BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 24 June 1965)

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the programme which he has announced for next week is, once again, very congested? Does he not realise that the consequence of the Government's gross overloading of the Parliamentary programme is a lowering of respect for the House in the country? Could we have less business, please?

§ Mr. Bowden
I do not regard next week as being overloaded. It may be that the Rent Bill, which I think the whole House wants, will take a little longer than up to seven o'clock on the second day, but we had better see how we get on with that.

§ Sir G. de Freitas
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the publication today of a report by Dr. Knapp, of the United States Department of Agriculture, showing the benefits which British farmers could derive from agricultural co-operation provided that it is free from the National Farmers' Union? Will the Leader of the House consider providing us with an opportunity to discuss this problem of the possibility of agricultural co-operation being sabotaged by the National Farmers' Union?

§ Mr. Bowden
It is important that we should discuss agricultural co-operation 1947 perhaps before the end of July, but I cannot promise a day. Between now and the end of July the greater proportion of the time available is in the hands of the Opposition and no doubt they will choose agriculture for debate on a Supply day.

§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
Will the Leader of the House consider again the business for Tuesday and Wednesday? I have in my hands a mass of Amendments to the Rent Bill, most of them originating from the Government themselves, and I suggest that it is almost an insult to the intelligence of the House to think that this business can possibly be concluded by seven o'clock on the second day.

§ Mr. Bowden
I have already said that I think it is possible to conclude by seven o'clock. We shall see how we get on and if it is not possible we shall run on a little later. I hoped that we should have been able to rise at the end of July for the Summer Recess but, if not, we can run for a few days into August.

§ Mr. Warbey
Can my right hon. Friend say when we are to have a debate on Vietnam, and particularly on Motion No. 260 on the Order Paper on preconditions for peace in Vietnam, which puts forward constructive proposals for peace there.
[That this House, desirous of helping the Vietnamese people to secure the peace with independence, sovereign equality, security and justice which along with other formerly dependent nations, they were promised in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and which was specifically pledged to Vietnam in the Final Declaration of the 1954 Geneva Conference, to which Her Majejsty's Government adhered, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to endorse and act upon the following proposals as essential pre-conditions to the success of any peace initiative, based, as U Thant has repeatedly said it must be and as the main parties have already agreed, on the essential principles of the Geneva Agreements on Vietnam, namely, a re-affirmation of the British Government's support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity; and essential unity; of the State of Vietnam as one nation in fact and law; 1948 the official recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, formed in September, 1945, as a stable, independent govenment, constituted in accordance with the principles and practice of international law, and entitled to enter into official relations with the representatives of other sovereign states and to adhere to valid international agreements; the immediate establishment of full reciprocal diplomatic relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, on the understanding that the de facto authority of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam extends at present from the frontier with China and Laos to the military demarcation line on the 17th parallel; the suspension of British recognition of any governmental authority south of the 17th parallel until such time as a new government has been formed with the participation of the South Vietnam Liberation Front and other popularly-based political forces; the withdrawal by Great Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth of any assistance (direct or indirect, military or political or diplomatic) to any regime in South Vietnam which is not clearly based on popular support; and the cessation of the landing of United States and other foreign forces in Vietnam and complete cessation of United States or other foreign air or naval attacks against any part of Vietnam.]
and also on Motion No. 264,
[That this House congratulates the Leader of the Opposition on his frankness in publicly admitting that his long opposition to the recall of the 1954 Geneva Conference to deal with the problems of Vietnam was misconceived and has failed ignominiously to check the revolt of the Vietnamese people against the violation of the Geneva Agreements and of the Final Declaration by the Great Powers, to cement the Anglo-American alliance, or to divide the Communist alliance.]
which censures the Leader of the Opposition for the hypocritical part which he has played over this whole matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—including converting the Foreign Office into an instrument of American policy, and also for the part which he has played in—

§ Mr. Kershaw
On a point of order. Is it in order to use a question on business to make these abrasive remarks?

§ Mr. Speaker
No, it is not. I have not the Motion in my hand, but no doubt the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) will exercise his great skill in attracting attention to the Motion in a manner which does not involve allegations of that kind.

§ Mr. Warbey
I was not making any allegations. If I made any personal allegations against the Leader of the Opposition I withdraw them. I should not have used the word "hypocritical" on this occasion and I realise that.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Business questions are rather a burden to us all and it would assist if the hon. Member would state quickly what his business question is.

§ Mr. Warbey
I was asking if we are to have a debate on the two Motions on the Order Paper which I have mentioned. I was indicating—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I would be obliged if the hon. Member would briefly indicate what he was asking about. Let us get on.

§ Mr. Bowden
I cannot promise a debate because the contents of the Motions would probably come within the debate on foreign affairs which we have already promised to the House, but in view of the Prime Minister's statement on Thursday of last week, the discussions at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and Questions today, I think that we ought to await developments now before we have a debate.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill, forecast in the Queen's Speech last November, to provide for leasehold enfranchisement will be introduced? Has it shared the fate of the Steel Bill?

§ Mr. Bowden
It will not be introduced next week.

§ Mr. Heffer
In view of the great amount of interest shown in the question of the procedures of the House and its reform, can my right hon. Friend say when the two Reports issued by the Select Committee on Procedure will be debated?

§ Mr. Bowden
Time will be found before we rise for the Summer Recess for a debate arising from the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure and the Government's proposals in relation to them.

§ Sir C. Taylor
The Minister of Overseas Development made an important statement in the House last week and we were not able, quite rightly, to cross-question the right hon. Lady on that occasion. Will the right hon. Gentleman give time in the near future for a debate on Motion No. 254 which refers to overseas loans, so that we can fully discuss the statement made by the Minister?
[That, in view of the financial situation of the country, this House wishes to express its astonishment at the statement made by the Minister of Overseas Development, whereby it has been announced that Her Majesty's Government, having borrowed large sums from the International Monetary Fund, international bankers and other sources at various rates of interest, and which must in due course be repaid, are now prepared to lend unspecified moneys to unspecified developing countries free of interest.]

§ Mr. Bowden
I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future. I understand that my right hon. Friend will be likely to be issuing a White Paper dealing in rather greater detail with the statement which she made.

§ Sir C. Taylor
Shall we have a debate on the White Paper?

§ Mr. Bowden
I cannot promise that at the moment.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
When my right hon. Friend says that a debate on foreign affairs should be postponed because of the Prime Minister's statement last week, will be take into account the fact that there are many of us on this side of the House who believe that if the bombing of North Vietnam continues, in blunt defiance of the appeal made by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, this will make a debate urgent? Therefore, if the bombing continues, will my right hon. Friend undertake to rearrange the business of the House so that we can discuss this campaign of murder which is still proceeding in Vietnam?

§ Mr. Bowden
I would remind my hon. Friend that the bombing ceased for five days in the hope that a solution might be reached. We shall have to await developments. If it were felt that a debate should take place immediately we would, of course, rearrange business.

§ Mr. Sandys
Will the Prime Minister be making a statement about the outcome of the Commonwealth Prime Minister's meeting? If so, on what day?

§ Mr. Bowden
I cannot say whether a statement will be made, but certainly a communiqué will be issued as usual.

§ Mr. Richard
May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 196 which calls for investigation into the case of Timothy John Evans?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to carry out an investigation into the case of Timothy John Evans as he advocated in 1961, or to appoint a Judge of the High Court to hold a public inquiry for that purpose.]
This Motion has now been signed by 92 hon. Members. Does my right hon. Friend not think that this is a matter which should be discussed by the House so that in this case justice may at last be seen to be done?

§ Mr. Bowden
As far as I know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has nothing further to say following his statement on 4th February, but a debate perhaps could well take place on an early day Motion or on a Private Member's Motion; and there are probably two or three opportunities available between now and the end of July.

§ Mr. Fisher
As the Prime Minister has found it expedient not to answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), can the Leader of the House, whose responsibility it is to allocate Government time, tell us whether we are to have a Steel Bill this Session?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir, I cannot say firmly at this stage.

§ Mr. Snow
When my right hon. Friend was replying just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about consideration being given 1952 to the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure, had he taken into account the fact that important matters are raised in the new Motion, No. 257, on the Order Paper suggesting to the House a certain order of priority in the matter of specialist committees which the Select Committee might take into consideration and discuss?
[That this House is of the opinon that immediate action should be taken to bring Parliamentary procedure and the conduct of Government into line with modern developments; takes note that the protracted consideration of the Finance Bill and the subsequent all-night sittings which this has created, together with the archaic procedure which prevented for three hours the Prime Minister, on Thursday, 17th June, from making a statement of international importance, are two recent examples of the failure of the present system; and considers that it is useless for the Government, Opposition and Members of Parliament to call for the modernisation of Great Britain and the streamlining of trade unions and industry whilst themselves trying to carry on under a system which was evolved over 700 years and much of which has not yet reached the twentieth century; that this House therefore calls for immediate action to improve this and regards the protracted deliberations in the Committee of Procedure as not sufficiently speedy or drastic to meet modern demands; and urges that the following proposals should be dealt with as a matter of urgency: that the House should now meet in the morning on Tuesday. Wednesday and Thursday, and that the Parliamentary timetable should be revised accordingly to exclude any sittings later than 10 p.m., but that Standing Committees should continue to meet at their present times; that all major Bills should be taken upstairs in Committee and not on the Floor of the House; that Specialist Committees charged with the consideration of both legislation and broad administration of policy should immediately be introduced on an experimental basis; that the voting procedure is archaic and time-wasting and should be urgently reviewed and a method utilising modern techniques should be introduced, in order to make unnecessary the transport of sick Members to the Lobbies; that all speeches should be subject to a time limit extendable at the will of the House; that facilities in the House 1953 of Commons for Members are far below the required standard to carry out their duties efficiently; and that until it is possible in the long term to provide a new seat of Government designed for this purpose there should be very urgent steps taken to provide Members with separate office accommodation, hostel accommodation and far greater research facilities.]

§ Mr. Bowden
I am not absolutely certain, but I think that the Select Committee on Procedure is discussing that matter at the moment.

§ Sir K. Pickthorn
Has the Leader of the House further considered the matter which I may shortly refer to as "taxation by dead heat"?
[That this House, recognising the normal duty of the Chair to give a casting vote when the voices are equal, declares that proposals for taxation of the people should not be initiated by this means.]

§ Mr. Bowden
Yes, Sir; I have given this further consideration. As I said last Thursday, there are many precedents for a casting vote being given when there is a dead heat on business normally. This was a financial matter, which may raise a rather different point. I think that, perhaps, the Select Committee on Procedure might look at it and take evidence and see whether it can advise the House.

§ Sir K. Pickthorn
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attention to this matter and, at the same time, ask him not to think it grudging to doubt whether the whole of this matter falls within the normal function of that Committee?

§ Mr. Ogden
Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is correct that there is only one more day available to debate nationalised industry? As this is a critical time for the National Coal Board, could time be made available before the end of the Session for a debate on the coal industry?

§ Mr. Bowden
It is correct that there is one more day available out of the three, but the choice of subject on nationalised industry day is a matter for the Opposition.

§ Mr. Sharples
Can the Leader of the House say whether the Home Secretary intends to make a statement on immigra- 1954 tion policy next week, as the Government's proposals seem to have been fairly extensively recorded already?

§ Mr. Bowden
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a statement on immigration as soon as the Government have anything to say.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston
Reverting to matters to be put before the Select Committee on Procedure, may I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to Motion No. 255, with reference to proceedings on the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill? As I recollect, the right hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber on that occasion, and I am sure that he will agree that the situation was extremely unfortunate.
The Prime Minister was here, seeking to make a statement, and this adversely affected the debate. This is the sort of thing which might happen next week. The same kind of situation might arise at any time. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this matter is definitely being referred to the Select Committee of Procedure?
[That this House regrets that there was no adequate procedure to enable the Prime Minister to intervene during the Report stage of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill for the purpose of making a statement of national importance concerning Vietnam and calls on Her Majesty's Government to refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure; and further regrets that those honourable Members who entered the Chamber to hear the Prime Minister's statement and remained in anticipation of it, while not infringing the strict rules of procedure, should by their attitude of manifest disinterest have adversely affected the conduct of the debate on the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill.]

§ Mr. Bowden
I have looked at this point. I think that there is a case for discussion to take place probably through the usual channels in the first place about a new Standing Order which would permit a Prime Minister to make a statement at any time on an urgent matter of international or national importance without interrupting a debate.
1955 This is not the first occasion when this sort of thing has happened, and I do not for a moment suggest that the Clerks of the House who would have advised Mr. Speaker at the time were at fault. I think that it ought to be looked at, but through discussions, first of all, through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
Although no one would wish to have a debate on foreign affairs if it might damage the prospects of the Peace Mission on Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration that perhaps such a debate might strengthen the hand of the Mission and that, in any case, there are other questions, such as the situation in San Domingo and Malaysia, which urgently require discussion by the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
I hope that, when we reach the foreign affairs debate, a two-day debate as promised last week, it will be comprehensive; but I do not rule out the possibility of circumstances requiring that it be taken rather earlier than expected.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
Reverting to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), has the Leader of the House studied two Motions concerning the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, one in the name of several of my hon. Friends and myself and the other in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and others of us?
Is he aware that the last Commonwealth debate was too short and some of the speeches were too long for private Members to be able to express their views on these great matters'? May we have an assurance that, when the communiqué from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference is published, the House will be enabled to discuss it at the length which it deserves?
[That this House reaffirms its faith in a Commonwealth based upon the need and desire of peoples to maintain their sovereignty in partnership with others; recalls India's Five Principles, enunciated by the late Jawaharlal Nehru, namely mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs of an economic, 1956 political or ideological character, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence; welcomes the extension of the activities of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; looks forward to the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation; would support a generally acceptable Commonwealth Court of Appeal; proposes co-operation between the National Economic Development Council and corresponding bodies in other Commonwealth countries and for a more complete survey of Commonwealth resources; believes that, since international debt imposes its own form of colonialism, technical assistance and freer trade within the Commonwealth should take precedence over grants and loans; would welcome further commodity stabilisation arrangements; believes that, as a sequel to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should he so modified as to allow the modernisation of Commonwealth preferential trading arrangements; recommends consideration of a Commonwealth Bank, and also of a Commonwealth Payments Union, on the lines of the former European Payments Union, to act as a buffer between creditor and debtor nations and obviate the erection of trade barriers because of temporarily adverse balances; would welcome more direct oversea Commonwealth participation in the management of the Sterling Area; believes that Commonwealth immigration into the United Kingdom must be limited by absorptive capacity and that much of it would he unnecessary in a more evenly developed Commonwealth; urges Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to discuss with Her Majesty's Governments in the old Dominions the rapid expansion of their populations which their very security demands; notes the approach of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania to the European Economic Community; holds Europe and the Commonwealth to he complementary concepts, witness Australia's valuable membership of the European Launcher Development Organisation; and urges that the partnership of Commonwealth with European nations, linked in London, could and should become a decisive world force for peace with justice.] [That this House reaffirms its faith in a Commonwealth based upon the need and desire 1957 of peoples to maintain their sovereignty in partnership with others; recalls India's Five Principles, enunciated by the late Jawaharlal Nehru, namely, mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, noninterference in internal affairs of an economic, political or ideological character, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence; considers that the timing and conditions of Rhodesian independence are matters exclusively for Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian Government; trusts that nothing will be done to provoke a unilateral declaration of independence; urges political leaders and parties in Rhodesia to eschew violence and work the Constitution; urges Her Majesty's Government further to assist the educational and economic advancement, and thus the political emancipation, of all in Rhodesia; deprecates threats of economic or other sanctions against the Republic of South Africa as self-defeating, contrary to the aforesaid Five Principles and likely to harm the promotion by Her Majesty's Government of the prosperity and independence of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland; would welcome with full respect to the sovereignly of India and Pakistan, a settlement within the Commonwealth of their disagreements over the Rann of Kutch and over Kashmir; believes that this would facilitate combined sub-continental defence strategy on the lines already suggested by Field-Marshal Ayub Khan; recognises India's reluctance either to make nuclear weapons or to commit herself to a military alliance with the United States of America and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on deploying British nuclear as well as conventional forces east of Suez; therefore considers that the said Government deserves Commonwealth support in holding the necessary base and staging facilities from Gibraltar to Singapore; further congratulates Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, supported by Her Majesty's Governments in Australia and New Zealand, on aiding the defence of Malaysia, whose independence and integrity are of concern to the whole Commonwealth; and foresees a special rôle for the Commonwealth in the eventual settlement of South-East Asia.]

§ Mr. Bowden
As Leader of the House, I am quite prepared to accept that all debates are too short and all speeches too long. We did have a debate prior to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, at the request of the Opposition. Let us see what happens as a result of the communiqué. If there is an opportunity, no doubt we can have a further debate, but we are really pressed for time between now and the end of July. Nevertheless, if the Opposition care to use a Supply day for this purpose, it could be done.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must get on.

§ Sir C. Osborne
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Motion No. 263, which is a personal attack upon me, a despicable, mean and contemptible one, based on deliberate misrepresentation—
[That this House deplores the action of the hon. Member for Louth in asking Her Majesty's Government to punish ordinary men and women for exercising their democratic rights in industry and calls upon the Leader of the Opposition to dissociate himself from this proposition.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have not the Motion in my mind at the moment, but I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would indicate what is his point arising on the business question or a point of order. We cannot get into a debate about its merits or demerits.

§ Sir C. Osborne
I should like to have your guidance and help in this matter, Mr. Speaker, as you were closing business questions. This is a personal attack upon me in Motion No. 263, which is based on a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I ask the Leader of the House whether he will provide time—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is different. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that now because I have indicated that we must bring the business question to an end. I understood the hon. Gentleman to be raising a point of order.

§ Sir C. Osborne
Then may I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? By what means can a back bencher on either side defend himself from a mean and despicable attack like this? This Motion which has been used against me misrepresents what I said. May I be allowed to remind you, Sir, of what I actually asked?

§ Mr. Speaker
No. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. This was not in my mind at first, but I think that as it amounts to—I shall not define the character of the Motion—I should relent to the extent of allowing the hon. Gentleman to ask the Leader of the House for time to have it debated, if that is what he desires.

§ Sir C. Osborne
I ask for time, Sir, because of—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must be kind to me, because I am relenting in his favour. What he is allowed to do is not to give reasons any further, but to ask whether he may have time.

§ Sir C. Osborne
I am much obliged. May we have time to debate this matter, which I regard as a nasty, mean, personal attack?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir; I cannot promise Government time. This is a matter for the half-hour Adjournment debate or for a private Members' occasion, of which there are a number. In this early day Motion, I have been asked to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. Like everyone else in the House, I hope, I deplore wild-cat strikes; but I cannot associate myself with the hon Gentleman's view that they should be punished.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Mr. Speaker, could you help my hon. Friend and the House? If there is an attack on a Member, a Motion on the Order Paper is used for this purpose, and the Government do not give time, how does the Member manage to defend himself or to get justice from the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I know of no procedure other than to seek time from those who control the business of the House, which I cannot do. I know that the importance of the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made will be borne in mind.

§ Mr. Iain Macleod
May I put this point to the Leader of the House? He will recall that, recently, in a case which indirectly concerned myself and which an hon. Member thought, wrongly, I hope, involved an attack upon him, the Leader of the House thought it right to provide a small amount of Government time—this is the point—to discuss it. The Leader of the House will agree that it is right to have fair play, as it were, between the two sides of the House. In view of this, without comment on the merits of the situation, will he consider a small amount of time, some Government time, being given to this issue?

§ Mr. Bowden
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the matter he referred to arose out of a Report of the Committee of Privileges following a complaint of privilege, a very different 1960 matter. If any Government could be asked to supply time when any Member felt that he had been injured by an early-day Motion, we should never get away from it and we should discuss precious little else.

§ Sir H. Butcher
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am the hon. Member referred to in the Motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), but I accept that fact and do not desire that it should be debated. I am entirely happy to leave it as it is. However, the point of order that I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. Where an hon. Member is specifically and individually attacked, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has been, am I correct in saying that the only protection for him is solely within the hands of the Leader of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I suppose that if he asks my permission and submitted it, an hon. Member in this situation might make a personal statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It might be so. I am not committing myself one way or the other, but since the hon. Member was asking whether that was the only remedy, I had to include it. On the other hand, it is only fair to point out that the personal statement would have to be of a non-controversial character. That might create difficulty.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that when a hostile Motion, early day or of any other type, appears on the Order Paper, and an hon. Member disagrees with its terms, it is a relatively simple matter for him to table an Amendment to it?

§ Sir C. Osborne
It is a personal attack on me.

§ Mr. Speaker
The question of the sufficiency of these remedies is scarcely one on which I should like to comment.

§ Mr. Iain MacLeod
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Leader of the House will understand the importance of this point. Does he appreciate that it is a false point to say that the original question was connected with a matter of privilege? That matter of privilege had been disposed of by the Chair.
1961 It was after that that the Leader of the House, because his hon. Friend thought that there was an attack upon him, thought it right to provide a small amount—two or three hours—of Government time. If he will do that for an hon. Member on his side of the House, it is his duty, as Leader of the House, to do it for an hon. Member on this side.

§ Mr. Bowden
The right hon. Gentleman's recollections are not correct. If he will refer to it he will see that the position which I took up earlier is right. If I thought that the cases were on all fours I would not hesitate. But I warn the House, in the interests of this and of future Governments, that if one gets into the position that simply by putting down an early day Motion attacking an hon. Member one will have a debate, no Government at any time will be able to do very much else.

§ Mr. Speaker
We must get down to our business.