Private Notice Questions (Hansard, 10 November 1983)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I rise under Standing Order No. 32, which deals with Private Notice Questions and, inter alia, the procedure when such a Question is disallowed. The procedure provides that the Lord concerned may raise the matter at this time in your Lordships' House. In order to do so I must, as provided under the standing order, tell your Lordships what the Question was and give my reasons for believing that it should be allowed. The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether as an opinion poll has shown that 94 per cent. of the British people want dual key control of cruise missiles they will hold up deployment until such an agreement is reached. As I understand it, the main reason why the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has decided that this is not a Question which should be asked in this way is because this is not an emergency in the sense that an emergency is understood in this context.
This would be true if what I was raising was merely the question of an opinion poll, but the opinion poll is one which deals with a matter which is in itself an emergency. If this Question cannot be asked before the missiles are deployed, then single key control, under direct American physical influence and control, will be established. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a Question which the Government should be asked and which they should reply to before the missiles themselves are deployed. As there is apparently no opportunity to put this Question down on the Order Paper in the ordinary way because the Order Paper is full, I submit to your Lordships that the Question ought to be allowed, that the Question should be put, and that it should be answered by the Government today.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, naturally I gave very careful consideration to the Private Notice Question submitted to me by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Naturally, I looked to see what had happened in the past. I understand that it is for the Leader of the House 965 to decide in the first instance whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply. I am, of course, in the hands of the House on this matter, but it does seem to me to be perfectly clear that the noble Lord's Question is not an appropriate one for the procedure of a Private Notice Question. I entirely accept that the matter he is discussing is an important matter for this country; but I did not feel that the basis on which he founded his Question was an appropriate one for the procedure of a Private Notice Question. That was my reasoning, having given the matter very careful consideration.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, this matter is one upon which one is strongly tempted to divide the House because of the massive support—the quite unprecedented support—for the view that the British Government and their representatives should have a physical hand on their own fate in the case of cruise missiles. This is not a question that is of the same order as other questions; it is one that moves people throughout the country and on all sides of the House. Therefore, one is tempted to divide the House.
However, I am hopeful, knowing that the House is conscious of the importance of this matter, that some way will be found by the Government of giving the House an opportunity to debate this single issue—the issue of physical dual key control—before they announce the actual presence of the missile. In the hope and belief that the Government will do that, I will refrain from dividing the House this afternoon.

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, while I much appreciate that which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said and his decision not to divide the House, it would be open to me, as he will appreciate, to debate the reasons for my decision. I felt that it would not be in the best interests of the House to do so, unless very pressed. But if I were to promise that there would be an immediate or very quick opportunity for this House to debate this matter, I believe it would be dangerous for me to do so on that basis. I must point out to the House that this matter has been discussed in very considerable detail, and debated and voted upon in another place as well, over a long period of time. That would be the basis of my view. I hope that the noble Lord will understand it.
Of course, I will see what can be done to help the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I understand the importance of the question he is raising. But I cannot give him the undertaking quite in the way that he has asked for it; I would be being dishonest to the House and to myself if I pretended that it was otherwise.