TRANSPORT (RURAL AREAS) (Hansard, 12 November 1958)

§ Mr. Rupert Speir (Hexham)
rose—

§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The notice exhibited behind Mr. Speaker's Chair says that the subject for the Adjournment debate tonight would be "Violence in Cyprus" and it is in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). A similar notice was contained in the memoranda circulated in the Votes and Proceedings last Friday.
It is clear that the notice exhibited behind Mr. Speaker's Chair and the notice in the memoranda are not mandatory, but I submit that it is quite clear from Rulings given by you, Mr. Speaker, and by your predecessors, that hon. Gentlemen are under an obligation to take into account the rights of this House and of other hon. Members.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Hexham is clearly in breach of what one of your predecessors called playing the game "on this subject. There are no Standing Orders and any indications which you, Sir, have given of the procedure that you intended to follow are matters of precedent. I have no cognisance of any sanction or Order of the House. It is clear that if every hon. Gentleman did what the hon. Member for Hexham is attempting to do tonight the matters raised on the Motion for the Adjournment would become an absolute farce.
The hon. Member for Hexham has not only used the notice board behind Mr. Speaker's Chair and the memoranda circulated in Votes and Proceedings, but he has also used the Press to inform the country that he intended to raise a matter of great public importance, involving the lives and safety of British forces in Cyprus and of British civilians in Cyprus. I submit that the whole history of Cyprus has been bedevilled by just this kind of back-bench pressure exerted in a most irresponsible way without any regard whatever—

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Wigg
The predicament in which I find myself is this. I had read of the intention of the hon. Member for Hexham and I had seen the notice behind Mr. Speaker's Chair—which, I may point out is still there—which said that the subject of the Adjournment debate tonight was the question of violence in Cyprus.
I went to the Officers of the House and asked whether I should be in order in raising this matter if the hon. Member for Hexham did not do so. I was informed —it is a view which I accept—that you, Mr. Speaker, would deprecate such a procedure because, of course, it would mean —as happened on a previous occasion—disregarding the rights of the House. If an hon. Member talks about a subject when there is not a Minister present to reply, or, as happened on one occasion, if a subject is raised about which there is no Ministerial responsibility, it is a travesty of the rights of the House.
I did not, therefore, try to catch a political minnow. Shooting at sitting birds is something which does not interest me very much. This morning I telephoned to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I also wrote to you, Sir, giving notice that if the hon. Member for Hexham did not raise the subject of Cyprus, I wished to do so. I wish to do so in the interest of every hon. Member in the House so that the matter can be —

§ Mr. Speaker
Could the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) tell me what is his point of order?

§ Mr. Wigg
I do not want to worry you, Sir, nor do I want to weary the House by reading all the precedents, but my point is to ask you to reconsider the procedures which are outlined and which have been laid down by yourself and your predecessors in relation to the kind of action taken by the hon. Member for Hexham in quite irresponsibly, and without due notice, changing the subject.
I would ask you to consider, with great respect, Sir, your own personal responsibility in this matter, because you are not buttressed in this matter by any Standing Order or any ruling of the House, but merely by a diktat, if I may use that word, or by notice which you gave to the House on 25th March, 1955, of what you intend to do.
529 I should have thought, Sir, that you are guided by the advice and decision of your predecessors to hon. Members as to what their rights in this matter are. It has been pointed out that Mr. Speaker Clifton Johnson—

Hon. Members
Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown.

§ Mr. Wigg
I beg the pardon of hon. Members. It was a slip of the tongue for which I hope I may be forgiven.
Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown said that this was a matter of playing the game—

§ Mr. Speir
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
So far as I can understand the point of order of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wiag), it is wrong for the hon. Member for fiexham (Mr. Speir) to raise a subject different from that which appears on the notice behind my Chair and in the memoranda circulated with the Votes and Proceedings. The truth of the matter is that before the war there was no such system at all. An hon. Member gave notice that he would wish to raise a matter on the Adjournrnent and a convenient date was fixed for that to he done. It was by no means every night that we had an Adjournment Motion. Owing to the truncation of private Members' time during the war, there was such a large demand for these half-hour Adjournments that my predecessor, Colonel Clifton Brown, introduced the system of a ballot by which hon. Members put down their names in advance, with the subject which they intended to raise, and then there was a ballot taken and days allocated to them according to the ballot.
That has been varied in my time to this extent only, that the House has allowed me to choose subjects myself on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the issue of what hon. Member has the Adjournment is decided by ballot, as it was in my predecessor's This is a Wednesday. As to whether the Adjournment should belong to the Member or to the subject which he announces, my predecessor, Colonel Clifton Brown, under whose aegis this system was inaugurated, was quite definite On the point. He had been asked for a Ruling on this subject several times and 530 this one was given on 10th February, 1944. Mr. Speaker: I think it is perfectly clear — I think that exactly the same point as that raised by the hon. Member for Dudley was then raised by Mr. Driberg— that the Adjournment is given to an hon. Member as an individual. It is for the convenience This is the point of the hon. Member's point of order— of the House that a list is put up showing what will be the subjects. It might not be convenient for a Minister to attend on a particular day and the hon. Member who has that day would be entitled to change the subject; but I do hope that hon. Members, having once stated the subjects which they wish to raise, and the list having been put at the back of the Chair, will do their best—and Ministers, too—to abide by the decision to raise that subject and not change it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1944; Vol. 396. c. 1916.] I have carried on that system entirely with regard to the days decided by ballot, but I have frequently had the experience of an hon. Member on either side of the House putting down a subject which he thinks he wants to raise and then, before he is successful in the ballot, finding that owing to Ministerial action or some other cause, there is no further necessity for him to raise it. Either the grievance has been settled, or some other circumstance has taken place. He then comes to me, and asks me if he can change his subject, and as the hon. Member has the Adjournment, and if he can get the Minister responsible to reply to him—because I think that it is for the convenience of the House to hear both sides—I allow it.
I have acted no differently in this case from what my predecessor did, or from what I have done all along, and it seems to me to be quite clear that that is correct.

§ Mr. Speir
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)
On that point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a point of order. I have ruled on that for the hon. Member for Dudley. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. Speir
Before the debate goes further, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say—

§ Mr. Delargy
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am dealing with a point of order. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. Speir
May I be allowed to tell the House what it is that I wish to speak about—

§ Mr. Delargy
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Hexham is addressing a point of order to me.

§ Mr. Speir
I wish to tell you, Sir, exactly what I wish to talk to the House about, and, perhaps, to give a tip to the hon. Gentleman for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am a bit of a poacher myself—I must explain that—but I do not like other people poaching on my preserves.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not strictly a point of order. I have ruled according to the rules that govern Speakers in this matter. I say that the hon. Member for Hexham, having won his place in the ballot, is entitled to raise any subject he pleases. According to the strict rules of order, any Member who catches my eye on the Adjournment is entitled to raise any subject that is not out of order on the Adjournment. These rules of the ballot, and so on, are merely for the convenience of the House.

§ Mr. Delargy
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your predecessor, Colonel Clifton Brown, ruled, as you have just read to us, that the subject of the Adjournment might be altered only because of the absence of the Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was the only reason you gave, Sir. The Minister concerned in the debate which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) should have raised was here until two minutes ago, so, with great respect, I submit that the one reason given by Colonel Clifton Brown does not apply in this case.

§ Mr. Speaker
My predecessor gave that as an instance of where the subject might be changed.

§ Mr. Wigg
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Dudley is not disputing my Ruling?

§ Mr. Wigg
No, Sir. With respect, I wish to point out that following the Ruling you gave from the statement of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, Mr. Speaker 532 Clifton Brown said, on 28th November, 1944 I do not think that he could have a prescriptive right. I think it is a pity when a Member changes the subject. It causes inconvenience to other Members, and to Ministers who have to be there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 2404.] Subsequently, on 2nd March, 1948, he said: My impression of hon. Members is that if I lay down something they will always play the game. I should prefer to trust hon. Members to play the game."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 2nd March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 217.] It is obvious that what has happened now is that the hon. Member for Hexham is not playing the game.

§ Mr. Speaker
Even if that were so, it is not a point of order. I entirely endorse Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's remark about Members playing the game, and I hope that hon. Members will do so.

§ Mr. Wigg
The point I want to submit to you, Sir, is that, in view of this happening, and in view of the fact that the horn. Member for Hexham has abused the rules of the House—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order, he must himself try to keep order. It is not the case that the hon. Member for Hexham is abusing the rules of the House. The rules are as I have said that they are. The hon. Member for Hexham has complied with them.

§ Mr. Speir
May I continue with my point of order, Sir?

§ Mr. Wigg
rose

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. Speir
In rising to speak, Sir, I wish to explain that I am not one-track-minded, like the hon. Member for Dudley.

§ Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)
rose

§ Mr. Speaker
To a point of order?

§ Mr. Short
Yes, Sir. You put the point, Mr. Speaker, that the Adjournment belongs to the man and not to the subject. I suggest to you that that principle has now been modified by the fact that you select certain subjects on certain nights of the week.

§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
Not on a Wednesday.

§ Mr. Short
It surely cannot be said—

§ Dame Irene Ward
Not on Wednesday.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think I see the drift of the point being made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), but, of course, this is a Wednesday, and this was chosen by ballot. The observations of Colonel Clifton Brown refer to this exactly.

§ Mr. Short
That was not quite the point I was putting, Sir.

§ Mr. Speir
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time, not even another Member and the Speaker.
The hon. Member for Hexham, who started a point of order, seemed then to wish to explain the subject he was going to talk about. That is not a point of order. I have no concern with his subject. I said that he was entitled to change it, as hon. Members are when they consider that their grievance has been remedied. That is quite proper, and I see no reason that he should not be allowed to proceed.

§ Mr. Desmond Donnelly (Pembroke)
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Short
The point I was putting is that this principle has been changed in the last few years—

§ Dame Irene Ward
It has not.

§ Mr. Short
—by the fact that you now select certain subjects, Sir. If this principle applies to the Adjournment on certain nights of the week, it must apply on other nights of the week. Surely the subject is an important element, not merely the individual.

§ Mr. Speaker
That might be so if were choosing the subject. It might be so; I reserve judgment on that, because it is not relevant to the present situation, which is the sheer luck of the ballot. The lion. Member is entitled to the luck of his ballot. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. Speir
Mr. Speaker —

§ Mr. Donnelly
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Wigg
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I have ruled on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dudley, and I must ask him not to persist in defying my Ruling.

§ Mr. Wigg
With respect, Sir—

§ Dame Irene Ward
Draw a place in the ballot, too.

§ Mr. Wigg
My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that neither you nor your predecessors have ever given a formal Ruling on which is paramount, the subject or the individual, and it is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central (Mr. Short) has submitted, that the changed procedure has heightened the tensions between these two points of view. All I am asking is that you should give the matter your further consideration, Mr. Speaker—not tonight—and lay down some simple rules which all hon. Members, not only the hon. Member for Hexham, must follow if they wish to change the subject of the Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will give the matter further consideration, but, as I said before, the rules of order—and I am bound by them—are that any hon. Member who raises a proper subject on the Motion for the Adjournment is entitled to be heard if there is time and if he catches my eye, for there is always that other factor. The hon. Member for Dudley must realise that he has made a gallant protest about this matter, but there is such a thing as carrying a matter too far. I hope that the House will now listen to the hon. Member for Hexham in the limited time left to him.

§ Mr. Speir
rose—

§ Mr. Wigg
Further to the point of order. I have not raised the matter for a personal reason. My points of order—

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Speaker
I really think that the hon. Member for Dudley is tending to abuse the rules of the House.

§ Mr. Wigg
With respect. Mr. Speaker, because of the hullabaloo I am not allowed to put my point. I have been consistently interrupted. I would agree that my point of view is based upon a protest at the conduct of the hon. Member for Hexham, but my purpose in 535 putting it is to clear up a matter about which there is doubt. I ask that in your further consideration of the matter, Mr. Speaker, you will be kind enough to give attention to one simple point. Your Ruling of 25th March is not a Standing Order. Perhaps it ought to be. But surely there ought to be, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House can know what subjects are to be raised, at least an hour's notice or two hours' notice. Certainly, the notice behind your Chair should bring the matter up to date. I submit that that is elementary.

§ Mr. Speaker
Not that point.

§ Mr. Speir
rose—

Mr. Donelly
On a point of order. May I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that as hon. Members have the Adjournment subject vested in them on certain days of the week it raises very considerable administrative problems for other hon. Members? I came here today anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had to say about the violence in Cyprus. I read in the national Press that he had stated that he was hopping mad.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is not raising a point of order at all. He is making a series of comments.

Mr. Donelly
Perhaps I might telescope my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I think many hon. Members have come here to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Hexham. We have had no notice that he has changed the subject. The whole House is here waiting. The hon. Member would not have had an audience like this in ordinary circumstances. May I suggest that in future this question of the subject being vested in the individual hon. Member should be reconsidered and that in your reconsideration you should decide that the subject should come first, before the question of which hon. Member has the Adjournment for the evening?

§ Dame Irene Ward
I disagree about that.

§ Mr. Speaker
The House will realise that all hon. Members have their own ideas of what is important to them. A constituency case about a poor widow 536 may be just as important as any of these larger topics. On the Adjournment is one of the few opportunities that an hon. Member has of raising such matters. This is the sort of case to which I naturally give preference.
The hon. Member for Hexham is entitled to go on with his speech and I hope that hon. Members will not abuse the rules of the House by preventing him by raising points of order. The business of the House cannot go on properly if the point of order is made a shield for other things. It should not be done. I have listened with great care and great patience to all that the hon. Member for Dudley has said, as well as to other hon. Members who have been good enough to put their submissions to me, and I think that I have answered them all. I am bound, as far as this matter is concerned, by the Rulings of my predecessor. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. W. A. Burke (Burnley)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

§ Mr. Burke
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I stayed behind tonight to hear what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) was to say about Cyprus and I do not think I ought to have been deluded into staying behind when it was to hear something on a subject different from that given notice about on the list of Adjournments. I—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no obligation on the hon. Member to stay if he does not want to stay. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have come to the conclusion that I have ruled sufficiently on this matter. I will hear no more points of order on it. Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. Speir
It is all very well for the Opposition to pretend—

§ Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that it is a point of order.

§ Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas
The point of order I wish to raise is that there must be some authority for your statement, 537 Sir, but that we on this side of the House are a little puzzled about the discretion which you have to say that you would not hear more points of order. Points of order which may still be raised may raise very important matters of substance, and they would be completely eliminated by a Ruling of that kind. I ant sure that there must be some authority for this, but we are troubled as to what is that authority.

§ Mr. Speaker
I merely said that I have come to the conclusion that this particular point of order, which has been raised and has now occupied us for 25 minutes, has been thoroughly thrashed out. There is nothing more I can add to it. I do not want any further questions about it. The position is that we are now on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House and, by the custom of the House, the hon. Member for Hexham has the right to speak. That right has been challenged, all the grounds of the challenge have now been heard and I have given my Ruling on them.I think that the House should let the hon. Member for Hexham speak. Mr. Speir.

§ Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, do I understand, in view of what you have now said, that you were not ruling before, as we understood you were, that you would not hear further points of order but merely that you were not hearing further points of order upon the particular point raised by my hon. Friend and that it was, of course, open to hon. Members to raise other points of order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I would, of course, listen to a proper point of order. The House will realise that I am largely in the hands of hon. Members over points of order. I have to listen to them, and it annoys me, and, I think, other Members, when a point of order is used—I am not referring to this particular case—as a cloak for debate. It does not play fair with the Speaker or with the House, and I hope that hon. Members will concur with that. Of course, I am not ruling that I will not listen to points of order. 538 I am only saying that I am satisfied that I have heard this particular point of order put most exhaustively and I have ruled upon it. There is no more I can say, and I cannot hear any more on it.

§ Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)
Further to that point of order. As I understand, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is endeavouring to raise, not the subject of Cyprus, but the question of rural transport. Clearly, there is substance in the point which some Members of the Opposition have been trying to put to you. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would regard this as a fair summary of their point of view: that just as long as we can talk, let the country people walk?

§ Mr. Speaker
That, again, is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
Our people are being shot in Cyprus.

§ Mr. Speaker
I call Mr. Speir.

§ Mr. Speir
The subject of rural transport, although it may not be as pressing as the subject of Cyprus, is one which is extremely pressing to those who live in rural areas. [Interruption.] May I give the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) a tip? If he wants to go poaching on other people's preserves let him remember that silence is golden, and that he does not want to advertise the fact to the Daily Mail.
This subject has been raised often enough in recent years and weeks, but the fact remains that the Transport Commission is closing down railway branch lines right and left. I do not quarrel with that policy, but I do say that some form of public transport must be made available—