§ Mr. ReynoldsOn a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to confirm that no further underground tests of nuclear weapons will be carried out in the near future.This is urgent because all of us are aware of the developments that have taken place during the last few days in the international sphere in discussions on this matter. We are all of us also aware that on today's Order Paper there is a Question, for Written Answer, asking specifically what the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter will be. We have also noticed during Question Time that some of Her Majesty's Ministers, even though a decision has obviously been taken by the Government, have studiously refused to be drawn in any way to confirm or deny that such tests will take place.The matter is definite because, obviously, such a decision has been made and we cannot get an answer from Ministers, although at the moment the Answer to the Question may well be available in another part of the building, but not to hon. Members. The matter is urgent, because if I do not raise it now it will be impossible to raise it tomorrow, by which time, in view of the speed with which these things move, if the Government are to do anything, the tests may well have been started.
This is a matter of public importance, because all of us, or a great many of us, in all parts of the world, have for a long time been concerned to try to get an agreement on tests such as these. I feel that this is a matter which should be discussed, although I, for one, will be very pleased indeed if it turns out that the Government's Answer, Which perhaps could be given in some way now, is to the effect that they would take no further action in this matter at present.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member applies for leave to move the adjournment of the House, pursuant to Standing 31 Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to confirm that further underground tests of nuclear weapons will be carried out in the near future.It cannot be "to confirm"; it must be "to contradict". However, whatever the word should be, it is their refusal to state the negative proposition.I cannot hold that to be within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. ReynoldsWhilst, of course, I must accept your Ruling, Sir, I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the House if some method could be found of indicating to the House the nature of the Answer on this particularly important matter which, presumably, is now being posted on the notice board in the Press Gallery.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member will realise—without doubting any words that he says—that it cannot be a matter for me.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyAs it is my Question that is on the Order Paper, may I say that while I have no knowledge at the moment of what the reply may be, I should, by normal custom, see the Written Answer shortly and that I shall be very happy to show it to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Reynolds) when I get it.
§ Mr. S. Silverman rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it a point of order?
§ Mr. SilvermanYes, Sir. On a point of order.
Whilst respectfully accepting and, indeed, agreeing with the Ruling you have given, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the necessity of that Ruling does not arise out of an anomalous situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has already referred? If the Question for Written Answer on the Order Paper today had been down for Oral Answer, so that the Government's intention had been stated on the same date but stated to the House instead of being stated in such a form that the House cannot be aware of it until tomorrow, we might have had such an Answer as would have enabled my hon. Friend to put his point in another different form.
§ Mr. SpeakerWill the hon. Member say what is the point of order on which he rises?
§ Mr. SilvermanThe point was whether you would advise the House how on a future occasion this anomaly, which is obviously an unreasonable one, could be avoided and the House have an opportunity of dealing with the matter on its merits.
§ Mr. SpeakerI should like to follow the practice of my predecessors in declining to make pronouncements about a hypothetical situation. The hon. Member, I know, would bear in mind that, even if the Question were down for Oran Answer, at the speed of progress of Questions today there is no certainty that it would have been reached.