Sir Rolf Williams: I am glad that I have been able to get the House in the right frame of mind. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have very limited facilities for private Members' business. I am referring not to private Members' legislation, but to the discussion of Private Members' Motions. Today is one of the rare occasions when we can discuss Private Members' Motions. May I put it...
Sir Rolf Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were involved in keeping order during the rioting in Smith Square on 24th June, 1964.
Sir Rolf Williams: I wish to revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), who said that the Regulations had been tabled some time ago. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is replying on behalf of the Opposition—
Sir Rolf Williams: Then on behalf of the Police Federation. I understand that he has some financial association with the Federation.
Sir Rolf Williams: There is nothing wrong in that. We all know that the hon. Gentleman is associated with the Police Federation.
Sir Rolf Williams: No one has any objection to the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Police Federation. We have all been bombarded with telegrams today. The hon. Gentleman said that the Police Federation had no knowledge of this matter until last Thursday. In fact, the Regulations were tabled on 18th June.
Sir Rolf Williams: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 133, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett)?
Sir Rolf Williams: Who says it? Who is he?
Sir Rolf Williams: Nonsense.
Sir Rolf Williams: The intellectual leadership of the party may not be in my hands, but at least I know more about political history than does the hon. Member. The policy of laissez-faire was the child of the Left-wing intellectuals of the last century.
Sir Rolf Williams: I agree that when a design is finalised one can put through a pilot production and get an estimated cost, but one cannot do that when a weapon such as Bloodhound is continuing its development, and is being modified even up to this day.
Sir Rolf Williams: If the figures are available, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what charge would fall on the Exchequer if the charges for spectacles and teeth introduced by the Labour Government were also abolished?
Sir Rolf Williams: May I ask a question which is designed to elicit an explanation by you, Mr. Speaker? When your Ruling is made tomorrow will there be an opportunity for us to make further points at the moment?
Sir Rolf Williams: Further to that point of order. I wanted to refer to the speech by Mr. McGovern, at Los Angeles, when he made similar allegations.
Sir Rolf Williams: Would the firms in question be like British Railways; cut in half?
Sir Rolf Williams: May I refer back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—the question of independence? Does not my right hon. Friend know that there has been considerable expression of opinion in Malta that the vast majority of the people there do not want independence at all? Will he give an assurance that there will be ample provision in the referendum for...
Sir Rolf Williams: Just like the Swift.
Sir Rolf Williams: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is wriggling. He is too slimy.
Sir Rolf Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the most important principles of war is economy of force, and that all our experience of the United Nations seems to lead us to believe that this principle would not be maintained?
Sir Rolf Williams: I see the point which the hon. and learned Member mikes, and I think that there is some substance in it, but, since the Molony Committee was concerned only with protection for the consumer, what sort of article is likely to come outside the limit of £2,000? I should have thought that £2,000 was a pretty high figure.