PERSONAL EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 13 December 1937)

§ Mr. Attlee

Mr. Speaker, I desire, with your permission, to make a personal statement. Last week, in my absence, without any notice to me, without inquiry, on the basis of an inaccurate newspaper report, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) placed upon the Order Paper a Motion attacking my honour and charging me with a breach of faith. A Motion inviting this House to pass a Vote of Censure upon a private Member for an action not arising out of the business of this House is a very unusual proceeding. To attack a fellow-Member in such a way in his absence is, I believe, unprecedented. This Motion has, however, received the support of a 822 few other hon. Gentlemen. It is impossible for a Member of this House to allow such an imputation made with such publicity, to remain on the Order Paper unchallenged.

The basis of the charge appears to be that because at a luncheon party given in my honour by the Commander-in-Chief of the Spanish Army, in response to a speech of welcome, I expressed my sympathy with the Spanish Government and my intention of informing the people of this country of the facts of the situation, I had thereby violated an undertaking given before my departure from this country. I went to Spain on the invitation of the Spanish Prime Minister, the head of a Government with which His Majesty's 823 Government are in friendly relations. My views on the Spanish question are well known in this country. They are also well known to every Spaniard who can read a newspaper. I believe in the justice of the cause of the Spanish Government. I have done, and shall continue to do, all that I can to persuade the people of this country to share those views. Before proceeding to Spain I signed an undertaking in the following terms: I undertake that nothing shall take place in the course of my visit that could be considered as implying any intervention by me on behalf of either side of the present dispute in Spain. This is the common form signed by all persons proceeding from this country to any part of Spanish territory. It applies to business men, journalists and relief workers. It is exacted from British subjects by His Majesty's Government in pursuance of the policy of non-intervention adopted by them.

The assumption underlying the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln is that the signing of this undertaking imposes upon the signatory the duty of refraining, while in Spain, from expressing any opinion in favour either of the Government in Spain or of the rebels. I cannot possibly accept such an interpretation. If such were the meaning of this undertaking it would be one which no British Government ought to impose and which no Member of Parliament who had regard to the rights and privileges of Members could possibly accept. It would mean that a Member of Parliament, of any party, must not express his own opinions, but must reflect the policy of the Government; that he may go to Spain, but only in a muzzle. I do not believe for one moment that this was the purpose aimed at in exacting the undertaking. If I had thought this to be the meaning of the undertaking, I would never have signed it, for I could not have implemented it.

Obviously, a Member of Parliament, especially the leader of a party, is bound, in the course of conversation, or on occasions of more formality, such as the exchange of courtesies, to express opinions on the merits of the contest in Spain. Journalistic enterprise is such that it is impossible to avoid publicity being given to such opinions. It is not possible to ensure 824 the accuracy of these reports. It would also be manifestly ridiculous for a Member to express positive views in an interview at Perpignan and negative ones in Barcelona. In my view, the undertaking had reference only to taking positive action in breach of the conditions of non-intervention, such as the importation of war materials or taking part in hostilities.

It cannot be too strongly emphasised that a private Member of Parliament does not by his words or actions involve the British Government, but that he is a free man with the right of freely expressing his opinions. In his Motion, the hon. Member for Lincoln has specifically referred to me as "the Leader of His Majesty's Official Opposition," and seems to imply that this places me in a special category. The Leader of the Opposition is a private Member. He owes no allegiance to the Government. No action of his can in any way implicate the Government. He is responsible only to his constituents and to the Members from whom he derives his position. He is, I think, under a special obligation to defend the rights and privileges of private Members, particularly the right of every Member to express his opinion freely on all matters of public policy. I make no excuse or apology for anything said or done by me in the course of my visit to Spain. The particular words of which the hon. Member for Lincoln complains are inaccurately reported, but I make no attempt to shelter myself by alleging misrepresentation. Of course, on the few occasions when I made speeches in Spain, while I abstained from criticising Government policy, I did state my sympathy for the Spanish people and the Spanish Government, and I did state the intention of the party which I have the honour to lead to do their utmost in every legitimate way to assist them in their struggle. I claim that, as a Member of this House, I have every right to do so. I utterly repudiate the suggestion that in so doing I have broken any pledge.