§ 19. Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what he is doing to prevent overlapping between the Royal Air Force and the other two Armed Services in the procurement, storage, and maintenance of guided missiles, their components, and ancillary equipment.
§ Mr. SandysThis matter is being watched.
§ Mr. de FreitasIs the Minister not aware that in spite of assurances given on this point by at least two of his six predecessors, there are alarming signs of increased overlapping and empire-building in the Services at this point?
§ Mr. SandysI should be very glad indeed to look into any points that the hon. Member has in mind.
§ Mr. WiggDo not the Minister's answers to Questions today make it perfectly clear that he is neither bighead nor fathead, but just simply blockhead?
§ Mr. SpeakerAn hon. Member should not use the opportunity of a supple. mentary question merely to indulge in abuse. Mr. de Freitas.
§ Mr. de FreitasQuestion No. 20.
§ Mr. SandysI take no exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I regard them as typical of what I would have expected from him.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order. While everyone would respectfully agree with the observation which you have just made, Mr. Speaker, about the wrong use of supplementary questions, is it not equally true that if a Minister makes a wrong use of the opportunity to answer Questions in order to be unreasonably and deliberately provocative, he may get the kind of response that he did not want?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a purely hypothetical question. [Interruption.] I did not think the Minister abused his position. After all, he was the first one to be attacked.
§ Mr. G. BrownFurther to that point of order. May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it has occurred to many of us, and, I suggest, it may have occurred to you, that the Minister has used every Answer today, on a subject that should be outside the ordinary frivolities of this House —[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."]—to make what he, no doubt, thought was a clever answer? You, Mr. Speaker, chose to rebuke my hon. Friend, and we do not dispute your right to say what should be done, but may I not submit that that 1216 applies both ways and that the Minister has abused his position this afternoon?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me. What I think happened was that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—I think I must honestly say with no evil intent—used a series of expressions which hon. Members should not use to each other, such as "bighead", "fathead", and so on. I think that that was wrong. Perhaps the Minister may have been technically out of order when giving his reply, but if Members on either side of the House are provoked I always give them a certain amount of latitude in how they react. We have to remember that we are human beings here.
§ Mr. LiptonOn another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Minister of Defence would like to have another shot at answering Question No. 21?
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Dodds. Question No. 22.
§ Mr. de FreitasYou called on me to ask Question No. 20, Mr. Speaker. Since then, there has been a wide exchange of remarks from one side to the other and I have not had an answer to my Question.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that the House put me out of my count.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to say that I had no evil intent. May I be allowed to say that I had every evil intent? But if in having an evil intent I was out of order, naturally I should wish to withdraw.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not know whether to believe that or not. Can we now have Question No. 20?
§ 20. Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence whether, as a result of his discussions in Washington, we shall receive air-to-air and ground-to-air guided missiles of the types used by the United States armed forces.
§ Mr. SandysI cannot add at present to my statement of 6th February.
§ Mr. de FreitasAlthough the Minister has been most reluctant to give us any information on this important matter, 1217 can he at least deal with this point? Are the weapons that are coming to us up-to-date or are they obsolescent and inferior to what could be obtained on this side of the Atlantic?
§ Mr. SandysI propose to make a statement as soon as I can, but if the hon. Member reads my earlier statement he will see that I cannot do so immediately. These are matters which, as I said in my earlier statement, are being considered by the two Governments. Until a conclusion has been reached, it would be quite impossible for me to enlarge upon what I said before, which was in accord with what was agreed between myself and the American Secretary for Defence. If I were to enlarge on it, he might do the same, and we might get into difficulties.
§ Mr. G. BrownAre we to wait until the White Paper for the Minister's statement or does he propose to make a statement beforehand? On the last occasion when he answered Questions, after two or three exchanges the right hon. Gentleman somewhat reluctantly said that he would make a statement in advance of the White Paper. Another week has now gone by. When are we likely to have a statement?
§ Mr. SandysI think I said "I hope" before.