§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order. I ask the privilege of the House to raise a matter which in my judgment concerns the dignity of this assembly. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the precaution of giving you notice of this. My intention was to do it on a point of order, but I am not certain whether it is a legitimate point of order or whether I should just ask for your guidance.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that the right hon. Gentleman can raise what he proposes to raise as a point of order.
§ Mr. ShinwellI wish to refer to the practice which has been in operation now for two or three years—but certainly not before that, in my experience—of hon. Members placing early-day Motions on the Order Paper, many of which, of course, are legitimate in character. Some of them consist of criticism of the Government; and that is the prerogative of hon. Members, because such criticism can be answered by Ministers. But some of the Motions are derisory in character and many of them, in my submission, are frivolous.
May I venture to present to the House two examples which I discovered only today on reading the Order Paper? One is on page 1902, No. 80, and its title is "Human fallibility". Two hon. Members on this side are responsible for its submission. The Motion consists of a criticism of gentlemen who are not Members of this assembly, but are outside the House and are, therefore, quite unable to reply to this criticism. They refer to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries and the Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
In my submission, this is the type of early-day Motion which should not be 648 placed on the Order Paper. My reason for saying so is that those who are under criticism are unable to reply in this assembly.
The second Motion is No. 85, on page 1904, and is submitted by hon. Members opposite. It reads:
That this House notes with interest the Minister of Technology's attempt to be spry about his latest humiliating defeat at the hands of General de Gaulle and the French aircraft industry.
I cannot understand how this Motion was ever accepted by the Table Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Frankly, I cannot. It makes no submission to the Government relating to legislation either past or future but is merely a frivolous submission critical of a Minister who obviously is unable to reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Of course, very often in this House—I have had a long experience of it—there is a great deal of disagreement when I venture to address hon. Members and I accept that. I have disagreed with hon. Members and I have also disagreed with my hon. Friends —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am listening to the point of order. It must not be too long.
§ Mr. ShinwellWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the interruptions by hon. Members opposite, I should by this time have resumed my seat.
In conclusion, I would make a request with great respect, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask for an answer today, but would ask you to give very serious consideration to this matter, namely, whether Motions which appear to be derisory and which are critical of those who are unable to answer in this assembly, and which appear to be frivolous, should be placed on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. BlackburnFurther to that point of order. Is it not a fact that the number of Motions on the Order Paper has reached farcical proportions? Last Session, over 600 early-day Motions were put down and it was obvious that whenever an hon. Member gained a place in the Ballot for a Motion he never selected one? Is it not getting rather a joke to have so many Motions on the Order Paper?
§ Mr. Ronald BellFurther to that point of order —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that we will not pursue this too far, since we have a lot of business in front of us.
§ Mr. Emery rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I asked the House not to pursue it. Mr. Ronald Bell.
§ Mr. BellFurther to that point of order. Is there not a convention of the House going back rather further than two or three years that when a right hon. and Hon. Gentleman intends to raise in this Chamber a matter which might be critical of another hon. Member, he gives that Member notice of it? I certainly thought that there was.
Secondly, is it not the case that it has been the normal practice of hon. Members to put on the Order Paper Motions critical of Her Majesty's Governments or of particular Ministers in them?
§ Mr. SpeakerMay I deal with the point of order briefly. The question of what goes down on the Order Paper is primarily a matter for the Member himself. Members are adult—[Laughter.] Order. The Speaker has no power to interfere in what is put down in a Motion unless the Motion itself is out of order or unless it breaks the rules about Motions on the Order Paper which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will find on page 401 of Erskine May, and which points out, for instance, that a notice should not be irregular or unbecoming. "Unbecoming" is a matter of taste, on which it is very difficult for the Chair to advise hon. Members.
It also says that a Motion will be accepted unless it is not a proper subject for debate, or unless it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or unless it is designed merely to give annoyance.
On all these issues, Mr. Speaker has, from time to time during history, requested a Member to vary the terms of his Motion or even not to put it on the Order Paper. This question largely, though, must be left to the good sense of the House and the freedom of individual Members. I imagine that the House would take note of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
§ Mr. ShinwellFurther to that point of order. May I make a very short submission to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of what you have just said? If an hon. Member is precluded from raising a matter which he regards as of very deep concern to himself, or to the House in general, I can understand it being placed on the Order Paper, but there are alternatives for hon. Members, such as Questions to Ministers and Adjournment Motions.
What has happened this afternoon? Questions have been put to the Leader of the House about business and many arguments have been contained in the form of questions, as everyone will admit. There are opportunities for hon. Members to raise these matters without placing them on the Order Paper. They are derogatory in character, and, in my judgment, ought not to be permitted —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House will no doubt take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said and argue about it outside the Chamber, but the position is roughly as I have stated it. The Chair is unwilling to intervene in the freedom of hon. Members to put down Motions, unless it is absolutely necessary.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamFurther to that point of order —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Speaker is standing, and when Mr. Speaker is standing the hon. and learned Gentleman must keep his seat. I hope that we might move on from this. Sir Knox Cunningham.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamAm I right in believing that, where an hon. Member cannot put down a Question to a Minister because of its subject matter, he is allowed, under Standing Orders, to put down a Motion? Has that not always been the rule of the House and, if so, should it not remain so?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe rule of the House about what goes into Motions is much broader and less restrictive than that relating to Questions, but not quite in the absolute terms that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.