§ Mr. PagetMr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with regard to the Motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9. The rule sets out that the Motion has to be moved after Questions, and before the Orders of the Day, but it does not lay down that it has to be moved at any particular point in the interval.
Earlier, I observed an indication from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that he intended to seek leave to move such a Motion, but I think that he has probably since changed his mind. Nevertheless, as a point of order, would not it be more convenient, where such a proposal to adjourn the House arises out of a statement made after Questions, for the Motion to be moved after the particular statement has been dealt with? Unless this is done, the consequence may well be that those interested in that particular issue will leave the Chamber while a number of other statements are made, and there will no longer be 40 Members available in the House interested in the subject and prepared to rise if the Motion is made.
I just put this forward as a suggestion, that it is within the rules of order, and would perhaps be convenient on another occasion.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am not prepared to discuss the reform of Parliamentary procedure on a point of order, except to make the simple observation that if a matter were deemed of sufficient importance to be raised under Standing Order No. 9 it would be most likely that, at any moment when it was considered, there would be 40 Members wishing to rise in support of the argument that it should be considered. But on the simple point of order as it stands, what I ruled was correct. This would have been the moment for the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to 69 bring up his Motion under Standing Order No. 9—and not when he attempted to do so.
§ Mr. PagetFurther to that point of order. There may be wisdom or unwisdom in raising it, but I do not think that there can be any doubt that there is great interest in this House in the Rhodesia question. I cite that as an example. If the Motion cannot be moved at the time, hon. Members who go away can have no means of knowing that it will be, or that it is intended to be, moved. I submit that within the rules of order as they stand—and I am not suggesting that they be altered—the Motion can be moved at any time after Questions and before—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. and learned Member has understood what I was saying. What he is suggesting is a reform of the present procedure. Like every other hon. Member, the hon. and learned Member is issued with the traditional Order of Business at the beginning of every Session of Parliament. I must read it now. It says:
1. After Prayers"—a number of items, then—Questions70 then—After QuestionsMinisterial statements…Introduction of new Members.and then the item raised by the hon. and learned Member—Proposals to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9.What the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would involve reforming the procedure, rather than be a point of order at the moment. I expect that those who are interested in procedure, and the Select Committee on Procedure, will take note of the hon. and learned Member's argument.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunFurther to that point of order. Is it not unprecedented, and a discourtesy to the House, for an hon. Member to give notice of his intention to move the Adjournment of the House, and then, for some strange reason, to absent himself from the House when the time comes to do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Chair has enough to do dealing with real points of order. The Chair is not concerned with explaining to some hon. Members the behaviour of other hon. Members. That is a matter between the two hon. Members concerned.