§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)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 invasion of sovereign Lebanese territory by Israeli troops over the past weekend".The matter is specific because it relates to the invasion by 30,000 Israeli troops and to loss of lives on both sides—Israeli and Palestinian—and also those of Lebanese nationality. There are unconfirmed reports of perhaps more than 1,000 civilian lives lost—women, children and elderly people—in Lebanon.The matter is important because this conflict presents a threat to world peace. In the light of the decision of the Prime Minister, in the view of many of my hon. Friends, to undermine the position of the United Nations, we feel that the House should be given the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the United Nations.
The matter is urgent because, unless international opinion takes an initiative and Parliaments throughout the world impose pressures on the State of Israel, the conflict will escalate into a major, international one.
The House will be deeply concerned by these developments. Those of us who know the areas that have been the subject of Israeli occupation, between Beirut and the towns of Damour and Tyre and Sidon, which are heavily populated and have been subjected to repeated attacks over the past two years, arising from the civil war and from the regular interventions by the Israeli military, will be well aware that there is a prospect of considerable further loss of life unless there is a debate. We believe that this is a matter of deep concern, and must be so to the country.
In the view of some of my hon. Friends, this conflict is more important to the world as a whole than the conflict in the Falkland Islands. As we have already had five or six debates about the Falkland Islands over the past five weeks we feel that the House should be given the opportunity to debate this matter as a matter of urgency.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment 210 of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the invasion of sovereign Lebanese territory by Israeli troops over the past weekend".The House has heard the important exchanges this afternoon about this serious matter. As the House is aware my powers are limited to deciding whether a three-hour emergency debate is justified, and I have been instructed by the House to take into account in reaching my decision the several factors set out in Standing Order No. 9 but to give no reason for my decision.I listened with the same anxious concern as the House to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Later—
§ Mr. Michael Latham (Melton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the submission under Standing Order No. 9 on which you have just ruled. Therefore, I could not give you notice of it before.
On several occasions, when submissions have been made under Standing Order No. 9, you have, Mr. Speaker, drawn the attention of the hon. Member raising the standing order to the fact that he must not make the speech that he would make if you allowed the application.
Although the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) acted perfectly properly in bringing the matter before the House, it could not be said to be an uncontroversial presentation. Other distinct points could be made.
Will you help the House, Mr. Speaker, by saying how far you are prepared to exercise your discretion in such matters? Certainly, I regarded the hon. Gentleman's presentation as a most one-sided view of a difficult issue.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can understand that the hon. Gentleman may have felt so. It is a nice matter of judgment. I felt that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) tried to confine himself to the three main arguments why there should be such a debate. I have heard many an application which was much more biased and towards which I have been more tolerant. I merely looked in the direction of the hon. Gentleman, who thereupon came to a conclusion. I was grateful since, in my judgment, he had made his points effectively.