HC Deb 29 June 1966 vol 730 cc1815-8
Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. I 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 refusal of Her Majesty's Government to make an immediate statement withdrawing support for United States military operations in Vietnam, in view of the grave dangers involved in the latest extension of the Vietnam war by the bombing of installations in the vicinity of Hanoi and Haiphong. I do not think that anyone could have any doubt about the public importance of this matter, Sir, or about the urgency, or of how definite it is. The only question that might arise over the acceptance of the Motion is that it might be said that the Prime Minister, in his last reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), in the exchanges of a few minutes ago, said that there will be a public debate at an unspecified time in the future. The matters which I am seeking to have discussed in the House will have taken place before that debate will have occurred.

The Prime Minister referred to the debate taking place before he went to Washington, and I gathered that that may be in two or three weeks' time. It may be that these operations would continue on a most intensive scale before that debate would take place, and my purpose in seeking to move the Adjournment of the House is for us to decide the definite matter of whether the British Government should withdraw their support from the United States before the massacre takes place. I would have thought that on every particular this issue comes within the terms of the Standing Order.

I conclude by emphasising that the public importance of the events in Vietnam was serious enough before, but now they overshadow the whole planet. It ought to be possible, under this Standing Order, for this matter to be debated in the House today. As the Prime Minister has said in his reply, and from what he has emphasised, he recognises the implication of the British Government in this matter and the rights of the British Government to make a declaration about the matters that have taken place.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman begs 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 refusal of Her Majesty's Government to make an immediate statement withdrawing support for the United States military operations in Vietnam, in view of the grave dangers involved in the latest extension of the Vietnam war by the bombing of installations in the vicinity of Hanoi and Haiphong. I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who, early in the day, intimated to me that they might be seeking to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9. I have had an opportunity of considering this rather carefully. I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to secure a debate today, in view of the importance which he has attributed to the subject. As I recently explained to the House, however, the Standing Order does not come into effect when an hon. Member decides that, in his view, a matter is urgent in the usual sense of that term.

It occurs only in the special Parliamentary circumstances governed by the practice of the House, and in conditions of Parliamentary urgency originally defined by my predecessor, Speaker Peel, and confirmed by precedents over many years. I have then, in the light of these precedents, to decide whether this application falls within the terms of the Standing Order.

The House may recall that on 1st February this year, OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 887, I had to decline to accept a similar application by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on the ground that bombing attacks by the United States on North Vietnam could not be discussed under Standing Order No. 9, except in defiance of precedent. The precedents prevented me then, and prevent me now, from allowing the application under Standing Order No. 9 for this purpose. I regret that I cannot, therefore, depart from that earlier Ruling today.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order. May I ask for clarification? If there is a great body of opinion in this House which feels that there is a need for an immediate debate, as there is at present, can you tell us how this can be done? Since I have been in this House I have never yet had the opportunity of hearing or participating in a debate under Standing Order No. 9. There is great feeling about this matter and a great deal of urgency. We could soon be involved in a third world war, and Standing Order No. 9 will not stand in the way of that.

Captain W. Elliot

Further to that point of order. May I support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in saying that there is great feeling in the House on this point? With respect, Sir, surely precedents are established over the decades. If a particular situation arises when a new precedent should be established, then that should be in order.

Mr. Speaker

I am sympathetic to both the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). May I remind the House that, when Members seek to raise serious matters under Standing Order No. 9, the Chair is human and shares the anxiety of Members about the points which they raise.

But I am governed by precedent, and the simple fact is that in 1959 the Select Committee considered the whole question of Standing Order No. 9 almost in the light of the moving remarks of the hon. Member for Walton and recommended certain changes. Those proposed changes were turned down by the House of Commons. It is not until the House has itself changed its instructions to the Chair about Standing Order No. 9 that the Chair can do anything about it.

Dame Irene Ward

Further to that point of order. In view of this very urgent matter, is it right that we should rely on precedent created by Mr. Speaker Peel, in quite different circumstances?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that that is a matter for the House and not for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I hesitate to introduce what might be thought to be purely hypothetical considerations, but is there not one circumstance—it has been referred to, I think, in the exchanges—which possibly has escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, namely, the danger of retaliation and the situation of world peace if such retaliation occurred? If retaliation of this kind occurred, thus imperilling still further the peace of the world, may I ask you, Sir, whether there would then be under Standing Order No. 9 a state of emergency which the House of Commons would be entitled to discuss?

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not challenging my Ruling. This is a difficult decision which I have to make from time to time. I cannot complicate it by the added difficulty of ruling on something hypothetical.