HC Deb 15 February 1966 vol 724 cc1113-8
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask 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 intended expenditure by Her Majesty's Government of over £150 million on further United States aircraft which, within the context of a fixed defence budget, may cause a reduction in the size of the British Army, cancellation of the next generation of aircraft carriers, the possible abandonment of the Aden base and, by rejecting the Mirage-Spey aircraft, will greatly harm co-operation between the British and the French aircraft industries. It has first to be proved that this is "a definite matter". From what we heard at Question Time from the Prime Minister in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it appears that, as a result of three Cabinet meetings, a definite decision has been taken. If no definite decision has been taken we cannot understand why the Secretary of State for Defence is to go to Washington. To support my argument, I would point out that there appear to have been inspired leaks to every single national newspaper today. It therefore appears to be a definite matter.

The "urgency" is in the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence leaves for Washington tomorrow and there he will undertake what appears to be an irrevocable decision in favour of the purchase of these aircraft. Too often in the past we have learnt of such things either through "leaks" to our own Press, or as statements issued by Washington after the event has taken place. Surely, therefore, this House should debate such matters of moment before a decision is finally taken rather than after it has been irrevocably taken.

The "public importance" is in the fact that the expenditure of £150 million more upon these aircraft must have very considerable repercussions on all our defence Services. I have just enumerated some of them. I hope that, for these reasons, you will agree to a Motion for the Adjournment of the House on this urgent matter of public importance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the intended expenditure by Her Majesty's Government of over £150 million on further United States aircraft which, within the context of a fixed defence budget, may cause a reduction in the size of the British Army, cancellation of the next generation of aircraft carriers, the possible abandonment of the Aden base and, by rejecting the Mirage-Spey aircraft, will greatly harm co-operation between the British and the French aircraft industries. May I, first, express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in letting me know that this might be in his mind this afternoon. Perhaps I may also, in parentheses, express the Chair's very sincere appreciation of the many courtesies which right hon. and hon. Members are showing me.

My predecessors have consistently held that it is not within the power of the Chair to grant leave to move the Adjournment before the necessary facts become available, and I am sure that the House will appreciate that the facts are not as yet available.

I must say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that even if the facts regarding the final decision were available, I doubt whether the application would come within the scope of the Standing Order. Where a matter has been continuing for some time, it has been held that the necessary element of urgency is not present when a decision is finally announced.

An application to move the Adjournment of the House on somewhat similar grounds was made on 19th January, 1965, over a year ago. In these circumstances, I think that I would have been obliged to rule that a decision formed part of a continuing matter.

I regret that I am not able to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request for leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Woodburn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While admiring the ingenuity of an hon. Member in managing to deliver a speech by imagining certain facts, how far is it in order for hon. Members to make conjectures and, on the basis of that, deliver a speech and anticipate debates in the House?

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) had been out of order in anything he said, the Chair would have called him to Order.

Captain Litchfield

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the grounds of the urgency of the matter is that the facts are not before us. We have had only statements in the public Press, which appeared to be inspired "leaks" after a Cabinet meeting, which threaten the future of the Royal Navy. It is because these statements can neither be confirmed nor denied for at least another week that this may do very grave harm to the morale of the British Navy. I respectfully submit that there is great urgency to clear up this matter one way or the other.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that the House will accept it when the Chair makes a Ruling under this very difficult Standing Order No. 9. I must say, however, that it was worth allowing the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield to put his point of order for the very ingenious way in which he approached the problem of urgency and definiteness.

Dame Irene Ward

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you say whether it is ever to be possible to alter a precedent in the national interest? Must life always go on the same?

Mr. Speaker

In reply to the hon. Lady's first question, it is invariably the rule of the Chair never to commit itself on the hypothetical future in the House.

The answer to the second question is that, although Mr. Speaker in earlier life had some connection with philosophy, this question is beyond his capacity to consider whether life always goes on the same is a question that must be addressed to someone in a university.

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order. Of course, we accept your Ruling on the grounds of precedent, Mr. Speaker. However, would it be possible to review the consequences of this precedent, or for the Leader of the House to consider it?

The House finds itself in a difficult situation in which, if information is not provided by the Government after a matter has been under discussion for some time, it is ruled as a continuing matter and, therefore, not urgent, although the Government can take executive action which is then beyond recall without the House having had an opportunity to debate it.

Would not this appear to be the basis for reconsideration either by yourself as a precedent, or by the Leader of the House as a convenience of the House?

Mr. Speaker

The Chair can answer only for the Chair. If the House cares to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said it is not for the Chair to upset 100 years of precedent, but it is always within the capacity of the House to do so if it so decides. There is a Select Committee on Procedure which at any time can examine and, one would hope, would examine from time to time any of the rules and customs of the House which it thinks weigh unfairly on any part of the House or on its efficiency.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order. On the question of the facts being ascertained, an hon. Member has to take responsibility for the facts he asserts. If he asserts the facts and asserts that he knows them, he is under no obligation to get confirmation of them from the Government before seeking to move his Motion. In this case, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asserted precise facts and asserted his knowledge of them. It is true that at Question Time the Government refused to confirm them, but, if the hon. Gentleman takes responsibility, in my submission those are the facts which are before the House.

Mr. Speaker

I understand the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). We are moving almost into the realms of deep motivation. The hon. Member for Hendon, North accepted the responsibility himself for the grounds on which he sought to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 and had a right to do so. The fact that he used other information as part of the material on which he formed his own judgment is a matter of psychology and not of politics.

Sir A. V. Harvey

On a point of order. While respecting your Ruling completely, Mr. Speaker, some of us who follow these matters closely are consistently finding from reports by prominent journalists, such as Mr. Chapman Pincher, that they are getting information long before the House does. May I ask you how Members of Parliament, who are elected by the people, can be informed before prominent journalists?

Mr. Speaker

That is not for the Chair. That is a matter for the House which one side or the other must take up in the ordinary way as political argument and discussion on the Floor of the House.

Sir G. Nicholson

On a point of order. I should value your advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The House is under the impression that something irrevocable is to be done in Washington during the next day or two. May I ask you how any hon. or right hon. Gentleman can raise the matter in the House in the very short time available?

Mr. Speaker

I know the Parliamentary skill of the hon. Gentleman. The last thing, however, that the Chair would wish to do is to act as political adviser to one side of the House or the other. That is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman must seek the advice of the leaders of his own side.

Mr. Dan Jones

On a point of order. Does not the fact that repeated points of order have been put to the Chair constitute in itself an inability on the part of Her Majesty's Opposition to accept the Ruling of the Chair?

Mr. Speaker

I hope that what my predecessor called bogus points of order will never be raised. I have taken the points of order as they have come. They have seemed to me to be quite serious.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would only say to young hon. Members that it is dangerous to venture into the realm of points of order.

Mr. Box

On a point of order. Would it now be in order to allow time for the Prime Minister to give us the facts of this situation?

Mr. Speaker

No. That was an example of a point of order which a young and inexperienced hon. Member might make.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

I would be very grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would enlighten the House on a point which you made in your original Ruling on my hon. Friend's application, when you said that even if the facts were available you doubted whether the Motion would be accepted. The facts appear to be at present—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This, again, is a classic example of a point which is not really a point of order. The Chair cannot go back to a Ruling which it has made and explain parts of it to hon. Members who did not follow it at the time. We must now proceed.