§ 11.5 a m.
§ Mr. SpeakerYesterday, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) raised with me a complaint of breach of Privilege relating to an I.T.V. programme called "What the Papers Say", delivered apparently at 11.5 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th November. I have read the script of that and have considered the hon. Member's complaint. In my view it does not, prima facie, give rise to any complaint of breach of Privilege.
As the House will know, the effect of my Ruling is that that in no way debars the House from dealing with the matter, should it want to do so. It merely denies to the hon. Gentleman's complaint priority over other matters.
I hope that the House would allow me to mention one other matter which has no sort or kind of bearing on the Ruling which I have just given. I find that in the exchanges yesterday, when we were discussing from what point of time our rule of sub judice, on the assumption that it does apply, would apply, I referred to the passing of the Resolution by the House, but I do not, on reflection, think that that is right. I think that the material moment must be when the Tribunal itself was set up, which apparently was when the warrant was signed some time yesterday morning. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to correct my hasty answer.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyI am grateful for your kind words, Mr. Speaker, and the thought that you have given to this matter, which, of course, I accept willingly. But I am advised that what was said on the television programme that night was a contempt of the proceedings of the 688 Tribunal and, with respect, I would seek your advice.
It seems to me that a commentator, whether in the newspapers or on television, is perfectly entitled to report what goes on in the House, or give facts, but in this case, your having said that the time when the sub judice period starts is in doubt alters the question. Nevertheless, the newspapers did refrain from commenting on commentaries that had been published in the previous eight or nine days. But this is an unprecedented legal position which appears to arise over the Tribunal——
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry, but I have to stop the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, because one of the results of my Ruling is that we cannot discuss the matter now. I am concerned with the application, where it applies, of the sub judice rule in relation to our proceedings in this House. Whatever happens in relation to the Tribunal or a court of law or some other application of some other sub judice rule is not a matter for me, or one on which I could take it upon myself to advise the hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyI appreciate that, Sir. What I was concerned with was that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) were attacked. Whether it was at a quarter past eleven or any other time, nobody else attacked them——
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry, but this is quite improper. I cannot deal with matters of that kind.
§ Mr. ChannonIs it your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that in future if there is a complaint of breach of Privilege the whole transcript must be handed in, as is the case with newspapers?
§ Mr. SpeakerI would not like to make a general rule. It would depend on the precise nature of the complaint. It might, for instance, relate only to a quite distinct part of the programme, in which case it might be unduly burdensome to have a general rule. I think that I should have to leave it to the particular complainer, having regard to what he thought would be convenient, and the Chair would have to ask for anything more if it was wanted.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerI am grateful for what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but, of course, there is not always a transcript available of every programme. If there were a rule that a transcript would have to be handed in, it would leave out all programmes of which there was no transcript.
§ Mr. Ronald BellYou said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that you would leave consideration of the question raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), as to whether the rule about not discussing matters which are sub judice would apply at all to the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. I wonder whether you are yet in a position to advise hon. Members of your consideration.
§ Mr. SpeakerI said that I would not rule upon it until I had to do so.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn the same point, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your advice on the question whether the setting up of a Tribunal of this character under the 1921 Act implies the sub judice rule? I do not know whether you have had an opportunity of availing yourself of an article by a high legal expert in The Guardian this morning, in which he declares that there are grave doubts as to whether the sub judice rule applies in the case of a tribunal of this character?
§ Mr. SpeakerUnhappily, it is not for the correspondent in a newspaper to decide, but myself. I am grateful, of course, for all the help that I can get.
§ Mr. WiggI appreciate your reluctance to express views on hypothetical cases, Mr. Speaker, but surely the matter is now specific. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) and I have put Questions on the Order Paper which are affected by your interpretation of this rule. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has put a point of view with which I certainly agree. There are grave doubts as to whether this is a court in the ordinary sense of the word. If one reads the Act—
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry, but I am not prepared to have it argued now. If and when the admissibility or inadmissibility of a question dependent on that factor 690 arises, of course I shall have to rule on it, but I am not going to do it now. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that I have no illusions about the Tribunal under the 1921 Act being a court. I never did think that.
§ Mr. WiggSurely the matter is specific in relation to Questions on the Order Paper which have already been tabled. The issue raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) in his question cannot arise if, in fact, this court is not protected in the ordinary way and these proceedings are not sub judice. Therefore, I would argue that there is a specific case before you which calls for a Ruling in the interests not only of this House, but of the country as a whole.
§ Mr. SpeakerOur sub judice rule does not, except in exceptional circumstances, have any application in the country as a whole. It merely applies to the proceedings in this House.
§ Mr. Wigg rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerWould the hon. Gentleman allow me? I do not want to go on discussing this matter. I am not entitled to do so. It was really a wrong point that he was seeking to make then. The basis of my Ruling about the matter raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield is simply this, that, whether or no our sub judice rule applies, it would not apply to an I.T.V. broadcast. It does not matter about what time or when in that context.
§ Mr. WiggAs I understand it, the proceedings of this House are not solely concerned with proceedings in the Chamber. They are concerned with the activities of any Member of the House in the discharge of his duties as a Member of the House. That is surely the accepted doctrine of the proceedings. Therefore, the question whether the proceedings are sub judice or not affects every Member of the House who is concerned with the problem before the Tribunal.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am concerned only with the application of the rule if it does apply to Parliamentary proceedings and nothing else. That is all.
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)Further to that point, Sir, may I mention one matter as Leader of the House? There is a 691 Select Committee on Procedure, of which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is a member. It is pure coincidence, but I had some discussions some time ago and I am told that it would be convenient to discuss the sub judice rule as the first matter this Session. This arises out of matters that arose last Session. I intend to put down next week for reference to the Select Committee on Procedure the general question of the sub judice rule, and, although that does arise out of matters from last Session, we could take into account the exchanges there have been today.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerThe fact that it would be referred to this Committee would not render that sub judice for us, because the question may well arise in relation to Questions on the Order Paper and supplementary questions which may be asked.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I can make plain what the position is. I think that it is quite clear that we shall have to have a working rule quite soon to govern our operations in this matter. I shall have, when it arises, as a servant of this House, to give a Ruling which will be our working rule for that purpose. I have no doubt that my first words in giving it will be that it is a matter in which, owing to poverty of precedent, I should be happy if I could have the guidance of the House.
§ Mr. WiggAs I am a member of that Committee, Mr. Speaker, it would presumably be improper of me to pursue it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Very well, if it would not be improper, may I say that I accept what the Leader of the House says, on one condition, that in view of the circumstances in which the Tribunal is set up, the proceedings of the Select Committee should be undertaken as a matter of urgency?
§ Mr. MacleodI have said that I will put it down as the first matter. I shall draft it and put it down as soon as I can in the first day or two next week.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to everybody for allowing me to be so generous with their time.