PRIVILEGE. (Hansard, 14 April 1938)

Mr. Vyvyan Adams
I wish to raise a question of Privilege. In the "Daily Worker" of Wednesday, 13th April—yesterday—on the front page, under the heading "M.Ps. Barred from Debate on Spain," occurred the following sentences, in leaded type: The Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday privately notified Opposition leaders that Spain will be 'out of order' in the Debate on the Adjournment of the House of Commons next Thursday. It goes on: This disgraceful ruling is based nominally on the allegation that there has been 'too much talk about Spain already.' I submit that those quotations establish a prima facie case for saying that there has been a gross breach of Privilege. Shall I bring the newspaper to the Table?

§ Mr. Speaker
My Ruling is that the hon. Member has established a prima facie case of breach of Privilege against this paper. The hon. Member will please bring a copy of the newspaper to the Table.

Mr. Adams
I beg to move, That the statements complained of contained in the article in the 'Daily Worker' are a gross libel on Mr. Speaker, and that the publication of the article is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes. There are several comments——

§ Mr. Bellenger
On a point of Order. Will you give your Ruling, Sir, as to the procedure? If a prima facie case has been made out, is not the next step to call the editor of this paper before the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
That step is sometimes taken, but by no means on every occasion. The hon. Member is entitled to make whatever Motion he likes, and it is for the House to decide what action it will take.

Mr. Adams
I propose to trouble the House with only two comments on this passage of which I complain. First, these sentences which have been read out are obviously untrue. Although it may not be known to the political correspondent of the "Daily Worker," every Member of the House is aware that each one of us who has the good fortune to catch your eye, Sir, is entitled, on the Adjournment Motion, to raise almost any question under the sun which does not require legislation. Experience teaches us that we cannot expect undiluted accuracy from the columns of any newspapers. But the important element is that no newspaper has any right to stigmatise your conduct, actual or alleged, as "disgraceful." In my submission, this House alone is entitled to criticise anything that you, in your discretion, may or may not do. I therefore ask the House to agree with me that the "Daily Worker" has been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House.

§ Mr. Mander
I beg to second the Motion.

§ The Prime Minister
Perhaps as Leader of the House I ought just to say a word on the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend. Until a few minutes ago, I was not aware that my hon. Friend had any intention of making this Motion, nor had I seen or been aware of the article in question; but I believe that every Member of this House will feel with me that an attack of this kind on you, Sir, is an attack on the House as a whole. 1319 We are quite accustomed in our own persons to be criticised outside the House; we are used to that; but it is another matter altogether when allegations of partiality are made against you, Sir, and I think that the House as a whole will wish to show its indignation when attacks of that kind are made.
As to the question of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), there have been cases in the past when it has been thought necessary to follow up a Motion of this kind by some further expression of the indignation of this House, by summoning the offending party to the Bar of this House. I must say that I rather hope we shall be content, after having accepted the Motion of my hon. Friend, to let the matter rest there. We do not want to magnify the importance of an incident of this kind or of the parties who make such an allegation. I feel myself that there are precedents for the House passing a Motion of this kind and leaving it there, and that that would be the course which would be in the best interests of the dignity and honour of this House.

§ Mr. Attlee
I should like to associate myself with what the Prime Minister has said. You, Sir, are the guardian of our liberties, and any attack on you is an attack on this House. The statement appears to be entirely baseless, and criticism from any source outside must be resented by this House. I think the Prime Minister, if I may say so, was entirely right in saying that there should not be too much made of this matter, and the House will be best advised to be content with passing this Motion.

§ Sir Percy Harris
As representing a small minority in the House, may I say that we as minorities, who get special protection from you, Sir, resent any attack on yourself? The smaller the party, we have always found, the greater protection you give us. Needless to say, there is not the slightest vestige of truth in these statements. There is nothing to prevent any hon. Member who is lucky enough to catch your eye raising any subject dealing with the administration or executive work of the Government.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I have nothing to do with the editorial board of the "Daily Worker," but it seems to me that such a discussion as this would have been much clearer and fairer if the ordinary pro- 1320 cedure had been taken and the responsible editor brought to this House and given an opportunity to reply. It is very unfortunate if any paper, especially such a paper as the "Daily Worker," is provided with wrong information from any source, but I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, to try to appreciate the position of those who are in charge of this paper, closely associated, as they have been, with the particular campaign that has been discussed in this House. We read every day of men being simply battered; their bodies broken, their flesh torn, with the mechanised might of the invaders in Spain; and it is quite possible for people in particular circumstances to be thoroughly justified in putting urgent human needs even before Privilege on particular occasions. This should be taken into consideration. I am quite certain that there was no deliberate sitting down and considering, "Shall we make an insult on Mr. Speaker, or an attack on the House of Commons?" It is an attitude of mind that arises out of the very deep feeling they have for people who are being broken and tortured, and I would suggest that it is quite possible for any Member of this House on particular occasions to feel that human need, urgent human need and human suffering, can overcome the question of Privilege.
So I ask the House not to be so ready to condemn such an action. True, it is unfortunate that they should publish anything that is untrue, and it is something that has always to be reprimanded when untruth is published; but it is quite true that those who are in responsible editorship actually believed that the report they got was true, and in the belief that the basis of the report was true there was a measure of justification for putting, not Privilege first, but the urgent human need of the Spanish people. I have no responsibility of any kind for the editorship of the "Daily Worker," but it would have been much better if those responsible had been brought here, had heard what had to be said and then had been given an opportunity of making a statement.