COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. (Hansard, 17 November 1931)

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
There is one point arising out of the appointment of these committees which I think ought to be brought forward at the outset. I am not objecting to the appointment of this Committee; it is a question of the composition of this and similar committees. For good or for ill, there are four or five of us— six in all perhaps, but five that I know of—who are outside the orthodox Labour party and inside none of the other parties. With one exception all of us have been Members of this House for nine years; and the remaining one has been a Member for more than a year. As Members of the House we claim that we are entitled to have some share in— 822 at least to be taken into consultation in some way—the appointment of these committees. I do not mind if the House says that we are not to have Members on any of these committees. If that is the agreement between the Labour party and the Government, I do not mind. But this Privileges Committee is one of the most important of the committees, and, may I add, so far as I know we are about the only Members who would be likely ever to have to appear before it. [Interruption.] Yes, that is all the more reason why this House, which claims to show so much fairness and sportsmanship,, should see that our group have consideration in the matter.
We have not been consulted in any way about the membership of the Committee. Members are to be appointed who are junior to us and have much less Knowledge of the procedure of the House. I know that I cannot claim representation, and will not claim representation, on every committee; it would be cheeky, impertinent, and unfair to do so, for there are only four of us; but we want to raise the question of the right of representation on these committees. I ask the Chief Whip, who is in charge of these matters as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to give us some guarantee that the four or five of us shall not be completely shut out from these committees. If that is the view which is to be taken, then I do not object; we will do our best, and we will fight it; but, whatever may be said against the four or five of us, we do pay attention to our public duties, and we ought to have some representation on committees; at least we ought to be consulted about the matter.
I feel sore about this committee from two points of view. We have the new Patronage Secretary starting on a new and difficult job. I could be a handful, as he knows and I know. There is nothing more to be said about it; we just know it. I do not want him to start off with a feeling that he can rush things, because we are a small body. If he wants to do that we cannot beat him; whatever we do he will ultimately win; but, as a comparatively young man starting on these new duties, I think he would have done better by giving us representation on this committee, which we think terribly important. The only member 823 to appear before this committee in my nine years' experience came from this small band. I am not going to press for representation on this committee now; as certain men have been asked to serve it would be unfair to try to shift them; but I do want to ask of the Chief Whip as a courtesy, or if not as an act of courtesy, as a matter of justice, that there should be some form of consultation with us about committees and things like private legislation, in order that we may secure some form of representation.

§ Mr. J. JONES
May I be allowed, as one who has never been on any important Committee—for I am not considered important enough—to ask why any four Members of this House who care to group themseluves together should claim special privileges? We on these benches are loyal Members of the Labour party. Some of us do not accept all the decisions of that party, just in the same way as hon. Members opposite did not accept all the decisions of their own party when they were against us and we were in the majority. I happen to be one of the minority Members of the Labour party. I have stood for Socialist principles all the time I have been a Member of this House, but there are some Members who seem to think, if the party will not go the way they want them to go, then they do not belong to the party. That will not work. This Committee represents all parties in equal proportions. My hon. comrade who believes in honour when it suits him, does not believe in the principle when it does not agree with his particular digestion. Is every section in this House going to be placed on this Committee of Privileges? Will the hon. Member agree that all of us in the Labour party should have our separate representatives? If he does not agree, what does he mean?

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
If you had listened, you would understand.

§ Mr. JONES
I have listened to you, very often with great interest and very often with mystification. I sometimes wonder what you mean and other times I wonder what you want.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Is the hon. Member addressing me?

§ Mr. JONES
I only wanted to say to the hon. Member that if you are going to claim representation at all, a party is a party and a team is a team, and if you cannot agree with us, for Heaven's sake do not attack us.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson)
I really do not think there was any necessity for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to adopt the slightly provocative attitude which he adopted towards myself. It was only two days ago that the hon. Gentleman came to see me, and I do not think he can accuse me of treating him with any disrespect or lack of courtesy. In fact, I think he will agree that I met him in a very fair spirit. I may say that my object, as Chief Whip of the National Party, is to promote the smooth working of this House and to do all I can to avoid friction of any sort or kind. It will be my duty and my wish to see that the parties in the House get fair representation on whatever Committees are set up, and I shall do all in my power to secure that that is done.