HC Deb 27 June 1966 vol 730 cc1238-40
Mr. Biggs-Davison

Despite the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Defence, I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I must 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 speech of the Secretary of State for Defence, to which reference has just been made. That this is a definite urgent matter of public importance is shown by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the House as quickly as possible to make the statement that he has made, a statement which, the House will note, contains no reference to his intention to resign his office. That it is a matter of urgent public importance is shown by the fact that this happened on the eve of the visit of the French Prime Minister to this country.

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address you, Mr. Speaker, on the question of a personal statement, which I have always understood is not debatable. I wish also to ask whether an hon. Member is entitled by a stratagem to get round the idea that a Private Notice Question has been refused to him.

I have always understood that if anyone approaches Mr. Speaker for his Ruling on a Private Notice Question, it is an informality and is a courtesy on the part of the Chair. On an occasion last week and this morning, from the same hon. Member, it has been leaked to the Press as a stratagem. I do not think that this is in order and it is a matter, Mr. Speaker, on which I invite your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker

I have nothing to do with what hon. Members release to the Press. I called the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He is perfectly in order in what he is doing.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

There have been quite a number of releases to the Press about the intentions of right hon. and hon. Members. I must confess that I was under the impression that requests to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 sometimes preceded personal statements, but I accept, of course, the procedure that we are following under your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I submit that it is important for the sake of Anglo-French relations, and a definite and urgent matter of public importance for the sake of Anglo-French relations, the key to our European policy and our technological future, that this House should have an early opportunity of reaffirming its friendship with France.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks 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 speech of the Secretary of State for Defence, delivered in London on Saturday, in the course of which the right hon. Gentleman grossly insulted the President of the French Republic, a friendly and allied State. I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in intimating to my Department that he proposed to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9. This is not the first occasion on which an application under Standing Order No. 9 has been made to deal with the speech of a Minister made outside this House. It has seemed to the Chair wrong in the past, and in my view it would be wrong now, to allow the Adjournment of the House to be moved, because the application cannot succeed on the ground of urgency. The words have been said and an explanation of them has just been given to the House. There is nothing, it seems to me, that the House could do by interrupting the Orders of the Day to change the situation.

It seems to me that the proper course for hon. Members who seek to criticise this matter is to put down a Motion of censure if, on further reflection, they see fit to do so, or to use all the other recognised Parliamentary methods which arise. This does not seem to me to be a case which comes within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Macleod.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

On a point of order. I think that you know, Mr. Speaker, that I would be the very last Member to wish to question any Ruling which you made, but I would put it to you, very humbly, if I may, that, when you said that the Minister himself had given an explanation today, that was not an entirely accurate description of what the Minister had attempted to do, which was to make an apology.

Mr. Speaker

That seems a matter of semantics at the moment. I am glad that the hon. Member is not seeking to question the Ruling which I gave under Standing Order No. 9. Mr. Macleod. A point of order.