– in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 4 Chwefror 1947.
May I ask the acting Leader of the House a question about Thursday's Business? I want to ask whether he is aware that the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Report was only available in the Vote Office 45 minutes ago. It is a document of nearly 100 pages. Does he really think it is reasonable to ask the House to discuss this document on Thursday? Does he think that to do that is fair either to the importance of the subject, or to the responsibilities of hon. Members of this House?
There was published last Saturday morning what had already appeared in the newspapers—a summary of the Report—and if hon. Members were not aware of that, it is unfortunate, but I did take steps to see that the summary was in the Vote Office at the end of last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "But it was not"]. I know. I took immediate steps last Thursday to see that the Report of the Preparatory Commission was published as early as possible. There were two copies in this country. I had hoped that it would have been published early yesterday, but printing difficulties made that rather awkward, and it was published shortly after the House met. But the principles involved are surely in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members and I should have thought—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—I never abuse Question time. I do not make statements except in answer to Questions. I would now say that as the Report is now available, Thursday's Business should stand, and in no circumstances can I agree to an alteration.
It is quite true that this Report was made available on Saturday for those hon. Members who were here to receive it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only the summary."] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself has read the summary? I have sought to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will find it extremely difficult to follow this summary of eight pages without reading the full document of 100 pages. If he will look at paragraph 12, he will see that it is almost unintelligible without the full document. Nobody will belittle the significance of this subject. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is treating the House fairly to bring forward a document like this and ask for a discussion on it at such short notice? I know of no precedent for such a procedure when there is, as far as I know, no urgency. Why has this subject to be taken this week? Why could it not equally well be taken next week, when the House will have had reasonable time to examine and study the document?
I would remind the hon. Members, if they will carry their minds back to last Thursday, that the Debate is not on this Report—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it on?"] Perhaps hon. Members will give me a minute in which to reply. What I asked the House to agree to last Thursday was a Debate on the whole world food situation and the work of the F.A.O. No hon. or right hon. Member questioned me about the Preparatory Commission. I had already taken steps to put the printing of it in hand. This discussion will be as wide as Mr. Speaker will allow. If hon. Members have not been giving their minds to consideration of world-wide questions of great significance and importance, I am awfully sorry, but I imagine that the vast majority of hon. Members will welcome a Debate on this important subject.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again if he does not understand that this document is the basis of the international work that is to be done? Does he really consider it reasonable to ask the House to consider this document at 48 hours' notice? I register all the emphatic protest I can against this important international instrument being treated in this way, and I repeat my question, as to what the urgency is, and why it cannot be taken next week.
In these interchanges with right hon. Gentlemen on the other side, they always have arguments to show why things should never be taken now. They would always postpone things—[An HON. MEMBER: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question whether we regard it as a matter of urgency at this time to have this Debate, which I had hoped would be far above the party level. It is a world-wide question of the greatest importance and I should have thought that hon. Members of this House, if they had paid attention to their duty, would be able to discuss it 48 hours after receiving this Report It was only as a matter of great pressure that I was able to get the Report published. I am sorry that it was not published yesterday. I have done my best about it, and I still think there is adequate knowledge- in this House to enable us to discuss the food situation on Thursday.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that to ask the House to discuss a Report of this significance with this notice is not treating the subject fairly but frivolously?
I have tried to make it clear that this Debate is on the work of the F.A.O. and the world food situation. This is a document which will contribute to the discussion of the problem, and I should have thought that hon. and right hon. Members opposite who are so keen on studying the Report, would consider 48 hours ample time to digest the document if they really wished to do so.
I understand that the Debate is to be on the Adjournment of the House and, if I may, I should like to inquire, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, whether any special limitation will be imposed upon the full freedom of hon. Members to speak as they choose upon the subject of the Adjournment, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye?
The only Rule on the Adjournment is that one must not discuss legislation; otherwise the Debate must be quite open.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he has hastened the production of this document because he considers it relevant to the Debate on Thursday? When he said that if hon. Members take their duties seriously they can read it, surely he means precisely the opposite? The only hon. Members who will be able to read this document by Thursday are those hon. Members who neglect today's and tomorrow's Business. In those undoubted circumstances, is he not bringing this House into contempt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—with the country when he takes a step which, to the knowledge of the country, renders a serious Debate on the subject impossible?
Hon. Members:
Answer.
How can the Minister answer what was a provocative debating question?
What is the objection?
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that you now rule that we may not ask provocative debating questions?
Certainly—
Hear, hear.
If the noble Lord would not say "Hear, hear," quite so loudly when I am speaking, he would hear that I was saying "Certainly not." Hon. Members can ask any questions they like, but it is not necessary that a Minister should answer them, particularly when they are framed as they are sometimes in what is a non-answerable way.
Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, while I quite appreciate the difficulty which Ministers may feel in attempting to answer questions which are, in fact, unanswerable, is it to be ruled from the Chair that we are not entitled to demand an answer when such questions are asked?
Hon. Members may demand an answer but there is no need to give it. A Minister can always refuse, and Erskine May lays down some Rules about Questions and supplementary questions which have been broken frequently lately.
Further to that point of Order, is it one of the Rules in Erskine May that one may not ask provocative or debating questions? And are we to understand that the Chair will intervene to support this?
It is one of the Rules in Erskine May that provocative and debating supplementary questions are out of Order, strictly speaking.
Might I ask you, Sir, if it is now your Ruling that it is out of Order to say "Hear, hear"?
Certainly it is not out of Order to say "Hear, hear," but I rather thought, if the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, that it was rather provocative as far as I was concerned.
Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] May I say that if there was anything provocative in the way that I said "Hear, hear" I am very sorry, but I have never before heard a Ruling from the Chair which criticised the tone of voice in which the term "Hear, hear" was uttered.
On the question of Business may I, as a Private Member, point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal how impossible he is making it for Private Members to follow these discussions intelligently, particularly if they have work to do outside this House, in the service of this House. We have had to consider, in the short time since we have reassembled, a most elaborate Transport Bill, a most elaborate Town and Country Planning Bill and a most elaborate Electricity Bill. We are to spend the whole of today on the Electricity Bill. Tomorrow afternoon there is an important Debate upon Germany. How is there time to study this Report in order to make it possible for us to do our duty? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this arrangement.
Having spent most of the last six weeks analysing some of the more egregious errors in the food policy of the Government in the Far East, may I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No,"]—that it will be absolutely impossible, within 48 hours, to study the document which is now being pushed out and thereafter make an intelligible survey of a question which must need the deepest study in detail, and not only, as the right hon. Gentleman airily said, on matters of principle? It is quite impossible for those who take a serious interest in this question, who have studied it on the spot and have seen the result of the errors which are being made, to draw conclusions as to the future and carry out their duty properly if they are not given sufficient time to make a proper examination of the document.
The hon. Gentleman obviously has his speech ready for Thursday after his study of one aspect of this problem. As regards the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), he has taken a great interest in these problems over a long period of time. It is perfectly true that hon. Members are being worked—it may be they consider that they are being over-worked—but then that is the responsibility they took on themselves when they were elected at the last General Election.
Might I ask the acting Leader of the House, in view of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies last week that he would keep the House in touch with any developments in Palestine, whether the Secretary of State proposes to make a statement during the week on the recent events, and if so, upon what day?
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this-matter. Of course, we will fulfil the undertaking we gave about keeping the House informed. I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend, and will let the right hon. Gentleman know when it will be convenient for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement. However, as he knows, discussions are still going on, and it might be a little difficult to make a statement of any definitive character.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not referring to the result of the discussions going on now? I was referring to the events in Palestine.
On that, of course I will ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement, if it pleases the right hon. Gentleman, on, say, Thursday?
indicated assent.
I will ask him to give a report on Thursday on the present situation.
On Business, may I ask the Government whether they will consider an extra hour tomorrow night on the Adjournment Debate, in view of the fact that so many hon. Members wish to take part?
I think this is an inappropriate moment to ask a question about Business, since we are dealing with the subject of Palestine. I cannot give a guarantee, but I will consider that request through the usual channels.