SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET TOUR (Hansard, 20 April 1970)

§ Mr. Hastings
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 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 effect of the Prime Minister's television broadcast on Thursday last on the forthcoming South African cricket tour. There can be no doubt of the specific nature of this matter. The transcript is there. The Prime Minister was heard and seen by millions of viewers. It is, therefore, for me to show importance and urgency.
The importance rests on two factors. First, there is no doubt on the evidence, as I think we all know it in this House, of the determination of the anti-apartheidmovement not simply to demonstrate, but to cause the maximum trouble throughout this tour.
Second, it is equally clear from the interpretation in the newspapers over the weekend, before it, and this morning that the Prime Minister's words can be interpreted as a direct encouragement to lawlessness.
Third, and in a sense perhaps more important, the broadcast appears to diminish, if it does not contradict, the meaning of the answers given by the Home Secretary in this House on 26th February in particular, and on other dates as well. On 26th February, the Home Secretary, while making his own personal position onapartheidabsolutely clear, nevertheless—and I say this with respect —treated the issue of law and order with both dignity and responsibility. Not so the Prime Minister on Thursday last.
The urgency rests upon the fact that the tour is about to start, and any uncertainty about the position of the Government, or of the Prime Minister, could lead to a breakdown of law and order, abhorrent to most people in this country, and to the imposition of an intolerable burden on the police. As a result of that broadcast, this uncertainty is virtually complete. Whether it was an aberration, or, to put it charitably, the Prime Minister was overwrought—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must not drift into the merits of what he 37 wishes to speak about when he comes to his debate, if he gets permission to have one.

§ Mr. Hastings
I am seeking not to drift, or to say a word off the point, Sir.
Whether the Prime Minister on that occasion was overwrought, it is not for me, or for us, on this occasion to say. What I submit is necessary is to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House to explain what he meant, and an opportunity, equally, for all hon. Members to make their own position clear on an issue which will become of increasing importance as the weeks go by.
I know that from time to time Standing Order No. 9 is used, and perhaps many of us might agree legitimately used, as a device for venting an opinion. I have never so used it, and I do not do so now.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member was good enough to inform me this morning that he might make an application this afternoon under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should receive urgent consideration, namely, the effect of the Prime Minister's television broadcast on Thursday last on the forthcoming South African cricket tour. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision. I have listened carefully to the representations made by the hon. Member, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
We have a very heavy debate ahead of us.

§ Mr. Winnick
When the procedure for an application under Standing Order No. 9 was changed, many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, considered that that was an excellent way of making sure that when we genuinely believed 38 that there was an emergency which should be debated we stood a chance of being able to make a case that a debate should take place.
I want to ask for your advice, Mr. Speaker. Is not there a danger that making an application under Standing Order No. 9 merely for party political purposes will discredit the whole system of using the application procedure to try to debate an emergency issue?
The last time that I tried to get an emergency debate was on the subject of Nigeria, and I doubt whether anyone would have argued that I was using the procedure for purely party political purposes, as I wanted to criticise my own Government's attitude over the question of Nigerian relief.
If the procedure of Standing Order No. 9 is to be used purely as a platform, virtually each day, for party political purposes, to put the point of view of hon. Members when they know full well that you will not grant the application, surely the whole system will become discredited. Is not there a danger that, if it becomes so discredited, we shall go back to the previous position, under which an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9 was granted only every three or four years?
The situation is much better now, but I maintain that by hon. Gentlemen opposite abusing the system we shall lose the precious opportunity that we have of holding emergency debates.

§ Mr. Speaker
The application for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 is quite an important matter in the view of the hon. Member who applies for one. When the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) made his application under Standing Order No. 9, he thought that it was important.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South must extend the same courtesy to every other free Member in a free Parliament to use the machinery of Parliament for what he believes to be right.