HC Deb 06 June 1967 vol 747 cc969-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Order [3rd May] That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, be read and discharged: That the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

12.9 a.m.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I notice that the Leader of the House is not in his place. The House is entitled to some explanation as to why, when it has reached the conclusion that this Bill should be discussed in Committee of the whole House, the Resolution should be altered and the Bill sent upstairs.

I do not wish to detain the House, but we are entitled to some explanation of this change. Presumably, when the House took its original decision, this was considered to be an important matter. What has happened in the meantime to alter the Government's view? Is the Bill so controversial that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get it through under less glare of publicity? What deep fundamental reason is behind the change?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short)

I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has a very important engagement and cannot be present here tonight. He has asked me to sit in for him.

I am afraid that the original decision to take the Bill on the Floor of the House is a casualty of the war in the Middle East. We have already had to give an extra day for debating the Middle East, and, indeed, we have lost two days since the Easter Recess. We accept that if the crisis develops it may be necessary to allocate more Parliamentary time for debate of the situation.

This Motion is a precautionary measure to clear the decks so that, if required, additional time can be given on the Floor of the House for discussion of the war or any related topic which arises. That is the only reason for the Motion. There is no ulterior motive.

Question put and agreed to.

Forward to