HC Deb 14 December 1966 vol 738 cc463-5
Mr. Winnick

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to make urgent representations to the American Government over the bombing of Hanoi on 13th December and any future such bombing. The news is grave and alarming. The Evening Standard today announces that the Americans no longer deny that Hanoi itself has been bombed.

I know the difficulties of securing an Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, but I think that it would be most unfortunate if we were not allowed to discuss this very urgent matter, relating to the danger to world peace, straight away. It is unfortunate that on some occasions we cannot discuss urgent matters. I believe that this matter is so grave and so alarming that we are entitled to ask for a debate straight away in the House. We know of Britain's responsibility as co-Chairman of the Geneva conference.

In view of the grave news I hope that you, Sir, will allow a debate under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to make urgent representations to the American Government over the bombing of Hanoi on 13th December and any future such bombing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me prior notice that he intended to seek this leave. I fully understand the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hold this Motion to be within the Standing Order, save in defiance of precedent.

Motions are at present out of order where the responsibility of the Government is not directly and immediately involved, or where a foreign Government is more directly responsible. The Select Committee on Procedure, in 1959, held that the rule might be unduly restrictive in matters of foreign affairs. The House, however, refrained from adopting that suggestion, and the Chair therefore remains bound by a long series of Rulings enforcing the restriction to which I have drawn attention.

The House will recall that on 15th June, 1965, and on 1st February and 29th June, 1966, hon. Members sought to raise in this way new acts of war in Vietnam, but on each occasion the application for leave to move the Adjournment was disallowed by the Chair. I must now give the same decision.

Mr. Mendelson

On a point of order. Understandably, under this rule and in accordance with the precedents, the decision was practically inevitable, but on those previous occasions which you, Mr. Speaker, have just recalled, it was possible for hon. Members to table successfully, with your approval, a Private Notice Question on the previous bombing of Hanoi which led to a Government Answer. Without in any way going into the reasons why that was not possible today, in these circumstances is it not urgent that the Government should make a statement—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question of what is in order on a Private Notice Question is a matter left in the absolute discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Ogden

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), we were discussing, or trying to discuss, a matter of some urgent and public importance here at home. It may be regrettable that this happened, but are there no opportunities of putting further questions to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker

Again, the question of how many questions are put from the House to a Minister after a statement must be left in the discretion of the Chair. We could have no business whatever if every hon. Member who sought to put questions on statements was permitted to do so.

Mr. Mawby

Further to that point of order. I ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, because I had a Question down to the Home Secretary, which was tabled more than a month ago, but which I have been deferring, asking whether he would make a statement on the future of civil defence. Is there any way in which a Minister can give notice to an hon. Member who has tabled a Question that he intends to make a statement on the issue raised in the Question?

Mr. Speaker

That is an interesting point. I will be quite frank and say that, if I had known that the hon. Member had a Question down in the way he has suggested, he would have caught my eye in the questions which were allowed just now; but I cannot be expected to know all the Questions which are on the Order Paper a month ahead.

Mr. Murray

Further to that point of order. Can we be told, Mr. Speaker, how an hon. Member can have got a Question down a month ago?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should imagine that the expression "a month ago" was metaphorical.