I desire to raise a point of order and make a special submission to you, Mr. Speaker. I submitted for your consideration a Private Notice Question which I desired to put to the Prime Minister, to ask him whether he would state what proposals Her Majesty's Government will put forward at the forthcoming conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I was quite aware that a Question in broadly similar terms was addressed to the Foreign Secretary last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), when the Foreign Secretary replied that he did not propose to make public whatever proposals Her Majesty's Government would submit to the N.A.T.O. conference.

I submit that there is growing evidence that this conference will be of a special character, that decisions may be made which will change fundamentally the relationships between the member States, including the United Kingdom, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and that new decisions which may be made at the conference will involve some surrender of our sovereignty.

It seemed to me desirable that, by means of a Private Notice Question, I should give the Prime Minister, in view of the far-reaching nature of the decisions that may be reached, an opportunity of stating what Her Majesty's Government propose to put forward at this conference. Will you, Mr. Speaker, therefore reconsider the request which I made, that I should be allowed to submit a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister?

To prevent a bad precedent arising, I ought to preface my remarks by saying that when a Question has been disallowed it is not in order to raise it again as a point of order, but I realise the importance that right hon. Gentlemen attach to this matter and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that these considerations which he has advanced are really not for me. The rule of the House is quite clear, that when a Question has been fully answered in one Session it is not in order to ask it again.

As recently as 4th December last, the Foreign Secretary, in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), of which due notice had been given by its being placed on the Order Paper, gave a considered reply in which he said that he would not make any statement about the proposals which Her Majesty's Government proposed to put forward at this conference.

On the merits of the reply I have nothing to say. It has nothing to do with me. I am content to rule that when a reply as complete as that has been given on a matter the Question has been answered, and I am bound by the rules of the House.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you took into account, in considering this matter, that the circumstances are, in one respect, at any rate, different from the circumstances which existed when the Foreign Secretary gave his Answer. Since that date, the business statement was made last Thursday by the Leader of the House and, as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman then said, and of supplementary questions addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and myself, it became clear for the first time that the House would not have an opportunity of debating these matters until after the conclusion of the conference. That was not known at the time when the Foreign Secretary gave the Answer to which you, Mr. Speaker, have referred. Does not this create a somewhat new situation in which the matter ought to be reasonably reconsidered?

These considerations are not for me. What the Foreign Secretary said was: I am not prepared to make a statement in public as to what proposals may be put forward by Her Majesty's Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 379.] That Answer is a complete answer and is a reply to a Question which is indistinguishable in matter from that submitted by the right hon. Member for Llanelly. I felt that I was bound by the rules.

But surely there are different circumstances here, Mr. Speaker. This is a changing situation. Statements are being made purporting to indicate the points of view of various Governments taking part in the N.A.T.O. conference from time to time. We have had several statements from the United States. We have had indications from France. We have had some from Germany. Therefore, the statement that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to make a statement about what they will propose at the N.A.T.O. conference, made a week ago, is not quite the same thing as a statement made in the context of subsequent statements made by member Governments. In my submission, therefore, it is proper to ask the Government, in the light of these other statements, whether they will now tell the House the proposals which they propose to put before the conference.

The Question put by the right hon. Member for Llanelly did not import these arguments into it and it was framed in language which, to all intents and purposes, was the same as that of the Question which had been previously asked.

I did not think that I could import those arguments into the Question which I sought to ask the Prime Minister in asking whether he would make a statement, Sir. Although the Question was answered last week, I thought that there were reasons why it should be asked and answered again.

I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for wishing to put the Question.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that this is a Changing situation and that the N.A.T.O. conference itself, and its possibilities, continually undergo changes when member Governments are making statements indicating their point of view while Her Majesty's Government remain quite silent in the matter? If we cannot ask the Question because of your Ruling, Sir, cannot we have from the Government an undertaking that no fundamental changes will be made in the policies of the Government and in Her Majesty's relations with any other Power belonging to N.A.T.O. until the House has had an opportunity to consider the matter?

Further to that point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether, as announced according to the statement which you have just made in quoting the previous Question and the Answer by the Foreign Secretary, the refusal of the Government to tell the House the policy which they propose to advance at the forthcoming N.A.T.O. conference could not be regarded as a matter of urgent and definite public importance? If that is so, does it not come within Standing Order No. 9?

No, it does not. It has been ruled frequently that the refusal by a Minister to answer a Question is not a matter that can be raised on that Standing Order.

Further to that point of order, Sir, may I ask your guidance? The House and the country are trying to elicit information. I sometimes think that we are playing "Twenty Questions", with Gilbert Harding in the chair instead of the Prime Minister dealing, with the House. We are told perpetually to ask another question. Could not the Government or you, Sir, protect the rights not only of Parliament, but also of the people, by insisting that the truth is told about agreements that have been made before the N.A.T.O. conference? Is there not some means by which we can extract the truth from the Government, who have already given away much of the sovereignty of the nation without the people having a chance of discussing it?

The best service that can render to the House and to the country and to hon. Members in all parts of it is to see that the rules of the House are obeyed.

May I ask one further question? Will the Prime Minister note that the whole of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] On a point of order, Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all right, you will get it one day. Will the right hon. Gentleman note the refusal of the Government—

Hon. Members:

Order.

Order, order. The right hon. Member has risen to a point of order. I have been able to hear only a little of his opening sentence.

We have been on a point of order all the time. It was raised originally by my right hon. Friend. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will note that the failure of the Government—

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport rose—

Order, order. A point of order is being raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). Until I have disposed of it, I cannot deal with another point of order. I can only deal with one at a time. I would point out that points of order should be directed to me.

Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to say earlier that the considerations I represented to you today were not made to you by my right hon. Friend when he submitted the Private Notice Question to you. Also, you did not make any reply to my representation that the situation has changed, and that the statement made by the Foreign Secretary a week ago was about a situation that does not exist today. So, with all respect to you, Sir, you have not answered my point of order. Is it not a fact that a Private Notice Question relating to a Government statement on N.A.T.O. today is not the same thing as the Question answered a week ago about an entirely different situation?

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have to rule on the Question submitted to me.

I am submitting it now.

I said that the Question of the right hon. Member for Llanelly did not import certain arguments—which was proper, because Questions should not import arguments—but if it had been phrased in a way to say that in view of some changed circumstances, I might have taken another view of it. However, as the Question was framed, and as the previous Question was answered completely I thought, I was bound by the rules of the House, and I was bound not to accept it.

May I submit to you, Sir, that if I submit a Question couched in the terms you have indicated now, you will consider it today?

I shall have to look at the Question when the right hon. Gentleman submits it to me.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Although I realise that it is not normal to move the Adjournment of the House because of the refusal of a Minister to answer a Question, will you consider a Motion for the Adjournment of the House as a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit proposals to N.A.T.O. for abrogating British sovereignty in respect of the Armed Forces of the Crown without consultation with this House?

I do not know with what facts that is supported. I have not heard of any such intention.

In support of that, may I say that it has been widely reported in numerous sections of the Press—and utterances of the Prime Minister have given credence to the belief—that at the forthcoming meeting of N.A.T.O. proposals are to be submitted by Her Majesty's Government, arising out of consultations which have taken place in London during the last day or two with representatives of the United States Government, for far-reaching changes in the present organisation of N.A.T.O. which will involve a complete change in the sovereignty of this country as hitherto understood, and which will involve very big changes in the control of the Armed Forces of the Crown, including suggestions for the integration of Her Majesty's Armed Forces with those of other countries.

Is not this a matter of such outstanding importance that suggestions and proposals of this kind ought not to be pursued further without adequate discussion in this House? I submit, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I think I can shorten this discussion. The time of the House is precious when so many hon. Members wish to speak in the important debate that is to follow. The hon. Member is not putting forward a single definite matter, and it is not within the Standing Order, and nobody could ever find that it was. I am very sorry, but the House will have to find some other way if it wishes to express its opinion.

Further to that point of order, Sir. Would it not be a single definite matter if the Government were proposing, without consultation with the House, to sacrifice the freedom and independence of this country to the forces of some other country or some other combination of countries? Would not that be a single matter of definite public importance?

If any Government proposed that, I suppose there would be a great deal of argument and dispute about it, but I have not got any definite facts before me that would justify me in applying the Standing Order. I understand that there will be a debate some time after the conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if the House does not like what the Government bring back from the conference it has its remedy in its own hands.

Several Hon. Members:

Several Hon. Members rose—

Order. I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr. Silverman rose—

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a new point of order?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it arises directly out of something you said only a few seconds ago. It is new because this argument was not raised previously in the questions that have been respectfully put to you. You said just now that there would be a debate some time, but the point of these questions is that, according to the Government statement fast Thursday, the debate would take place ex post facto, and it is this which is causing the anxiety and which makes this matter one of definite, urgent public importance.

I have considered that carefully, but there is no evidence before me which would justify me in finding the matter within the Standing Order. Mr Wedgwood Benn.

Mr. E. Fletcher rose—

Order, order. I have ruled on the points of order.