§ Q4. Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the President of the United States of America with a view to restraining that country from unilateral action in Laos, which, under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, might involve the United Kingdom in hostilities not justified by the treaty.
§ The Prime MinisterI would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which I have to make in answer to a Private Notice Question on the South East Asian situation at the end of Questions.
§ Mr. SilvermanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not that be a complete defiance of our regular practice? Private Notice Questions ought surely to await the Answers to Questions on the Order Paper, not Questions on the Order Paper to await the Answer to Private Notice Questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerSo far as the Chair is concerned, the Minister is entitled to choose any form of answer he likes. I do not think I can help the hon. Member.
§ Mr. SilvermanWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with that. The right hon. Gentleman might ask me to defer my Question until then, but if I do not defer my Question until then, ought he not to answer it now?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no obligation on the right hon. Gentleman to answer any Question, either of the hon. Member or anybody else. He might just decline to do so. I mean from the point of view of a point of order. I venture to hope that the hon. Member will get an answer when we get to the answer made in reply to the Private Notice Question.
§ Mr. SilvermanWhile that may be so, I am afraid that I must press the matter. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman can say, "I do not propose to answer this Question at all." If he said that I should have no remedy, but what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, "I propose to answer this question, not the Question on the Order Paper but the Private Notice Question, covering part 1528 of the same ground, which I am going to be asked later." I say to you with respect, Mr. Speaker, that is a complete turning upside down of what has always been understood to be in proper position.
§ The Prime MinisterI would have thought that it might be more convenient for the hon. Member and the House if we dealt with the subject as a whole. But I am prepared to give him the Answer that I would have made to him had the Private Notice Question in the name of the Leader of the Opposition not been put down. It was for the convenience of the House and for no other reason that I made that suggestion.
§ Mr. A. LewisFurther to that point of order. I should like to raise the general principle with you, Mr. Speaker. Other hon. Members besides myself have sought permission from yourself and your predecessor to ask Private Notice Questions, and on occasion have been informed that this cannot be done unless it is a matter of extreme urgency, and it cannot be done particularly when there is a Question on the Order Paper which relates to the same subject. Our Private Notice Questions have been ruled out of order on many occasions on that ground. In view of the fact that there is a Question on the Order Paper bearing on the same subject, may we be informed why permission has been given to ask a Private Notice Question when there is no urgency?
Mr. J. WellsThe two hon. Members opposite have wasted five minutes in bogus points of order. It is extremely unfair to hon. Members who have further Questions to ask. I am extremely anxious to have an Answer to Question No. 34.
§ Mr. SpeakerI doubt whether that reproof does anything but occupy a little more time. In answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), it has never been the custom of my predecessors, and it will not be my custom—unless the House so directs—to give any reason for allowing or disallowing a Private Notice Question. When the hon. Member hears what the Private Notice Question is he may realise that in relation to the Question on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. 1529 Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) there is not much in the grievance that he is seeming to entertain.
§ Mr. A. LewisI can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been informed not once but on several occasions that a Private Notice Question cannot be asked when there is a Question on the Order Paper relating to the same matter. I have been asked on one occasion to withdraw a Question to enable a Private Notice Question to be put down.
§ Mr. SpeakerShould I want the hon. Member's assistance I should not hesitate to ask him to withdraw a Question, or to do anything of that kind. We all try to work together in the best way. But I shall not give the reason for allowing or disallowing a Private Notice Question. The Prime Minister was answering the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne when we became involved in points of order.
§ The Prime MinisterI thought that it would be for the convenience of the House to have the wider question debated as a whole. It arises from somewhat larger issues than those raised in the Question put down by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). We have not been engaged in any consultations about unilateral intervention in Laos.
§ Mr. SilvermanI express my appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy in answering my Question. I never thought that his refusal to answer was prompted by anything but a desire to serve the convenience of the House. Does he realise that very few people in this country, if any, wish to be stampeded into an unnecessary or perilous war, in the way that we were stampeded by our allies in the case of Korea? In the South East Asia Treaty Organisation is not it a prerequisite to action, first, that there should be a request for assistance by the country concerned, and, secondly, that there should be prior consultation among the parties to the Treaty? Is it not the case that the Americans have landed troops in a country, in purported pursuance of their duties or rights under the Treaty, when neither of these prerequisite conditions had in fact occurred?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Member is referring to the landing of troops in Thailand, that is an entirely different matter, and it is one about which I hope to be able to speak to the House in a few moments' time.