Mr. Ivor ThomasMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a Question of which I have given you private notice—whether you will rule to what extent it is permissible in Debates on the Adjournment to discuss the internal affairs of other countries?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member has so worded his Question that it is somewhat difficult to give a detailed reply.
The extent to which the affairs of another country may be discussed in an Adjournment Debate must depend on how far the responsibility of a Minister of this country is involved. As I stated on 24th May this year, it must remain for the Chair to determine in any particular Adjournment Debate whether the responsibility is present. Presumably, purely internal affairs of a foreign country do not involve Ministerial responsibility here. Perhaps I should add that the Human Rights Commission is a committee of the United Nations charged with drawing up model rules to protect human rights. Until such rules come into force, it would be in Order to ask what instructions had been given to our representative on the Commission, but it could not be in Order to ask that alleged breaches of rules which do not yet exist should be brought before a body which is not a tribunal.
Mr. Ivor ThomasMay I thank you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which meets all the points I have in mind.
§ Mr. John HyndFor the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, would you elaborate the point whether, taking advantage of the opportunity which your Ruling gives to ask if steps are being taken to raise a matter before the Human Rights Commission, an hon. Member might make allegations in the course of that question and use the Adjournment Debate as an opportunity for expressing such allegations?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that would be going outside my Ruling.
§ Mr. Godfrey NicholsonWas it not the original Rule of this House, Mr. Speaker, that on general Adjournment Debates, hon. Members might make speeches on anything, and that nothing would be out of Order? Is it not a new principle which has been introduced that Members of the Government must be responsible? Surely during a Debate on the Address, nothing is out of Order, and is not an Adjournment Debate on all fours with that?
§ Mr. SpeakerIn all Debates there must be governmental responsibility. That is a fundamental Rule of this House, and has been so since it came into existence.
§ Mr. DribergFurther to your original Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Apart from references to the Human Rights Commission or any other committee of the United Nations, is it not always in Order to ask, for instance, the Foreign Secretary to make representations to a foreign country through a British ambassador or chargé d'affaires if there appears to be a violation of human rights in any country?
§ Mr. SpeakerI should like to see all those questions on the Order Paper first. To give a general Ruling on a matter like this is very difficult. If it were a question about an internal matter of another country, I do not think it would get past the Table.
§ Mt. DribergWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I submit that not only on the Adjournment, but also at Question Time—when the Rules are stricter than those governing the Adjournment—there have been in 1947 and 1948 a number of 1687 instances of the Foreign Secretary accepting responsibility for making representations to Governments of countries not covered by peace treaties, such as Greece and Spain?
§ Mr. SpeakerOf course, if the Foreign Secretary accepts responsibility, that is his affair and not mine; but where he does not accept responsibility and where we are satisfied that it is a purely internal affair of another country, then the Question cannot be put down.
§ Mr. DribergWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what remedy hon. Members have when the Foreign Office repudiate responsibility and the Table, therefore, refuses to accept a Question concerning, for instance, trials in a foreign country about which precisely similar questions were allowed last year? Is it not within the discretion of the Chair to safeguard the rights of hon. Members by requiring Ministers to accept responsibility when there is a precedent?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no power to ask Ministers to accept a Question. It is a matter between the Minister and his questioner, and I must leave it at that.
§ Mr. Quintin HoggI have always understood, Mr. Speaker, when one was dealing with the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary as distinct from other Departments, that it was in Order to ask by means of Questions, or by substantive speech upon the Adjournment, information of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the state of affairs in a foreign country. I had always understood that that was an exception to the general rule that there must be executive responsibility.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think there is no objection to that. One can ask for information. But I do not think that was the original Question which I was asked.
§ Mr. EdenIs it not the position, Mr. Speaker, that there must be Ministerial responsibility, so far as the Foreign Secretary is concerned? Otherwise would he not be bound to answer any question of general news information which, quite clearly, it is outside the confines of the Foreign Office to give?
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanWould it be a fair deduction from the Ruling you originally gave, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in Order for anyone to refer in an 1688 Adjournment Debate to any matter on which it would be competent for the Foreign Secretary either to make representations or to seek information in the country concerned?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hardly like to give a general Ruling that it is in Order to raise any matter. I should rather like to see the matter first, and to hear about it.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanThe point of my question, Sir, was that, supposing it were common ground that the Foreign Secretary might, if he chose, seek information or make representations, if that were admitted would it not then follow that the Debate about it could not be out of Order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that perhaps the best thing to do would be to read my Ruling, which was considered very carefully, and then perhaps there might be some useful questions asked.
§ Mr. AustinIn view of the importance of preserving the rights of back benchers in Adjournment Debates, can the House take it that, apart from questions involving legislation, which of course are out of Order, the greatest possible latitude will be given to Members to raise whatever subjects they think fit?
§ Mr. SpeakerAnything involving legislation is out of Order and, as I said before, matters raised must involve some Ministerial responsibility. I am not quite sure that I caught the end of the hon. Member's question.
§ Mr. WarbeyMay we take it, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling does not remove the responsibility of the Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, for answering for their obligations to the United Nations? In that connection may I submit that we have accepted certain obligations through our membership of the United Nations, including, amongst others, the obligation to uphold the purposes of the organisation? One of the purposes defined in Article 1, paragraph 3, is:
To achieve international co-operation … in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms.…Therefore, through our membership of the United Nations we have a concern for the preservation of human rights throughout the world as a whole.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thought I set the limits one way and the other in the statement that I made in reply to the question on human rights.
§ Mr. WyattAs internal conditions in a particular country must frequently influence our policy towards that country, do I understand that it is not now in Order on the Adjournment for a Member to make a case about a country and the manner in which our policy towards it will be affected, by building up a number of facts and instances which he alleges may have taken place in that country and which he states on his own responsibility?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a matter for the Chair to decide, I think. It is quite impossible to lay down definite rules in advance.
§ Mr. ThurtleMay I take it that there is nothing in what you have said this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that you think the Chair has the power to compel a Minister to accept responsibility for a given subject if he does not want to do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, I would not go as far as that. A Minister can always say "I have no responsibility." As far as Questions are concerned, if that is said publicly, and made clear and accepted, it is finished. It does not get past the Table.