HC Deb 10 May 1968 vol 764 cc755-9

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Sandys

On a point of order. With regard to the business for today, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, in view of the total condemnation of the Government by the electors, the Prime Minister has sought your leave to make a statement to the House about his intentions?

Sir Knox Cunningham

Further to the point of order. The people are utterly sick and tired of the Government, with their broken pledges and utter incompetence, and they want to know when the country will have an opportunity of getting rid of this incubus.

Mr. Dodds-Parker

Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The second submission was not a point of order. The first was an ingenious attempt at a point of order which has not been unknown on similar occasions before. Mr. Peart. Business Statement.

Mr. Sandys

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reply to my question about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker

The Prime Minister has not asked me for permission to make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short Business statement.

The business for Tuesday next has been rearranged as follows:

Until seven o'clock, Supply: Allotted Day No. 21½,

Debate on Opposition Motion relating to the Withdrawal of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport.

Thereafter, the business will be as already announced:

Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Agriculture, in Session 1966–67, and the relevant Departmental Observations.

Motions on Members' Travel.

Third Reading of the Water Resources Bill.

Prayer on the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations.

Sir C. Osborne

In view of the deep feeling concerning the withdrawal of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport, is it not possible to have more than half a day for debate, because many hon. Members would like to put their point of view and it is a fundamental issue of personal liberty? Could not the debate be extended to a whole day?

Mr. Peart

I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that this is the Opposition's first use of the revised Standing Order 18, which in paragraphs 3 and 4 allows up to four half Supply Days a year taken at no greater rate than one in two consecutive calendar months. The Opposition have chosen this subject and I trust that there will be a good debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does not the Leader of the House realise that this is a matter which has aroused the deepest feeling in the country? If the Government have a case, do they not want a full day in which to try to deploy it? Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has relied only on Opposition time mean that he wants to run away from this issue?

Mr. Peart

There is no question of that. I thought that the time would provide an adequate debate, and that the Opposition leaders would be pleased to have it; that is why they have chosen it.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Is the Leader of the House aware that this situation has been created by the Government? As the Opposition are giving a half day, will not the Government give another half day and make a whole day?

Mr. Peart

The hon. and learned Member should appreciate that the Opposition have a Supply Day on Monday and could have taken the whole of that day had they so wished.

Sir Knox Cunningham

The Government are running away from it.

Mr. Peart

It is not a question of running away. The Opposition have, quite rightly, chosen a half day under the new procedure.

Mr. Michael Foot

Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House take into account that if any extra time is to be provided on Tuesday, many of us feel that it should be devoted to discussing the several thousands of people in Rhodesia whose liberties have been taken away by the illegal régime and those who have been sent to their death in defiance of the rule of law in Rhodesia? We consider that if there is to be further debate, some of it should be devoted to the execution of sanctions against the illegal régime, which is responsible for the persistent breaches of the rule of law. Therefore, if there is to be extra time can my right hon. Friend ensure that these wider subjects will enter into the debate?

Mr. Peart

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I know that many of my hon. Friends feel as strongly as he does. That matter could well be discussed even in the half day which has been arranged. The present arrangement is the choice of the Opposition. As I have said, they could have chosen a whole day on Monday.

Mr. Iain Macleod

The question raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is, if anything, clearly an argument for making more time available. Beyond that, I do not wish to comment on what the hon. Member has said. Surely, however, the Leader of the House is in error in suggesting that it might be technically possible and reasonable for the Opposition to take a full day. We are taking advantage of the system under which half days can be specially arranged for such debates. That is why the half day has been chosen, in accordance with the wishes of the House. Would the Leader of the House give an undertaking that if there is, as there appears to be, a general desire that this should be a whole day's debate he will discuss through the usual channels whether the Opposition could provide a half day and the Government the other half day?

Mr. Peart

I am always prepared to look at this and especially in view of the strong representations made to me by my hon. Friend who feels so deeply about freedom in Rhodesia. [An HON. MEMBER: "So do we."] I am not saying hon. Members opposite do not, though I suspect some want a debate for other reasons. I am merely suggesting that my hon. Friend sincerely believes in this point of view and I think the House should take note of it. Technically, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we could have had a debate on this subject instead of on tourism. Nevertheless, the Opposition have so chosen. However, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider this, as Leader of the House I will of course do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is not to say that a concession will be made, but, whenever any hon. Member or right hon. Member makes suggestions, from either side, I will take note of the points raised. However, the Opposition have chosen this procedure, and it is, therefore, their responsibility in that sense.

Sir R. Cary

Are there not precedents in the past whereby the Opposition have given a half day and the Government have given a half day thus making a full days' debate possible? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find there are precedents for that.

Mr. Peart

I am aware that there are those precedents, but hon. Members know how this was initiated, and it is not for me to question Mr. Speaker's Ruling in any way. Mr. Speaker made a decision; otherwise we would have had a debate, probably, yesterday, and it would have been held during approximately half a day. It would have interrupted business. However, the Opposition proposed this, and, as I have said, I will have consultations.

Mr. Sandys

May I support the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in pressing for a longer debate, and one which will be sufficiently wide to enable all points of view to be expressed? I hope, in particular, that those of us who feel that the Government's latest action shows that they really have no intention of trying to reach agreement with Rhodesia, and that the time has, therefore, come to end sanctions altogether, will have an opportunity to express these views.

Mr. Peart

It would be very wrong for me, as Leader of the House, to get involved in arguments at this stage about Rhodesia. I am dealing with procedure and an alteration of business.

Mr. McNamara

May I ask my right hon. Friend for a little more consideration for the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), because one thing which is very certain is that the Opposition just have not learned who is responsible for the situation in Rhodesia and who caused the breakdown in the rule of law and the reason we should have strong and more effective sanctions?

Mr. Peart

It is not for me at this stage to get involved in an argument about that. I know my hon. Friend feels very strongly and sincerely about that, and it is a view I will take note of. As I have said, I will take note of the points which have been raised.

Sir C. Osborne

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has already asked a business question, and we cannot have a debate.

Sir C. Osborne

I am not asking for a debate, Mr. Speaker. I was going to ask for your guidance. I appeal to you personally now. If, unhappily, the Leader of the House is unable to give us the extra half day, and I can see the difficulties, could you, from the Chair, make a special appeal to both sides of the House for 10-minute speeches on that half day so that as many hon. Members as possible can get in?

Mr. Speaker

I apologise to the hon. Member, who has raised a quite substantial point. Mr. Speaker is always interested when hon. Members propose that they should make brief speeches. Yesterday, in the debate on pensions, I was able to call a considerable number of Members because Members did make brief speeches. I do not think the debate suffered because the speeches were brief. I think there is a lot in what the hon. Member said.

Back to