HC Deb 11 February 1959 vol 599 cc1181-4
Mr. S. Silverman

Mr. Speaker, may I raise with you a point of order relating to a Question which you thought was not a proper one to be put on the Order Paper? I raise it with you in this way because I think that the point involved may be of interest to other hon. Members, as well as to myself. I had given notice to ask the Prime Minister whether, in discussing in Moscow the British and Soviet points of view, he will ensure that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciates that large sections of British public opinion, including Her Majesty's Opposition, support a policy of disengagement on the lines of the Rapacki Plan.

You thought that that was not a proper Question, Sir, because it seemed to place on the Prime Minister responsibility for opinions which were not his and which were not those of the Government. I submit that that view proceeds on a misconception of the purpose of the Question. The Question was not seeking to imply that the Prime Minister could possibly be responsible for the opinions of my right hon. Friend, any more than my right hon. Friend would like to be held responsible for the opinions of the Prime Minister.

However, the Prime Minister had said specifically, when explaining the purpose of his visit to Moscow, that it was not his intention to negotiate, not his intention to develop any particular point of view, but that the visit was exploratory so that each country could understand the view of the other.

In those circumstances, would it not be proper to ask the Prime Minister—who, I quite understand, might be of a different view—whether, if that is the object of his visit, he will make sure that Mr. Khrushchev understands the true state of public opinion in this country, which he can do only by appreciating that there is more than one point of view?

Mr. Speaker

I took the view then, and I still take it, that the Question as drafted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) offended against one of the first rules of Questions, namely, that to be in order a Question must relate to the Departmental responsibility of the Minister questioned.

The hon. Member's Question asked the Prime Minister whether he would ensure that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciates the point of view of the hon. Member's hon. Friends. I took the view that the Prime Minister was not responsible for ensuring that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciated the point of view of sections of opinion, other than those of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head.

If I am wrong about that, it would he in order to ask the Prime Minister whether he would make sure that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciated all sorts of questions and opinions which have nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility. I have no doubt that Mr. Khrushchev has his own sources of information.

I do not think that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to advance the views of persons other than those for whom he is responsible.

I should like to refer to the general Ruling on Questions. I preface it by the remark that when an hon. Member submits a Question which is technically out of order the learned Clerks and myself do everything we can to see whether we can wrest it into a form which does not transgress the rules of the House. That happens in many cases and the Question subsequently appears on the Order Paper However, when an hon. Member adheres to his own drafting and will not accept amendments to it to bring it into order, it is very difficult to help him. If a Question is disallowed, the proper course for an hon. Member who is dissatisfied with my judgment in the matter is to speak to me about it. We may then see whether a general point of order emerges. If the matter is raised on a point of order, there is brought before the House a Question which the rules of the House forbid.

I realise that in this case the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne felt that a general point was involved and that that was why he took this course. I have made these general observations for the information of the House on what has always been considered to be the proper procedure in these matters.

Mr. S. Silverman

May I, with great respect, put one point to you, Sir? May I say, first, that all hon. Members have always been—and I certainly am—very grateful for the assistance which we receive both from you, when the Question reaches you, and from the Table in getting over any difficulties? No suggestion was ever made to me that any redrafting of the Question, or putting it into another form, would get over the difficulty which both the Table and you saw. Otherwise, I would, naturally, gladly have accepted any such suggestion.

My point is that the Prime Minister, by his statement to the House, undertook a Departmental responsibility for explaining in Moscow the attitude of the British people, so as to take the discussions, which are unusual, outside the scope of the ordinary narrow confines of Departmental responsibility. Did he not undertake a much wider function? That is what we all understood from the Prime Minister, and that was why I sought to put down the Question.

Mr. Speaker

I have studied what the Prime Minister said, and I do not think that it involves any increase of his Departmental responsibilities, from the point of view of the rules of order. The hon. Member's reading of what the Prime Minister said would mean that the Prime Minister's duties included giving a tremendous amount of information which Mr. Khrushchev would probably regard as superfluous.

Mr. J. Hynd

On a point of order. During Questions I understood the Minister of Defence to announce that the Foreign Secretary was to reply to Question No. 58. That was not reached, Sir.