the right hon. Lady herself in the House. I do not blame the right hon. Lady. I blame her superior who is never in the House. I think that adequate notice was given. Since we are all expected to be here as back benchers, I think that the Ministers should be in the House as well.

Mr. Chetwynd

Would it not be more helpful if the Leader of the House could find more Government business to keep us occupied until ten o'clock? If he does not know what to bring along, would he consult some of his hon. Friends who would advise him?

Mr. Clement Davies

Is there any distinction between a matter of convenience which I think you, Sir, have been referring to, and what the Leader of the House was referring to? As a matter of convenience notice is given when a question is to be raised, and the Minister endeavours to be here. I do not suppose that you intended to rule that if there was no Minister present, then the proceedings of the House should come to a stop because nobody could raise any question. That is the point we want to be absolutely clear upon.

Mr. Speaker

I hoped that I had made that perfectly plain. It is true that I had a conversation with the hon. Member. I pointed out that I had been notified that the Minister could not be present and, therefore, I thought that his Adjournment would be rather beating the air. I thought that it was better to have an Adjournment Debate when the Minister was present to answer and, quite willingly, the hon. Member gave up his Adjournment. I gave him no order. Possibly on another occasion, if an hon. Member were obstinate, he might not catch my eye; but in this case there was no order, no compulsion. This was a friendly arrangement. It is advisable if possible to have an answer, but if no Minister is present and hon. Members get up, I cannot refuse to call them. It is a right of Members, until the time is up, to get up and talk on what subject they like as long as it does not involve legislation.

Mr. Driberg

While the Leader of the House has expressed the common sense and the political equity of the matter, is it not the case that the theory and practice of the House are exactly as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and that we simply wish to guard all the time against any diminution of the rights of hon. Members through, perhaps, overhasty or too rigid Rulings arising out of purely experimental matters of convenience like the ballot? Can we take it, therefore, Sir, that, while we would obviously listen to your advice with respect, you would not, for instance, refuse to see an hon. Member, such as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), if he were the only Member to rise to seek to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker

I think that that explains more or less what I said.

Captain Crookshank

May I, Sir, make a final submission to you? It seems that a really important matter has been raised by these questions and answers. The present system of the ballot for the Adjournment is still in an experimental stage. It has been used in this Parliament, but it has not been accepted as the permanent practice of Parliament, whereas there are plenty of precedents the other way, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Would it not be a happy way out of our difficulties if you could take into consideration all that has been said and reconsider the previous practice of the House with a view, possibly, to giving your further guidance on another occasion?

Mr. Speaker

As a matter of fact, I think that is governed by Standing Orders. The half-hour Adjournment is part of our Standing Orders. It can be reconsidered by the appropriate authority of the House, but I do not think that it can be reconsidered by me.

Mr. Eric Fletcher

Is it not convenient, as occurred last night, if you, Sir, choose for a second Adjournment a subject such as that about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) had given notice earlier in the day at Question Time? He said then that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible, that being a matter which was then uppermost in the minds of hon. Members, and upon which many wished to speak. In reconsidering this matter, would you bear in mind the question of whether you will necessarily always give preference on a second Adjournment to a Member who comes to see you first, or whether you should also take into account matters of which notice has been given at Question Time?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must remember that in the Parliament before the war, the Adjournment was generally taken by somebody who had been dissatisfied with the answer to a Question put on the same day. That used to be the usual practice then, if there was time.

Mrs. Middleton

Will you help the House, Sir, by telling us what are the considerations which obtain in deciding to call a second Adjournment? On a not far distant occasion I was fortunate enough to win the ballot for the Adjournment Motion. There were a number of hon. Members in the House who wished to support what I said both before the Minister had spoken and after he had finished. But automatically when the Minister had concluded, another Adjournment was called without consideration of whether hon. Members wanted to discuss the first matter further. I should be most grateful if you would let us know what are the considerations which determine whether a second or third Adjournment will be called.

Major Legge-Bourke

I think the Leader of the House complained that it would be unfair to Ministers if Members raised questions, without those responsible being present. Would I not be correct in saying that, supposing the matter cannot be dealt with by private correspondence to the Member concerned afterwards, it is always within the power of the Minister to make a statement at the end of Questions, with the permission of the House. Would not that cover the objection expressed by the Lord President?

Mr. Speaker

I remind the hon. and gallant Member that at one time in this Parliament we used to have a great number of statements and they used to absorb a great deal of time. On the whole, the House thought that the statements should be few and far between. Actually, now, I think the Prime Minister's permission, as well as mine, has to be obtained before they are made.