BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 30 June 1966)

§ Mr. Heath
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can state the business of the House for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden)
Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH JULY—Finance Bill: Conclusion of the Committee stage.
TUESDAY, 5TH JULY—Supply (2nd Allotted Day): Committee.
There will be a debate on University Education and the recent White Paper on a Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges (Command No. 3006).
At seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business.
Motion on the Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Beer and Cider) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Building Control Bill and of the Docks and Harbours Bill.
THURSDAY, 7TH JULY—Selective Employment Payments Bill.
FRIDAY, 8TH JULY—Private Members' Bills.
2195 MONDAY, 11TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Remaining stages of the Industrial Development Bill.
Second Reading of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords].

§ Mr. Heath
Is the Leader of the House aware that the whole House will think it right that he should provide for an additional day on Monday for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? In making his plans in advance, will be ensure that there is full and proper time for discussion of the Amendments to the Selective Employment Payments Bill?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything further about the two-day debate on foreign affairs, for which we have offered to provide one day? Has he yet decided whether this debate will take place before the Prime Minister goes to Washington?
Thirdly, can the Leader of the House tell us when the Prime Minister will enter into discussions with the Opposition on the question of setting up the inquiry which he mentioned at the end of his wind-up speech in the debate on the emergency powers on Tuesday night?
Finally, will the Leader of the House note that we have today tabled a Motion of censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means, arising out of an incident last night? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will wish to provide time for a debate on this Motion at an early date.

§ Mr. Bowden
It is hoped that we shall complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Monday without going unduly late. Adequate time, but I hope that nothing more than adequate time, will be provided for the Selective Employment Payments Bill.
As to the foreign affairs debate, the date of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to America is not yet clear, but it is our intention to endeavour to arrange the debate before he goes to America. My right hon. Friend made it clear, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we would consider setting up an inquiry. Consideration of it is proceeding.
Without commenting at this stage on the Opposition's wisdom in tabling a Motion of censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means, I give the assurance that we will do what is usual to provide time.

§ Mr. Grimond
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a widespread feeling in many quarters of the House that we should have a debate on British policy in Vietnam next week? As we can continually sit through the night on financial matters, will the Leader of the House consider whether it is possible to at least suspend the rule, possibly next Tuesday, and find time during our normal sittings to debate a matter which is regarded widely as a matter of first-rate importance?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, I cannot promise anything in addition to the normal two day foreign affairs debate, unless there should be some bonus of time. At present, I do not see any additional time forthcoming this side of the Summer Recess.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
May I press my right hon. Friend on the question which has been put by the Leader of the Liberal Party? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this question as a matter of urgency so that the House shall be able to debate as speedily as possible the developments which have taken place in Vietnam? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that nothing brings the House of Commons more into contempt than the fact that we are prevented by our procedures or by decisions of the Government from discussing a paramount question of international policy? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that large numbers of Members think that it would be a disgrace if we do not have an urgent debate on this question before any more bombs are dropped?

§ Mr. Bowden
I have already said that I will endeavour to arrange the two-day debate for foreign affairs, which will include Vietnam, before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to Washington. This I intend to do.

§ Mr. Sharples
Can the Leader of the House say whether it is the intention of the Home Secretary to make a statement on the Government's policy relating to fugitive offenders between the time when the White Paper is published and when legislation is introduced, in view of certain cases which may well arise?

§ Mr. Bowden
I will consult my right hon. Friend about this. I have taken the 2197 point. I think that there is some importance in the matter.

§ Mrs. Joyce Butler
May I press my right hon. Friend to reconsider the possibility of having a debate on Vietnam next week? Does he appreciate that very many people in the country, who have been sickened by the bombing of Haiphong and Hanoi, are completely unable to understand why it is that the House of Commons cannot debate this urgent subject and make a pronouncement on the situation? Will my right hon. Friend look at Ihis matter again?

§ Mr. Bowden
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position of the Government quite clear, on our policy on Vietnam, in the exchanges which took place in the House yesterday. I cannot promise a debate on Vietnam in addition to the two-day debate I have already promised.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the feeling in all quarters of the House is that it is ludicrous to devote hours next Tuesday evening debating weights and measures and private business about the City of Liverpool, although important, which could be dealt with on a hundred other occasions? Why cannot we debate Vietnam between seven o'clock on Tuesday and the early hours of the morning, or for as long as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to sit, on this crucially important issue?

§ Mr. Bowden
During the hon. Gentleman's absence from the House he appears to have forgotten the procedure of the House, in that when the Chairman of Ways and Means intervenes with Private Business he has priority.

§ Mr. Orme
Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that the decision of the Government is incomprehensible to hon. Members and many people outside—the decision that we cannot debate the vitally important issue of Vietnam in a democracy when things are happening in the world that could lead us into a third world war? Is he aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are demanding that we have a debate next week on this issue?

§ Mr. Sandys
Is the Leader of the House resisting; this request because he is afraid 2198 to show up the deep division within his own party?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. I am resisting it because the Government's position was made paramount and clear yesterday.

§ Mr. Paget
Would my right hon. Friend ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to be so kind as to exercise his right on some other day? Would my right hon. Friend also consider Motion No. 192—which is designed to provide Mr. Speaker with the power to grant an immediate debate on issues such as this, a power which you, Mr. Speaker, no doubt felt sorry you did not have yesterday?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am sorry that I have not got a copy of Motion No. 192 with me. My Order Paper goes up to Motion No. 107. However, on the question of the interference or intervention by the Chairman of Ways and Means, my hon. and learned Friend will recall that this is done, on this occasion, on a Supply day. It is an Opposition day which has been taken, and not a Government day. If, therefore, the Chairman of Ways and Means were to decide to take some other day, it would be for the Opposition to decide what to do with the debate on Tuesday.

§ Mr. Ian Gilmour
While we all know the views of the Prime Minister and the Government on this issue, will not the Government pay even some attention to the views of the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
We certainly do, in providing the norma] amount of time for debate.

§ Mr. John Hynd
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that a Motion of censure has been tabled by the Opposition on the Chairman of Ways and Means. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must put questions only to the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Hynd
May I ask the Leader of the House whether this issue, which has apparently been raised on a party basis, is to be a matter for the Whips since, in my understanding, the position of the 2199 Chairman of Ways and Means has always been that he is representative of the House and not of a political party?

§ Mr. Bowden
It is common form when these things happen—and I am sure that the House will agree that they happen infrequently—that time should be provided as quickly as possible after such a Motion has been tabled. I have not yet seen the Motion, but that is nobody's fault; it is a question of printing and the difficulty which arises following hon. Members' having sat all night. The decision of how either side of the House should vote is a matter for each side of the House.

§ Mr. Webster
Since there were more than 120 Questions tabled yesterday to the Minister of Transport, and we dealt with less than one-third of them—apparently because the Leader of the House was himself answering Questions in another capacity—would the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange for special facilities to be provided so that hon. Members may ask more Questions of the Minister of Transport, particularly at this time when she has some very controversial policies to submit to the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
We are often in this difficulty because when hon. Members want more time to ask Questions of one Department, another Department must be sacrificed. We are not tied to a particular roster. This is usually discussed through the usual channels and I am prepared to do that. The difficulty is that if we give two days for Questions to one Department, another Department suffers.

§ Sir B. Janner
Has my right hon. Friend noted Motion No. 99 in respect of which 150 hon. Members, including myself, have added their names? In view of the very serious position which exists and the anxiety which is felt in the House and outside on this matter, of the treatment of a minority section in Russia, will my right hon. Friend provide time at an early date for a discussion of the Motion?

§ Mr. Bowden
I have seen Motion No. 99 and I am sure that all hon. Members have a great deal of interest and sympathy with it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will also, I am sure, have seen it, but, if he has not, I will see that it is brought to his attention. I doubt very much whether we would serve the interests of the people the Motion is designed to serve simply by debating the matter in the House. However, I am sure that the whole House is sympathetic with the Motion.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
When the Leader of the House comes to discuss the question of an inquiry between the two Front Benches, will he draw the attention of the Prime Minister to Motion No. 98— [That this House requests the Prime Minister to arrange for the House to set up forthwith a tribunal under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1921 to investigate the allegations, which are as serious as those made before the Bank Rate Tribunal, that a few individuals have brought pressure to bear on a select few on the Executive of the National Seamen's Union, who in turn have been able to dominate the majority of that Union.]— which, I think, reflects the unease felt by many hon. Members on both sides about the use of Parliamentary privilege to attack certain groups outside the House? Will he assure us that Motion No. 98 will be seriously considered when this discussion is taking place?

§ Mr. Bowden
The Motion suggests that a tribunal should be set up under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. This matter will be looked into in the normal way when we discuss the inquiry.

§ Mr. Zilliacus
Will not my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that in the view of both sides of the House a far-reaching and widespread foreign affairs debate on an undated future occasion is no answer to the situation presented by the aggravation of the war in Vietnam, and that it is precisely the nature of the Government's response to that situation that makes it more urgent than ever to have the Government's policy and the whole situation debated next week in this House? Will my right hon. Friend please take account of the feeling of the House in this matter?

§ Mr. Bowden
On Thursday of last week I was pressed for a foreign affairs debate to take place before my right hon. Friend goes to Washington. The position is that a foreign affairs debate will take place before my right hon. Friend goes to America to discuss Vietnam and other things.

§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
In view of the considerable interest in the possibility of a change of rules for debates under Standing Order No. 9, will the Leader of the House consider giving an instruction to the Select Committee on Procedure to deal with that as a matter of priority?

§ Mr. Bowden
Yes, Sir. I have a great deal of sympathy for this, because we find ourselves in the position where it is almost impossible to get a debate under Standing Order No. 9. On the oilier hand, the Select Committee on Procedure has particularly requested that it should receive no more instructions, because it wants to get on with the job. However, I think that this is an additional one which that Committee might have.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman
On the question of a separate debate and possibly a vote in the House on the Government's policy in Vietnam, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that although it is perfectly true, as he said, that the Government, have made their position clear, it is a so clear that the Government's policy in this matter does not command the full support of the Opposition, does not command the full support of the Liberal Party, does not command the full support of my right hon. Friend's own party, does not command the full support of the United States and does not command the full support of any other interested party?
Would it not be a good idea, in a democratic community like ours, governed by the House of Commons as we always claim it to be, that before my right hon. Friend goes to see the President of the United States to discuss this policy, he should make quite sure exactly what is the opinion of the House of Commons on that policy?

§ Mr. Bowden
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there are so many divided views on the subject that the Government's view may, therefore, be right.
2202 [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a field in which it is particularly difficult to be right. But I cannot move from the position that I have already taken, that I cannot provide additional time for a debate on Vietnam.

§ Mr. Kirk
Reverting to the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), in view of the widespread support for the Motion tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would it not be possible to circumvent the Select Committee on Procedure and have a debate on his Motion; in other words, go back to square one?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am not sure that the House would regard it as rewarding simply to debate Standing Order No. 9.

§ Mr. Mendelson
With reference to my right hon. Friend's statement that the Prime Minister has made the Government's policy clear, on the immediate issue, has he seen the reports out of Washington this morning that there is a new wave of bombing of installations coming, with the aim of destroying the harbour at Haiphong altogether, which handles food and other necessary items for keeping life going among the civilian population? In the light of the circumstances, will the Leader of the House not grant a special debate on Monday next so that we can hear the Government's view on this further grave extension of the war in Vietnam?

§ Mr. Bowden
The answer is still, no.

§ Mr. Turton
Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), he will be aware that he has remitted to the Select Committee on Procedure as a matter of urgency the times of sitting of the House and the machinery of voting. If he were to withdraw the second instruction to enable the Committee to report on Standing Order No. 9, it would possibly mean that the Report would come from the Select Committee about three months earlier. Is that not desirable?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am certainly prepared to consider that.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Could my right hon. Friend enlighten the House about the 2203 position of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in view of the proposed Motion of censure? Is it possible for the Chairman of the Committee to continue to operate while that Motion is pending?

§ Mr. Bowden
Yes, Sir. That is the usual practice.

§ Mr. Peyton
While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the modesty with which he claimed just now that the Government's policies and views might be right—which would be unusual—may I ask him whether he does not think that, disregarding whatever views anyone may hold on the subject, entrenched obstinacy on the part of the Government in frustrating the desire of the House of Commons to discuss something is always foolish?

§ Mr. Frank Allaun
Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us who represent dock areas do not believe that it is possible to destroy 80 per cent. of a port's installations without killing thousands of men, women and children? Surely it is a crime against humanity, and surely the House of Commons should discuss the matter immediately?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am very well aware of the seriousness of the position, but I do not think that we should exaggerate it. One ought not to assume that, because bombing takes place, thousands and thousands of people are to be killed thereby. That was not the position during the last war.

§ Dame Irene Ward
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can arrange, on Motion No. 103, for some action to be taken so that someone may not be detained in Holloway Gaol without an examination of the circumstances in which she has had her sentences increased twice?

§ Mr. Bowden
The hon. Lady will have noted that I have announced for Monday of next week the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Appeal Bill. Therefore, there has been no delay in the Bill. It has been through all its stages in another place.
On her second point, it is not for the Home Secretary to instruct the judges.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while the House has heard the views of the Government on Vietnam, the Government have not had an opportunity of being fully acquainted with the views of the House? Will he not, in his capacity as a representative and as the Leader of the House and not as a member of the Government, recognise that there is widespread feeling, and will he not at least say that he will reconsider what he has said?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. My hon. Friend seems to have forgotten that, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister completely dissociated the Government from these bombing attacks.

§ Mr. Longden
May I add my very strong support to the plea, mostly from hon. Members opposite, that we should have a very early debate on Vietnam, if for no other reason than to tell our American allies at this critical moment of their, and, therefore, our fortunes, that the majority of the House of Commons does not agree with his hon. Friends below the Gangway?

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
Will the Leader of the House find time to deal with the problem mentioned in my Motion on the Order Paper, which arose during the debates on the Finance Bill, namely, the unnecessarily long and repetitive speeches which prevent the House from dealing with matters such as Vietnam and a great variety of other problems which the House wants to discuss?

§ Mr. Bowden
I do not dissent from my hon. and learned Friend's view that we could save a great deal of time by shorter speeches. What I am not sure about is how to do it.

§ Mr. Higgins
Referring to next Thursday's business, could the Leader of the House make clear why priority is given to the Docks and Harbours Bill, in view of the fact that the statements by his right hon. Friend and others are likely to frustrate his intentions, because of the threat of public ownership? Can he not make the intention of the Government clear on the matter?

§ Mr. Bowden
I think that we should deal with the Docks and Harbours Bill as it is, and that any further development of Government policy on docks and harbours should await further legislation, if and when it comes.

§ Mr. Raphael Tuck
While appreciating my right hon. Friend's concern about not exaggerating things, does he not realise that a third world war might bring ruin and that, if he does not give way on this subject, he might be accused of fiddling while Haiphong burns?

§ Sir C. Osborne
Would not the Leader of the House consider meeting the demands of his hon. Friends from below the Gangway—not that I sympathise with them? Would it not strengthen the Prime Minister's hand when he goes to America if the American public could see how much support that view has in the House? Since they have threatened a vote, ought he not to make it clear to our allies how much strength there is behind the demand? If it is overwhelming, they will take notice of it. If it is not, we can forget it. Will he not reconsider the position and let us have a showdown, to see what strength there is?

§ Mr. Bowden
The views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the 2206 Government have been clearly stated to the American Government. In addition, we shall be debating the subject before my right hon. Friend goes to Washington.

§ Dr. John Dunwoody
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that, while many of us support the Government's policy as it was announced yesterday, nevertheless we feel that this is a grave situation which seems to be worsening daily, and that it is quite ludicrous that we as a House are not to be able to debate it at the earliest opportunity?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am perfectly aware of the feeling in the House. My sole position at the moment is that I cannot provide additional time other than the two days which will take place before my right hon. Friend goes to Washington.

§ Mr. David Steel
Will the Leader of the House recognise that the fact that there are different views on Vietnam is no good reason why a debate should be refused; in fact, it is a very good reason why a debate should be granted? Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that this has support from hon. Members who hold widely differing views.

§ Mr. Bowden
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the debate will take place. It has been granted, but it will not take place before next week.

§ Dr. David Kerr
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that his rôle as Leader of the House, like yours, Mr. Speaker, is to be the servant of the House? In view of the demand which has been made this afternoon by hon. Members holding very different views on the Vietnam situation, would he not think it right and proper to assist the House to pursue the course suggested in an early-day Motion, which it is not possible to do at present, namely, to have an early debate, when demand from the House is clearly and unanimously expressed on both sides?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am aware of my duties as Leader of the House, one of which is to be the custodian of the business of the House.

§ Sir T. Brinton
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it appears absurd to people outside the House that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) pointed out, next week we are to debate the concluding stages of 2207 the Docks and Harbours Bill, on which some of us have spent a considerable amount of time, and which, from our point of view, will be completely useless, as the docks are to be nationalised? Why not postpone, or perhaps cancel that business, and use the time for a debate on Vietnam?

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Is the Leader of the House aware that he is treating the House as though he were a military policeman and we were all in the guard room? Does he not realise that obstinacy is not Parliamentary common sense? Can he tell us whether, in the event of a foreign affairs debate, it will be on a Motion by the Government, and whether the Whips will be on, or whether we will have a free vote?

§ Mr. Bowden
It will be a two-day debate. As to how it should take place, we can discuss in the normal way through the usual channels.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the world may be aware of the Government's view on this matter, in view of the demonstration of yesterday and today from hon. Members below the Gangway, the view of the House of Commons is not known? Surely it is in the best interests of everybody and everything that the collective view of the House of Commons should be made clear, and be made clear quickly? Not one voice in the House has been raised in support of the Leader of the House on this issue.

§ Mr. BrookS
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his continued stonewalling on this matter is causing great perplexity and astonishment not only in the House, but throughout the country? Is he not aware that the events of yesterday, when the Prime Minister publicly dissociated Her Majesty's Government from certain vitally important and dangerous actions by this country's principal ally, are an extraordinary and unprecedented event in the post-war history of this country, and demand an urgent debate in the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
As I have said on a number of occasions this afternoon, the matter is to be debated before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discusses 2208 the position with the President of the United States.

§ Mr. Marten
As there are some Members who think that the Americans may be right in bombing the oil storage tanks, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two-day foreign affairs debate will be next week?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. I have announced the business for next week.

§ Mr. Marten
I meant the week after next.

§ Mr. Murray
In view of the demand in the House for a debate on Vietnam, is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider having two morning sittings next week, on Monday and Tuesday, to discuss this subject?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. On a number of occasions I have pointed out that morning sittings need a special procedure. In addition, the Select Committee on Procedure is considering the hours of sitting of the House.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's new policy makes a debate on the Docks and Harbours Bill completely unnecessary? Will he use that time to debate this vital matter of Vietnam?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. The Docks and Harbours Bill is necessary in fulfilment of Devlin. Any further developments can wait a little longer.

§ Mr. Lipton
Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the promise of a two day debate on foreign affairs, whenever that may take place, covering the whole range of foreign affairs, is no substitute for a debate on the specific problem of Vietnam, and, therefore, his offer of a two-day debate serves no useful purpose in connection with the urgency of the problems with which we are faced in Vietnam? Will he therefore reconsider the inflexible decision which he seems to have taken?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. I cannot possibly reconsider it. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the last two-day debate on foreign affairs was concerned almost exclusively with Vietnam.

§ Mr. Heffer
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are reaching the 2209 stage in the House when we cannot go on in this way? We are pleading with my right hon. Friend to let us have a debate so that the country may know the feelings of the House in this serious situation. I say to my right hon. Friend, for God's sake consider how serious this is, and let the House of Commons discuss this issue on Monday of next week.

§ Mr. Molloy
Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us can understand some of the procedural difficulties in which he finds himself, but we are pressing for a debate on this issue not merely for the sake of a debate, not merely to hear one another, but so that the House of Commons may make a contribution to this exceedingly dangerous situation which might result, not in an escalation to war, but in us taking a step towards sanity and world peace? His continued refusal to have such a debate can only be taken as meaning that he is not interested in the establishment of world peace.

§ Mr. Goodhew
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his discomfort this afternoon is caused by the fact that far from what he said, the House is quite unclear as to what the Prime Minister means when he talks about his policy on Vietnam? It is impossible to suggest to the people of the country that one can support one's allies in one breath, and in the next breath tell them to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in the interests of the Government it would be wise to debate this matter?

§ Mr. Bowden
I should have thought that there would be no doubt about my right hon. Friend's speech yesterday, when he made quite clear the Government's view on the recent bombing in Vietnam.

§ Mr. Heath
I think that both the Leader of the House and I know from the past experience which we have had in the posts now held by the Patronage Secretary, and by my hon. Friend, that there comes a time when, however much one wants to keep to the business one has arranged, the House expresses its opinion as a House, and one has to take this into account. May I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as so many hon. Members have been able to express their views we might 2210 have a discussion about next week's business, through the usual channels, after these questions are finished?

§ Mr. Bowden
Of course, I am prepared to agree to that.

§ Mr. Ryan
Does my right hon. Friend agree that events in South-East Asia have moved more quickly than the procedural events in this House? When he meets the Leader of the Opposition will he consider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) about morning sittings to enable us to debate Vietnam?

§ Mr. Frederic Harris
At the time of the Suez crisis, we had a special dispensation for Saturday meetings. What is the difficulty this time in arranging that at short notice?

§ Mr. Bowden
A procedural Motion is needed for a Saturday meeting. I think that we had better leave this at the moment for discussion through the usual channels to see what can be done, even if we have to borrow a Supply day.

§ Mr. Rankin
If there are procedural difficulties about morning sittings, and these cannot be overcome, will my right hon. Friend, at his meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, consider, if necessary, the possibility of an all-night sitting on Tuesday—after all, we have had all-night sittings on the Finance Bill—and, if necessary, after the debate, on the Liverpool issue we can then proceed to deal with Vietnam?

§ Mr. Dickens
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we Members of the House represent the sovereign will of the British people? The people want a debate on Vietnam at the earliest possible opportunity. May I invite my right hon. Friend to arrange for this debate this coming weekend? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that no fewer than 100 Members have expressed themselves clearly and unequivocally on the Government's policy in this direction?

§ Mrs. Anne Kerr
Does the Leader of the House recognise where, in historical terms, he may be leading or misleading the House if he does not permit a debate in the very near future on this crucial question? Does he recognise the tremendous amount of feeling that exists in this 2211 country, as well as in New Zealand and Australia, who are opposed to the leadership being given by the United States in this matter in South-East Asia? Will he not wake up to the seriousness of this subject and realise that the British people are on fire about this?

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Will my right hon. Friend say on what grounds he bases his argument that there is no time available, and that the time for the Summer Recess must be fixed? If that is the argument, will not he consider extending the period before which we go on holiday up to at least 12th August, so that we can have a debate which is of considerable importance to the country and to the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
I have not said that there is no time available. What I have said is that I cannot provide time next week. We must wait until the two-day foreign affairs debate.

§ Mr. Jennings
Is it not clear that a dangerous situation has arisen this afternoon, as a result of the exchanges that we have heard? Is it not apparent to the Leader of the House that the power of the Executive has become so great that it can obstinately and coldly ignore the almost unanimous wish of the House for an immediate debate on a public question?

§ Mr. Bowden
There is nothing new in this. The Government of the day 2212 have always been in charge of the business of the House.

§ Mr. Winnick
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of our constituents find it virtually impossible to understand how he can refrain from offering a debate on such a subject as the extension of American bombing in Vietnam? Does not he agree that his attitude in refusing a debate means, in many respects, that the House of Commons is becoming impotent?

§ Mr. Booth
In his discussions with the Leader of the Opposition will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable desire in the House to change our ways in order to meet the needs of our times? If a new situation which has arisen as a result of the bombing of North Vietnam needs a new procedure to enable us to deal with the situation, does not my right hon. Friend realise that there will be considerable sympathy in the House if such a proposition is put forward?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am not against procedural changes; I am very much in favour of them. Nevertheless, we had better wait to see what proposals come to us in this respect.

§ Mr. Fortescue
Is my right hon. Friend aware that to our knowledge there is no precedent for a small group of obstinate and arrogant men denying the will of the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Speaker
On which happy note we might proceed with the business.