§ 34. Mr. Bennasked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the next meeting of the Bagdad Pact Powers will be held; and if he will make a statement of policy on this matter.
§ Commander NobleThe Bagdad Pact Council at its last ministerial meeting decided that the next meeting at ministerial level should be held in Karachi in January, 1957. The precise date of the meeting has not yet been fixed. Her Majesty's Government consider the Bagdad Pact has a vital part to play in the security and prosperity of the Middle East region and will continue to give if their fullest support.
§ Mr. BennWould the Minister of State comment on the Iraqi attitude towards British aggression in Egypt, and will he tell the House whether he still—[Interruption.]—proposes to supply arms to the Iraqi Government in the present situation?
§ Commander NobleI do not think the Iraqi attitude is related to this Question about the Bagdad Pact. We shall continue to look at the question of arms for Iraq having regard to the situation in the whole area.
§ Mr. DainesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Billericay in order in calling my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) "Nasser's little lackey"?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am very glad that I did not hear that observation. Hon. Members must not make such observations about each other. It leads only to noise and disorder and prevents the carrying on of business.
§ Mr. BennFurther to the point of order. Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that all remarks made in the House are addressed to the Chair, and would you yourself not take action in such an instance?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf I thought any remark of that character were addressed to me, I certainly should.
§ Mr. BraineFurther to the point of order. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the remark was in no way directed to the Chair, for which I have the utmost respect.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsFurther to the point of order. From the intervention by the hon. Member, it is apparent that the hon. Member admits that he used that term about my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. GriffithsI gather from the hon. Member that he admits using the term stated. Will you now, Mr. Speaker, ask him to withdraw it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that those words are in the list of forbidden words, and in the interest of free speech I am not anxious to extend the list further. If I add these words to the list now, that will hold for the future. However, I do counsel the House in this matter not to have recourse to observations which are really in themselves of an abusive character. Hon. Members should not abuse each other. They should regard each other as actuated by the same honourable motives, and, therefore, these things should never be said. I cannot rule them exactly out of order.
§ Mr. BennWith very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I deeply resent that you should have said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in answer to my earlier point that, had the remark been addressed to you, you would have resented it; but that you did not resent it when it was addressed to me.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member feels any resentment against me, he must take the proper form for expressing it. At the same time, there are many remarks which can be addressed by hon. Members to each other which would be grossly out of order if addressed to the Chair.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay merely mean that his resemblance to Sir Oswald Mosley is not confined to his personal appearance?
§ Mr. SpeakerHow on earth can I decide that as a point of order? It has nothing to do with me at all. Perhaps we may now take Question No. 35.
§ Mr. BennFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Her Majesty's Government have brought this country into a state of armed conflict with Egypt. Though personally I have no objection to the hon. Member calling me names, I think it very questionable whether an hon. Member ought to be referred to as a servant of a State with which Her Majesty's Government have brought this country into a state of war.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not hear the original remark. I cannot say more than I have said. If there was any treasonable imputation in it, it would, of course, be grossly out of order. However, as I only heard the remark repeated to me, I would say that I think it was a form of abuse which is highly undesirable. I cannot put it any higher than that.
§ Mr. GriffithsWould it not be in accordance with the best traditions of the House, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member concerned to rise at once and withdraw the remark?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it would be an act to his credit if he did so.
§ Mr. BodyMight I, as the hon. Member for Billericay, point out that, despite the allegations made by hon. Members opposite, no such remark was made by the hon. Member for Billericay as that attributed to him.
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that Question No. 35 will now be asked.