§ 36. Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations was instructed to support the proposals of the French Government on the subject of French atomic tests in the Sahara.
§ Mr. ProfumoI presume the hon. Member is referring to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's speech at the United Nations last week. This was not concerned with approval or disapproval of the French plans, but with the more limited question of the possible health hazard.
§ Mr. GrimondAre we to take it from that and previous Answers that we have made no representations to France not to carry out these tests, and have made no suggestions such as that put forward in The Guardian, that we might pool our resources. Are we to understand that if, in future, France does not accede to any agreement reached at Geneva, we would support her or other countries who insisted on testing their bombs?
§ Mr. ProfumoNo, Sir. That goes much further than the original Question. The position will be clearer to all hon. Members when they read the two speeches made by my right hon. Friend in New York—which will be placed in the Library shortly—the first concerned with the health problems and the second, a speech made yesterday, concerning Her Majesty's Government's present position. We have tabled a new Resolution. My hon. Friend was quite right in the reply he made to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) with regard to President de Gaulle's position. He is reported as having said, yesterday, that if the United Nations succeed in placing atomic weapons under international control France will immediately and unhesitatingly accept the agreement.
§ Mr. HealeyThis is really very disingenuous. The Minister of State must be aware, even if The Joint Under-Secretary of State is not, that President 403 de Gaulle said yesterday in so many words that, even if the three existing nuclear Powers reach agreement at Geneva to discontinue any further tests, France will not accede to such an agreement unless the three existing nuclear Powers give up their present stocks of nuclear weapons, which I understand is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government, the Soviet Union or the United States. Will the Minister of State at least be a little more honest with the House about this?
§ Mr. ProfumoI am being perfectly honest. I merely wanted to underline what my hon. Friend had quite correctly said to the right hon. Gentleman, because I did not want the House to be misinformed. Whatever President de Gaulle may have said yesterday, I was asking the House to read the whole of his statement as one. We very much hope that after we have got, if we are able to get it, an agreement at Geneva, in spite of what President de Gaulle has said, the French Government will be prepared to change their mind
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. BevanMr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is the third occasion in my recent memory when you seem to have regarded it as essential that supplementary questions should end at half-past three. This is not the practice of the House. I admit at once that it may be, Sir, that you have concluded that enough supplementary questions have been asked on a particular Question. That is entirely within your discretion, and we submit to it at once, but it does not necessarily follow that supplementary questions themselves stop at half-past three if the House is still anxious to pursue them.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am the servant of the House, and I take the Standing Orders of the House as the instructions which the House gives me on how to conduct these matters. Standing Order No. 8 (3) prescribes:
No Questions shall be taken after half-past three of the clock, exceptin the case of something which does not here arise.
§ Mr. BevanI merely point out, with respect, that that means in practice that 404 no additional Question shall be taken after half-past three. It has not in the ruling of past Speakers prevented supplementary questions on a Question started before half-past three.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty. It is desirable to get on with the business at some time. I do not purport to possess any infallibility in these matters. I hope that, the House will bear with me if from time to time the exercise of my discretion does not please it. I shall be trying according to the best of my ability.
§ Mr. GaitskellMr. Speaker, what is perplexing us is the quite simple point that it is within the recollection of all of us that your predecessor would, generally speaking, allow supplementaries to continue on a Question which was asked before half-past three. It appears to us that you are deciding differently from him and stopping further supplementaries after half-past three. If you could reassure us that that is not the case, or if you could at any rate clarify the position, we should all be most grateful.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not wish to be unduly rigid, but clearly there must be some limit to the number of supplementary questions that can be asked after the hour prescribed by the Standing Order.
§ Captain PilkingtonFurther to that point of order. Is it not a fact that this afternoon the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had far more than his fair share of supplementary questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerI fear that that is another matter with which the House has entrusted me. Who has his fair share of what in this field is, I am afraid, a burden which must rest upon the Chair.
§ Mr. ShinwellFurther to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, do you consider that I have had my fair share this afternoon? Are you aware that, although I first came to the House 37 years ago—I was away for a little while through no fault of my own—I have never been prevented by any of your predecessors from putting a supplementary question in order to elucidate information?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that I shall not deny myself any opportunity of hearing 405 the right hon. Gentleman ask Questions. I am sure that the House will appreciate, as will the right hon. Gentleman, that if one or more right hon. Gentlemen asks a series of supplementary questions by rapid methods it may be that all the questioning has to come from one side of the House and the other side is left out.
§ Mr. SmithersFurther to that point of order. Is it not the case that we have managed to get through only 36 Questions today? Some of us would greatly welcome it if you were more severe on supplementary questions except our own.