§ Mr. WinnickOn a point of order. On 13th November, there was a debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I believe that I am right in saying that for many years that debate has been on the subject of immigration. Since 20th April, 1968, there have been eight debates on immigration and race relations.
Over the weekend, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that he could not debate immigration in the House of Commons because the House refused to debate the subject. I have information from the Library—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am waiting for the point of order. For the moment, the hon. Member has told me that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was debated last November. When it is debated is no matter for Mr. Speaker. He is now proceeding to attack a right hon. Gentleman. It has nothing to do with Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. WinnickMy point of order is that since 20th April, last year, we have debated the subject eight times, including the main debate which I have mentioned. The country has been informed that the House of Commons is too cowardly to discuss immigration and race relations. It appears to be the case that we are not too cowardly and that we have debated the subject. For example, I have a cutting from HANSARD—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I can deal with the alleged point of order. The hon. Gentleman is saying that a right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the country and was inaccurate. I have remarked from the Chair from time to time that hon. Members and right hon. Members are often inaccurate. It is not, however, a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. Winnickrose
§ Mr. WinnickI certainly shall not sit down until directed to do so by Mr. Speaker.
The point I want to make is this: is it not an unjustified and unfair reflection on the House of Commons to say that we have been too cowardly to discuss a subject when, in fact, we have done so?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that the hon. Gentleman shares the feeling of every hon. Member that this is a free country, where men may speak freely, even when they have opinions which the hon. Member does not like.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonFurther to that point of order. If hon. Members are not to call each other liars as under the rule of the House they are not, is it not incumbent upon Members to be truthful in their assertions in the country?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not for Mr. Speaker to lecture the House of Commons on the opinions that it holds, or on the statements that it makes either here or outside, unless those statements are made in the House and are out of order.
§ Mr. Molloyrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a lot of business.
§ Mr. MolloyYou did say, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members can make statements outside the House which are contradictory. But the fundamental feature here is that the statement of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was made about the behaviour of the House of Commons, and it is right that that statement should be corrected.
§ Mr. SpeakerAn hon. Gentleman may correct a statement made by another hon. Member in one of two ways. He may make a speech in the country, as the right hon. Gentleman did, in free Britain, or he can raise the matter when the hon. Gentleman is making a speech in the House or when he himself is making a speech in the House.