ANGUILLA (Hansard, 18 March 1969)

§ Mr. Marten
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, the Anguilla situation. Yesterday, I gave reasons for moving the Adjournment of the House, and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them, but today we have had a statement from the Foreign Secretary and there is no longer any need for secrecy over this operation. It is clear that we have a situation in which the House should urgently express its opinion on a matter which, as I said yesterday, is most specific and important.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the Anguilla situation. I have listened to all that happened yesterday, and all that has happened today; and, as the House knows, under revised Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in that revised Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, and to all that has happened since yesterday, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
On a point of order. May I submit one point which has not been raised during this afternoon or yesterday's discussion, namely, the need for absolute clarity of Government statement, otherwise English lives could be endangered. This seems a new point, especially as there has been no denial by the Government—and I failed to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—in a very complex legal situation under the 1967 Act, that this possible sending of British troops is not at the request of Premier Bradshaw. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is setting two bad precedents. One is trying to debate a subject which I have said cannot be debated under revised Standing Order No. 9; and the other is questioning the Ruling that Mr. Speaker has given.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
Without going into the details of this particular question, may I again raise a point of order which I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, namely, when important policy is being decided by the Government, either in the United Nations or in their own counsels, affecting the future of this country and its involvement in important and serious international affairs, when is the House going to be able to discuss such a matter whilst the policy is still being decided? The answer that one is often given is to put down a Motion. It is not my intention, or that of my hon. Friends who agree with me, to put down a Motion. It is most unreasonable in order to initiate a debate to have to put down a personal Motion about Mr. Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that procedure is for an altogether different purpose and an altogether different situation. But I submit that this is a real problem and that we ought to have some opportunity to take counsel with you in public as to what the answer to the question is.

§ Mr. Speaker
The answer is very simple. There is almost no limit on the kind of topic which an hon. Gentleman may seek to raise under Standing Order No. 9. All the old precedents have disappeared and all the Rulings my predecessors have given in the past have disappeared. It still remains the fact that Mr. Speaker has to decide from time to time whether the business of the House, or the business of the next day, shall be moved to one side to make way for an emergency debate; and none of the anxieties in the hon. Gentleman's mind affect this particular decision.