Mr. SpeakerIt might be for the convenience of the House if I say a word about the Business for tonight and tomorrow night following the request made to me by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) to try to arrange matters to some extent.
Following what I said yesterday, four hon. Members have informed me that they have subjects for discussion tonight. There are the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who will raise the question of the availability to local authorities of police information on dwelling accommodation used for the purpose of prostitution; the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who wishes to raise the question of a United Nations individually recruited permanent police force; the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), who wishes to raise the question of the transfer of free places to St. Cuthbert's Grammar School; and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who wishes to raise the question of the methods used in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis and machinery by way of appeal. I propose to call hon. Members in that order.
That leaves for tomorrow night, after the debate on unemployment in Wales, the following subjects. I put first matters of constituency interest or limited scope which, I hope, can be discussed shortly: the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) wishes to raise the question of unemployment in Coatbridge; the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) wishes to raise the question of the Arts Council as the appropriate body for dispensing patronage to the arts; the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) wishes to raise the question of the siting of a new steel strip mill; the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) wishes to raise the question of post-war credits, if this is in order from the point of view of legislation, of which I am not sure; the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) wishes to raise the case of John Waters; the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) wishes to discuss immigration from the Commonwealth and 1374 Colonies; and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and other hon. Members wish to raise economic and political problems in East and Central Africa. That is the provisional order as it stands.
§ Mr. GaitskellI am, frankly, a little puzzled by your statement, Mr. Speaker. Of course, if it relates to the adjournment debates on Friday, it is well understood that it is for you, Sir, to settle these subjects and the order in which they shall be taken. I have always understood, however, that when we debate the Consolidated Fund Bill it is open to any hon. Member to raise any subject at any time. With very great respect, I think that you are setting a precedent, unless I am mistaken, which seems to me to have certain disadvantages. It might give the impression that hon. Members who were not, so to speak, on your list were in some way debarred from raising matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
In any event, and with very great respect, I do not feel quite happy that this matter should be announced in this way by you, Mr. Speaker. This is Opposition time. It is true that the Opposition have selected half of tomorrow in which to debate a particular subject, but we have left the other time open. I had always assumed that it would be open to any hon. Member to try to catch your eye and raise any subject which he thought was appropriate. I feel that it would be right for me to ask why you have taken this step and whether you feel that it has the disadvantages that I have mentioned.
Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question; it will help me to remove a misapprehension. I had thought of prefacing the statement that I have made with a preliminary statement as to the constitutional position and the practice in Parliament regarding the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is that during various stages of that Bill any hon. Member is at liberty to raise any question of administration which does not require legislation to remedy it. I thought that that would be accepted.
I have not made any selections. I have told the House of the hon. Members who have asked me to note their particular interests. Yesterday, I was 1375 asked by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) whether I would try to make some arrangements about the heterogeneous mass of subjects for debate for the convenience of the House so that hon. Members would have some idea when various subjects would be debated. That is what I have attempted to do.
I have in no way attempted to truncate the rights of any hon. Member to raise any proper questions upon the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have exercised no power of selection whatsoever, as I do with regard to Amendments and things of that sort. I have accepted all the subjects, but have said that for the convenience of the House this is how the picture looks to me. If hon. Members wish to raise any matter of which they have not given notice to the Minister and have not informed me, they can still do so. I thought that I was doing the House a service.
§ Mr. BevanAs a Member of the House who has used this procedure on many occasions to raise matters which the Executive did not want to have raised and even on some occasions to raise matters which my own leaders did not want to have raised, I am very worried about the procedure which has been adopted, Sir. I am certain, every hon. Member is certain, that you have done what you have done in the best interests of orderly debate, in your view, but I am bound to point out that it creates one more hurdle for back bench Members to surmount. If an hon. Member happens to be an unpleasant person, or, in the view of many people, is an unpleasant person and one who ought to be made to shut up, he would be put at the end of the queue, because you have just said, Mr. Speaker, that you have arranged matters in a certain order.
With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, in the past we never went to Mr. Speaker at all. Indeed, on some occasions we did not even tell the Minister for, quite often, certain very good reasons which were in the public interest. To establish it as a precedent that hon. Members should go to you and impose this burden upon you might bring you into conflict with the House. I submit that it is a very delicate responsibility to arrange 1376 the subjects either in the order of importance or in the order of distaste so as to push to the end of the queue somebody that the House would not be so ready to listen to as other hon. Members. I am trying to protect Mr. Speaker from being accused on the Floor of the House of discrimination between hon. Members, in particular back benchers, in the order of debate.
I earnestly ask that this matter should be reconsidered. In all the time that I have been in the House I have seen opportunities for back bench Members whittled away over and over again. This is almost the only opportunity that they have of bringing the Executive under completely unrestrained criticism. I think that their right should not be abated or in any way reduced.
Mr. SpeakerFirst, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have not attempted in any way to create another hurdle for back benchers to jump. I have taken every subject that has been suggested. I know that in recent years some attempt has been made to let hon. Members know what would be talked about and I thought that I was doing what the House would want me to do. If it is not the desire of hon. Members that I should try to help them in this way, I shall be very happy.
I have not decided the order for tomorrow's debates for the reason suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), namely, that I dislike the hon. Members who have the last subjects, or that the subjects are disagreeable. To me, all subjects are alike. The only reason was that I had a number of small constituency points which hon. Members wished to raise. My own naive reaction to the puzzle set me was that it would be hard luck to keep these small constituency points hanging over while a prolonged debate was in process. I thought that if we could get rid of these small local grievances, which are just as important to Members as larger subjects, the rest of the evening would be left free for the main topic of the debate.
I must say, in all sincerity, that my choice of the order was not dictated by any of the considerations which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has suggested, but was merely an attempt to 1377 help the House. If the House wishes me to desist from these attempts to assist, I shall be only too happy to do so.
§ Mr. StonehouseArising from what has been said, would I be in order at this stage, Mr. Speaker, in view of the supreme importance of the constitutional situation in relation to Northern Rhodesia in that the Colonial Secretary has announced that he will bring forward proposals before the House resumes after the Recess, in giving notice that I desire the subject standing in my name to be debated tonight instead of tomorrow night?
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI should like to express my appreciation of the statement that you have made, Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied that as a result of the supplementary questions asked by my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), our position for the future is now amply safeguarded by the further statement made by you, Mr. Speaker. I want briefly to welcome the support which, at last, we are now receiving for this constitutional right of private Members. This is a step which, I am sure, all students of Parliamentary history will welcome.
There is, however, another aspect which I wish to raise with Mr. Speaker in particular. We are in a very difficult international situation. On Friday, we are to adjourn for three months. I wish to put a point concerning what I understand to be the constitutional rights, not of back benchers, but, let me emphasise, of private Members; in the last few years the other has become a derogatory term. I want, therefore, to remind right hon. and hon. Members that there is a little dignity as well as Parliamentary rights among private Members.
Am I correct in understanding, Mr. Speaker, that before we part with the Consolidated Fund Bill, people's grievances should be either remedied or, at least, ventilated? If so, the people of the country now have the grievance that a definite statement has not been made about the international situation. Therefore, rather than simply leave everything to the Adjournment, and all that means about evading definite responsibility for 1378 phraseology, I wish to draw upon your advice, Mr. Speaker, based upon your experience and knowledge of procedure.
Before we part with the Consolidated Fund Bill, would it be in order to put words on the Order Paper so that the whole world will know what the House, and the Opposition in particular, think, so that before Parliament adjourns the world will know Britain's position and it can be stated that we are prepared to go to any part of the world to attend a Summit Conference?
Mr. SpeakerIn the course of the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, an Amendment to the Bill of that character would not be acceptable. I see no other way of getting a statement on the record about it.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopMay I raise a consequential point, Mr. Speaker? I fear that following your announcement a matter affecting my own constituency which I hoped to raise at a reasonable hour this evening will now be raised, perhaps, at 1.30 a.m. tomorrow. I do not complain too bitterly of that, but when you mentioned that it was your object and desire to see constituency matters being dealt with early in the evening, it does not exactly appear to have been achieved. I feel, with other right hon. and hon. Friends of mine, that perhaps the previous practice of the House might have been retained.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopTo the Adjournment which I am taking this evening.
Mr. SpeakerI have not postponed the hon. Member's Adjournment in any way. That is a separate matter and has nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. ChetwyndI am sorry if my simple request yesterday seems to have led to a little difficulty, Mr. Speaker, but it was made for a very good reason. The fact that the first debate today is on the National Health Service is for the convenience of all Members of the House. As I understand, there is nothing to stop any hon. Member raising any other subject beforehand if he catches your eye. My simple purpose was to try to have the debates arranged after the debate on the National Health Service finished so that 1379 we could carry on in much the same way, having a concentrated debate on the various topics which come forward.
In my view, the fact that all these constituency problems have come forward is fortuitous. Had there been great topics like Cyprus, or the Middle East, we could have arranged them to follow on for the convenience of everybody. Am I right in thinking that if an hon. Member wishes to intervene with a speech following one which has already been made, your mind is flexible in the matter of choice?
Mr. SpeakerIt is customary in our practice, if the official Opposition signify their desire to have a certain subject raised as a main topic, to give it priority, and that has been done on this occasion; but there is no guarantee that in the middle of, say, the National Health Service debate, or the debate on Wales tomorrow, an hon. Member may not rise to raise an entirely different question.
What I have said in no way binds the House. It is no restriction upon the rights of hon. Members. It is merely an attempt to indicate to the House, from the advice given me by hon. Members who have written to me, how I thought the debate was likely to go. That is all. It is always open to any hon. Member to intervene in the middle of any of these subjects, even the official Opposition subjects.
§ Mr. RossI hope that you will give this matter serious consideration, Mr. Speaker, and that this precedent will not be followed in future years. It appears that instead of the free-for-all, and the sometimes unexpected but important nature of the debates which we have had in the past, we are to get what looks like a very formalised series of arranged Adjournment debates. I am sure that my rights have been curtailed in respect of this evening, when I already know that there will be a possibility of my being called only after certain other hon. Members have been called and certain other subjects discussed.
I am mystified about the long list of people and subjects that you are calling for tomorrow. This matter was raised only yesterday. We have already had complaints about the nature of deliveries by the Post Office and all the rest, and we have heard subjects mentioned and the names of hon. Members who have not 1380 been in the House this week. I wonder how their intimation was made concerning these subjects, when they were sorted out and why preference should be given to people who have taken the trouble to formalise the matter in this way, while other back benchers, who may have other important items to raise, will have little time after all this long list has been gone through. I hope that you will reconsider the position, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SpeakerIf it is the desire of the House that I should take no part in helping to arrange the business, and that everybody should say what he likes and when he likes, I am perfectly willing to agree. It is, in fact, a rather troublesome thing to have to do.
§ Mr. GaitskellI am sure that the House will wish to proceed to the debate on the National Health Service as soon as possible. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether in the circumstances, in view of the misgivings expressed by at least a number of hon. Members, you would be willing to discuss the situation with the Leader of the House and myself with a view to coming to an amicable arrangement.
§ Sir G. NicholsonI am sure that many back benchers are most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your effort to establish a little order in these rambling debates without in any way infringing the rights of private Members. Many of us are grateful to you for what you have done. Most respectfully, I offer you my sympathy. It seems that every effort you have made to help hon. Members has been greeted with ingratitude.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)I shall be very glad to join the Leader of the Opposition in a conversation with you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that one of your motives—I speak as a member of the Government—was that Ministers would be available at certain times. This is one of the matters that we can discuss.
Mr. SpeakerIt was always customary, even when many fewer subjects were raised in the past, that when an hon. Member wanted to raise a topic on the 1381 Adjournment, the appropriate Minister would be informed, otherwise the House would have only one side of the matter. All that has happened on this occasion is that I have been told by hon. Members the subjects which they have informed Ministers that they would raise. That is all.
§ Mr. HaymanMay I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, especially in view of what the Leader of the House has just said about Ministers being in a position to reply to points made by hon. Members? I wish to refer to the earlier discussion on Privilege. This seems to be the only opportunity available to a back bencher to make a point in the House when he will be covered by Privilege. He may not want an answer from the Minister at that point, but he merely wants to make the point, under the cover of the Privilege of the House, for the privilege of the citizens of the country.
Mr. SpeakerAll these things, no doubt, will be considered. I will be happy to discuss, with the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, whether we can get a practice which is for the convenience of the House. I have tried to do nothing but to help. I hope that we shall come to some conclusion.