HC Deb 08 May 1933 vol 277 cc1222-6
Mr. LANSBURY

I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the following passage from the OFFICIAL REPORT, in a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) in Committee of Ways and Means, on 26th April: I would like to ask the present First Lord of the Admiralty haw long the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Labour Government was before he turned over the contracts for margarine and butter to the Co-operative Wholesale Society?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1933; cols. 230–231, Vol. 277.] I desire to ask whether this aspersion upon the conduct of an ex-Member of this House, who is still a Member of the Privy Council, at a time when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, is in order? May I also ask what course, if any, is open to Mr. Alexander, or to any Member of this House, to ensure that, failing the withdrawal of the allegation, the hon. and learned Member for Argyll shall produce the evidence upon which the allegation is founded?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I desire to say this: When a member or chairman of a great corporation takes public office and is going to return to it, and then a great order goes to his corporation, people are apt to draw conclusions. I drew a conclusion. It has been denied, and I promptly accept the denial. I have no hesitation in doing so. At the same time, I would like my right hon. Friend to give me another denial. Is it the case that the Dartmouth Naval College reverted or went to the Co-operative Society?

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. and learned Member wishes to make a personal explanation, he is entitled to do so, but he must not bring into his personal explanation extraneous matters.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Very well, Sir. I thought it was a perfectly justifiable allusion. I may be wrong, and I have no hesitation whatever in withdrawing it, but I merely say this, that it seems to me extraordinary that such resentment should be attached to it. I also made another statement at the same time with regard to co-operative purchases. I have seen the person who told me about it, and he adheres to his statement. I see that the directors—

Mr. LANSBURY

On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER

I have told the hon. and learned Member what is open to him, that if he wishes to make a personal statement, he can do so, but that he must not enter into matters extraneous to those raised in the right hon. Member's question to me.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

This is all part of the same speech. I made a certain statement with regard to suggested cooperative purchases of automatic machines. The same thing has been raised and the same defiance has been made, and it has been published in the Press. I am told now that the Co-operative Society has denied the butter. I am very glad, because it would have been Russian butter, but they have got the margarine contract.

Mr. SPEAKER

The only question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was in regard to a passage in the hon. and learned Member's speech. We must deal with one question at a time.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The right hon. Gentleman picks and chooses, but I want the subject dealt with as a whole. He takes out one particular technical slip.

Mr. LANSBURY

I understand that the hon. and learned Member withdraws the allegation that my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty altered the contracts for margarine and butter in favour of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. If I understand him to say that he withdraws that allegation, I am quite satisfied. With regard to the other matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises, he is being challenged to make the statement outside, where it can be taken up.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

All that I say is that, if I am assured by the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Mr. Alexander, that he did not interfere with that contract, then I accept that statement unqualifiedly. I take Mr. Alexander's word for it at once. That is all I say. As for the balance of the thing, here is the Press full of the Newcastle case, where they are sending co-operatives to gaol in platoons for fraud.

Mr. SPEAKER

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition whether he accepts the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), in which case it is not necessary for me to answer his question.

Mr. LANSBURY

As I understand it, the hon. and learned Member wishes to put the onus on me of either proving or disproving the very discreditable statement that he made about a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. All that I ask is that the hon. and learned Member shall either himself give the proof that led him to make the statement or withdraw it in an unqualified manner.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I have accepted the denial, which is a complete withdrawal, and that is quite sufficient.

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer his question?

Mr. LANSBURY

I shall be glad if you will do so, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER

With regard to the first part of the question, the incident to which reference is made took place when the House was in Committee, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not for me to say whether anything that took place in the House on that occasion was in order or not. The question of order in that case must rest with the Chairman. I may say, however, in reply to the general question, as a general ruling, that it is not actually out of order, except in certain specified cases, to cast aspersions on persons who are not Members of this House. That is more a matter of taste and judgment. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Alexander is no longer a Member of this House, and I can therefor offer no suggestion as to what, if any, action he may choose to take. With regard to any hon. Member of this House, it is open to him to put down a Motion, and it is for the House to decide what action the House may take in the matter.

Mr. LANSBURY

In thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling, I may say that I will consult with my friends as to the best form of Motion that we can put on. the Paper, but I would ask you, with reference to the statement that you have just made, that allegations may be made, either in good or bad taste or good or bad judgment, reflecting on persons outside the House, whether that Ruling covers members of that most honourable body His Majesty's Privy Council, whether a member of the Privy Council could remain a member of the Privy Council sitting under the sort of charge of corruption that the hon. and learned Member made.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I made no charge of corruption—none whatever.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Member asks me a question with regard to what I said, that aspersions can be made on people who are not Members of this House, with certain specified exceptions. There are, as he knows, a good many classes of persons on whom aspersions cannot be made, such as His Majesty's Judges, but the present case is not one of those exceptions.

Mr. LANSBURY

So that a member of the Privy Council, someone who can advise the King, does not come within that exception?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is so.

Mr. THORNE

If I make a charge against a Member of this House, or anyone outside, and it is found to be wrong, is it not a moral obligation on me to apologise?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member asks me a general question. Certainly, he would have to do so in the case of a Member of this House.

Mr. HANNON

Would it not be more in conformity with the dignity of this House if the whole question were forgotten?

Mr. LANSBURY

You would not forget it.