§ Mr. Hugh FraserI apologise, Mr. Speaker, for doing what I have to do, but I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Her Majesty's Government propose to sell to Libya Chieftain tanks and Abbott self-propelled guns under an agreement which puts no restriction on Libya regulating the resale of these arms, or their use by third parties, or the loan of such armaments to other parties.This matter was revealed in today's Press. Yesterday, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised it, but on a different issue—the question of the apparent partisanship of the Foreign Office against the State of Israel.I raise this point on a quite separate issue. I will not go over the ground covered by the hon. and learned Member, except to say that to adjourn the House now would give an opportunity for either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House now and explain the matter, rather than to do so off the cuff in a trivial manner by answering a Question on Monday.
At a time of grave disturbance in the Middle East, and when there is already far too much suffering in Africa resulting from the indiscriminate distribution of arms, surely restrictions should be placed on the use of these arms and on their resale or loan to other Powers.
This would be in no way abnormal. I remind the House that in these areas 1685 there have previously been restrictions, especially by the United States on its sale of arms—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman must not debate the merits of what he will seek to advocate if his application under Standing Order No. 9 is granted.
§ Mr. FraserIt is a perfectly normal requirement that there should be restriction on the use and sale of arms, as happened at the time of Suez, when British arms coming from American sources were not permitted to be used.
It is, therefore, a matter of urgent importance to discuss how this arrangement was made. Arms for self-defence is one thing, but arms indiscriminately sold so as to make the Government appear to be a poor man's Basil Zaharoff is quite another matter, and should be stopped.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman was good enough to inform me this morning that he would seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The right hon. Member the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
that Her Majesty's Government propose to sell to Libya Chieftain tanks and Abbott self-propelled guns under an agreement which puts no restriction on Libya regulating the resale of these arms, or their use by third parties, or the loan of such armaments to other parties".As the House knows, under revised Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, to the whole issue, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order. May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what happened earlier this afternoon, 1686 when I asked the Leader of the House whether the Foreign Secretary would come to the House early next week and make a statement about the matter which has just been under discussion, namely, the provision of Chieftain tanks to the Government of Libya and the refusal of the Foreign Office to implement an undertaking to provide similar tanks to the State of Israel.
My right hon. Friend's reply was that he could not give any guarantee that the Foreign Secretary would come to the House next week for that purpose, but that we could ask Questions on Monday. Unless a Question is put down relating to this subject, obviously we cannot ask Questions.
However, it goes further than that. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that I should be aware that this is not a subject on which the Foreign Secretary can reply to Questions. I am aware of the traditional position, that the provision of arms to certain countries cannot be questioned in the House on the ground that this is a confidential matter.
We are on the horns of a dilemma. How are we to raise this issue if you, Mr. Speaker, will not agree to the proposition that the matter can be debated urgently under Standing Order No. 9? We are unable to raise the matter at all, so far as I can see. We cannot demand that the Government give time for a debate I asked the Leader of the House about a debate and I received a negative reply. Where do we stand on this matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman is in the difficulty which occurs every time an application under Standing Order No. 9 is refused, that if he feels keenly about the issue he must feel that Mr. Speaker has done wrong in refusing to grant the application. But Mr. Speaker is under a duty. All he can do is to carry it out but he can give no reason for what he has done.
§ Mr. John MendelsonOn a point of order. I submit, with respect, that this is an issue that does not concern the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) or what my right hon. Friend has said. This is an issue which concerns the operation of a new Standing Order, and is a genuine point of order.
1687 Before the change in the Standing Order we could not debate matters of this kind, but now that the Standing Order has been changed, case law is being built up by the Chair, and we may find that we shall be as badly off as we were before the change was made because new precedents will have been established.
This is the issue. Will the House of Commons, under the new Standing Order, be able to have some influence on Government policy while that policy is being formed, or will it be no better off in this respect? To this question hon. Members are entitled to an answer, without pressing you, Mr. Speaker, to give the reasons for any particular decision.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is doing exactly what he did yesterday, indirectly challenging the Ruling I have given. The House has forbidden Mr. Speaker to give reasons for his decisions. Every decision to refuse an application under Standing Order No. 9 must disappoint somebody in the House.
If, at the end of a certain time, the House finds that the present method is not achieving the object of the House in changing the Standing Order, which was to remove all kinds of petty restrictions which prevented almost all applications under Standing Order No. 9 from being granted, the House must ask the Select Committee on Procedure to re-examine the whole position. For the moment, I am guided by the procedure laid down under Standing Order No. 9. I hope that we can leave it at that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. As I mentioned yesterday, an old habit under the previous Standing Order No. 9 was to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade 1688 Mr. Speaker to change his mind without success when he had given a Ruling.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyThere is no question of asking you to change your mind, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House would accept unreservedly what you have said. However, the House is placed in a delicate position. The Prime Minister of Israel is in this country and we are seriously alarmed at what has happened. Unless the House has a chance to say somehing, and can address itself to the problem, many people could be hurt and could suffer. I would ask the Leader of the House, through you, to say that he will do everything he can to ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a full statement.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)I made representations yesterday to the Foreign Secretary in view of the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). In view of the strong feeling in the House today I will again inform him.