VIETNAM (Hansard, 11 May 1972)

§ Mr. John Mendelson
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 serious potential danger to world peace involved in the present situation in Indo-China and on the high seas surrounding Vietnam. Since this matter was last submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, evidence has come from very good sources that this danger is growing. I pray in aid only one voice, from the leading article of the New York Times of yesterday which said—without my going into too much quotation: The mining of the harbour of North Vietnam poses a direct challenge to the Soviet Union and other arms suppliers to Hanoi which could quite possibly escalate into a confrontation between the world's two great super powers. There have been other opinions expressed. In the United States Senate the majority there thought that the danger to international peace was increasing every day.
1577 That is the main reason for my application—so that the House of Commons should have an opportunity to discuss these matters.
The responsibility of the Government is clearly involved because the Government are concerned with shipping on the high seas. Britain has always been concerned with such problems as an international major marine and maritime power. Secondly, as the custodian of our alliance with the United States this House must be concerned about future potential dangerous developments. I would add this vital point, that in the end it is ordinary people who are called upon to underline and underwrite international alliances.
This debate must now be carried on in the House so that the Government can make a reasoned case and be asked to make representations because such representations ought to be made, so that ordinary back benchers may have the opportunity to express their opinions on these grave matters.
The Standing Order has always been held to provide a potential opportunity to discuss matters while they are actual and not as a matter of past history. I therefore ask that, in view of those points, which meet the Standing Order, you should now grant this application, Mr. Speaker, for an emergency debate on the matter raised in my application.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the serious potential danger to world peace involved in the present situation in Indo-China and on the high seas surrounding Vietnam. I said two days ago that I found decisions under this Standing Order extremely difficult to make. I have considered the Standing Order very carefully, in particular paragraph (4), and have come to the conclusion that it is proper for this matter to be discussed.—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That does not involve any pronouncement upon the merits, nor does too partisan a reception of my decision make it altogether easier for me to make these decisions in future. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Unless it is denied, it is quite unnecessary for anyone to stand.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business on Monday afternoon, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours under Standing Order No. 9(2).
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business upon Monday

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling has made my point rather easier because it will not seem to be partisan, as it is not meant to be. There seems to have been a great change in the procedure affecting this Standing Order. It seems that the new practice—and I wonder whether it is the correct practice—is for the hon. Member moving the Adjournment of the House to be allowed to make a speech which in length and content is virtually an argument in support of his claim. In this case you have granted the application and that makes my point much easier. What I am saying is that if it is to be the practice in making the application to bring the merit into the argument when it cannot be answered under the Standing Orders, then it is an abuse of the proper procedures of the House. I wonder whether this new procedure is now to be accepted and whether it is one which we can all expect to be able to follow.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must say that I do not detect that much of a change. This has always been a danger against which the Chair has had to guard. It is a matter for the Chair, but it is not always easy. I would certainly have called the hon. Member to order had I thought that he was going beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances. I agree that it is quite wrong—and the hon. Member will have heard me say this again and again—for an hon. Member to make the sort of speech in support of his application that he would make if it were granted. Today I was satisfied with what took place.

§ Mr. Orme
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make this brief point. 1579 not commenting on your decision. Is it not a fact that this is the first time for two years that a back-bench Member has had a Standing Order No. 9 application granted?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that we can have an inquest on what has happened in the past.