§ Mr. Arthur LewisOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I was not able to give you longer notice of this point of order, but I wish to raise a matter which I think is within your control 386 concerning the tabling of the Motion for the Whitsun Adjournment.
Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have been a Member of this House for many years, and I think you will agree that it has been the custom and practice of all Governments, irrespective of party, to give a few days' notice on the Order Paper of the period of the recess in order to allow hon. Members who may wish to do so to put down Amendments. I think that that has always been the case in the past.
You will be aware that there has been no such notice put down up to now and that the earliest opportunity will be tomorrow, unless the Government intend to put it down for Friday, in which event they would be taking up private Members' time. As retrogressive as this Government are, I do not think that they would do that.
If the Government put down the Motion at the earliest opportunity, which is tomorrow, hon. Members will be unable to table Amendments, since they will not see the Order Paper until tomorrow, and that will mean that you will have to consider accepting manuscript Amendments.
I cannot see why the Government should not give hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the Adjournment of the House some days before the actual Adjournment, unless it is that they want to carry on this practice of "bouncing" the House of Commons with a view to preventing hon. Members from discussing the Motion. Very often hon. Members wish to raise important issues. If they know what the period of the recess is to be, they can have discussions through the usual channels, by which I mean the back benchers' usual channels with the Leader of the House.
May I ask whether it is possible to request the Leader of the House to do in future what all Governments have done in the past, and give hon. Members at least two or three days' notice by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper, rather than leaving it until the day before the Adjournment, as will be the case now, unless the Leader of the House intends to put it down for Friday?
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must tell the 387 hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that on this occasion he is misinformed. If he examines all the precedents of all Governments, he will find that what is being done on this occasion is in line with them, with one exception. The exception is that the day chosen sometimes has been the day before the date of the Adjournment. It has usually been the practice of all Governments to decide, in the light of the business for the week, which day would be the most suitable. I have taken into account all the factors of the week's business. Looking at the business, I have decided that tomorrow is the most suitable day. Accordingly, the Motion will be put down tomorrow, entirely in accordance with established precedents.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank the Leader of the House for his kind and courteous reply and draw his attention to the most recent example, when, in respect of the Easter Recess, he put down the Motion a week before? It is not true to say that it is done the day before. It is done several days before, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to table Amendments which will be denied them now because they have no opportunity of knowing what the Motion is to contain.
§ Mr. WhitelawI am sorry to take up the time of the House by arguing with the hon. Gentleman. However, he is confusing two things: the day when the debate is taken relative to the date of the recess and the day on which the Motion is put down. I put down the Motion for the Easter Recess some days before the recess because I felt that that fitted in best with the business of the House. I still put down the Motion on the same day relative to that day as I am doing on this occasion.
§ Mr. John MendelsonFurther to that point of order——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have heard four contributions. I think that they 388 were all out of order. This is not a point of order. It is a matter for the arrangement of the business of the House, and it is an abuse of Standing Orders to seek to raise it as a point of order.