rose—
Oh, no.
I hope that hon. Members
will not make up their minds, at least until they have heard what I want to
say.
I beg leave to oppose
the Bill and I will be brief. I believe that the Bill could have such grave
social consequences that it is the duty of all hon. Members who are not already
pledged to vote against it. I will give three practical reasons for so
claiming. The first is that the sponsors have never explained why the Bill
should not apply to the 600,000 men in the Armed Forces, nor how discipline
will be maintained if private buggery is permitted to civilians and denied to
the soldiers, sailors and airmen. [Laughter.] Hon. Members gave my opponent a
fair hearing. I hope that they will give me one.
Nor have the sponsors
explained how discipline could be maintained if this licence were given to our
fighting men. I believe that the result of the Bill would be an increase in the
very crime, the bestial habits, which the hon. Member for Pontypool
(Mr. Abse) deplores. The very fact that the Bill would increase the penalties
for crimes against boys under 16 and youths under 21 surely emphasises the
immense dangers that could result if this filthy habit were to increase.
My second practical
objection is this. I claim that the sponsors of the Bill have no mandate
whatever for the Measure. I hold in my hand the three party election manifestos.
The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Socialists did not put one word in
their manifestos about this so-called homosexual reform. I therefore say that
the sponsors have no mandate whatever for the Bill. Why was there not a word in
the party manifestos? We are all politicians and we have all sought votes. The
framers of our manifestos knew full well that the ordinary people of Britain
The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to the Army Act and
to "disgraceful conduct" of "an unnatural kind". Ordinary
people are horrified at the thought that this sort of thing might increase. I
am certain that had it been put in the party manifestos it would have been
rejected by the electorate.
264 The Bill would appear
to give Parliamentary and public approval to this revolting form of immorality.
Thus, I put it to the House that the sponsors of the Bill, who have previously
claimed that there are about 1 million "homos" in this country,
cannot really make that claim. I do not believe it. I do not believe that our
country is as rotten as all that. It is an awful slur on the good name of the
country to say such a thing.
Further, if this House
is representative of the nation, it would mean that there are at least 30
"homos" in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."] The
allegation comes from the benches opposite, not from me. I am denying it. it is
exactly 21 years today that I first had the great honour of being made an hon.
Member of this House. During those years I have had the great privilege of
having friendships with hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Oh.
Order. I hope that the
House will allow the hon. Member to proceed.
Dirty minds come to
dirty conclusions. I have never come across one case of a "homo" in
this House.
How can the sponsors of
the Bill be so certain that this practice is so widespread? Will the hon.
Member for Pontypool say how many
"homos" he has known in Parliament during his membership of the
House?
The third practical
objection I have to the Bill—[Interruption.] I regard this as a desperately
serious matter and I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those below the
Gangway, to take note of this—is that there is no Parliamentary time available
for the Bill.
Hear, hear.
No Private Members' Bill
can be made law unless the Government of the day find the necessary time. I
have more confidence in the northern common sense of the Prime Minister than to
believe that he would give Parliamentary time for this Bill, and thus have the
odium of this dirty Measure tied to his party. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Shame."] Shame or not, I am standing up for what 265 I believe to be right. The Government's
timetable is already choked. Eight major Bills are already going through and
more are waiting to go through.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite
have from time to time complained that no Parliamentary time is available to
discuss urgent public problems like Vietnam
§ It is scandalous that the hon. Member
for Pontypool and the sponsors of the Bill
should claim that the private privileges of homosexuals should, from the point
of view of Parliamentary time, come in front of the urgent matters which hon.
Members want to discuss. I beg hon. Members, with my whole heart, to vote
against the Motion.
§Question put, pursuant to Standing Order
No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees
at commencement of Public Business):—
