MR. SPEAKER'S RULING. (Hansard, 18 July 1938)

§ Mr. Speaker
On Thursday last, the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) told me and the House that he had some further information with which he had recently been furnished dealing with one aspect of the question of breach of Privilege on which the Committee of Privileges had just made a report to which the House had agreed. I told the House then that I would look into this matter and give my views upon it to-day.
First of all, I must inform the House that, after exhaustive research, I have been unable to discover any precedent which is relevant to, or has any bearing on, the present case. I have considered the fresh information with regard to the question of Privilege which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) submitted to the House on 29th June, and upon which I ruled that on that statement a prima facie case for a breach of Privilege had been made out. The House referred the complaint to the Committee of Privileges for their investigation, and they duly made a report of their findings to the House. This report, after Debate, was agreed to by the House on 11th July.
Some confusion has arisen through the report in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th June not correctly representing the Motion actually moved by the Prime Minister, and put by the Chair, which was given in Votes and Proceedings, page 524. That was: That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Instead of this, the report in the OFFICIAL REPORT is: That the action of the military Court of Inquiry in summoning the hon. Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth to appear in uniform before that Court to-morrow morning for the purpose of giving evidence be referred to the Committee of Privileges. The correct version is the one in the Votes and Proceedings, namely: That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges. For this discrepancy on technical points of procedure, and for any error that may have occurred, I take full responsibility.
The fresh information on the incident which has reached me through the hon. and gallant Member for Louth is as 1808 regards the responsibility for the breach of Privilege. The summons to appear before the Military Court was the basis upon which the breach of Privilege was founded, and the statement of the hon. Member for Norwood and the statements made subsequently in the Debate which followed led the House to assume that the summons which the hon. Member for Norwood received was an order by the Military Court of Inquiry. In the extract from the Votes and Proceedings, at the head, which is not strictly part of the Report, it is stated as follows: Privilege—Complaint made to the House by Mr. Sandys, Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth, on an order by a Military Court of Inquiry, summoning him to appear in uniform before that Court to-morrow morning for the purpose of giving evidence. Ordered, That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.—[The Prime Minister.] Further, the penultimate paragraph is as follows: In these circumstances, without making any reflection upon the Military Court, it appears to us that the summons to the hon. Member for Norwood might well appear to be an attempt to induce the hon. Member to give certain information at a time when the House was proposing to set up a Select Committee to consider, among other things, the propriety of the hon. Member being asked to give such information. This passage seems to imply that while the Military Court might be technically responsible for a breach of Privilege, no criticism need be made of their conduct.
The information which has now come to my notice—I read from the actual letter—is that— the individual members of the Court knew nothing of the summoning of Mr. Duncan Sandys to appear before them. They had not any say whatever in the summoning of the witnesses to attend at the opening of the Court. They had not met when Mr. Sandys raised the point in the House on the 29th June. That ends the information I have received from the hon. and gallant Member for Louth. If this fact is to be accepted as true, and the evidence I have received satisfies me of its truth, the Officers of the Court of Inquiry can feel assured that they are entirely dissociated from any responsibility for the breach of Privilege.
It may reasonably be held, therefore, that the new fact has little importance in its bearing on the case of Privilege. The essence of the breach of Privilege was the 1809 summoning of a Member of this House before a Military Court in the circumstances detailed in the Report of the Committee of Privileges. Whether he was summoned by the officers composing the Court or by another officer making the preliminary arrangements for the holding of the Court, is immaterial from the standpoint of Privilege.
From this point the phrases I have referred to in the extracts I have quoted from the report amount to no more than a somewhat loose description of what exactly took place.
It is for the House itself to decide what action, if any, to take upon this disclosure of new facts. But if my guidance is sought, my advice would be that the matter should be allowed to rest where it is. I have stated that the finding of the Committee of Privileges and the decision of the House agreeing to their report remain substantially unaffected. They have found that a breach of the Privileges of the House was in fact committed, without making any reflection noon anyone.

§ Mr. Attlee
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of that statement which you have read to us, Mr. Speaker, which shows that the Committee of Privileges were misinformed and that this House has been misled, so that it has passed a Resolution which has been interpreted as laying blame on entirely innocent persons, it is not undesirable that that should remain on the records of this House; and whether the Prime Minister will not move that the Resolution of the House be rescinded, and the matter again inquired into by the Committee of Privileges?

§ Sir Archibald Sinclair
May I ask, in the first place, whether it is in order for hon. Members at this stage briefly to express their views on the subject of what you have said, Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is evident we cannot have a debate. There is no Motion before the House. But if the right hon. Gentleman will put what he wants to say in the form of a question, I shall be pleased to hear him.

§ Sir A. Sinclair
Then may I put it in this form? Seeing that the finding of the Committee of Privileges that a breach of Privilege was committed has been up- 1810 held; seeing that it has been made clear that the breach consisted in the summons to the hon. Member in the circumstances described; seeing also that it is quite clear from what you have said that it was not the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) who misled the House in suggesting that he had been summoned by the Court of Inquiry—he only said that he had been ordered to attend the Court of Inquiry, but it was from subsequent statements in the course of the brief Debate which took place, and let me say to the Prime Minister it was he who first stated that these proceedings were carried on by the Court—it was from those subsequent statements that we received the impression that the proceedings were carried on by the Court, and that the hon. Member for Norwood had been summoned by them; and seeing further that the main fact of a breach of Privilege is quite clearly admitted; and seeing also that the question of the responsibility for that breach has been referred to the Select Committee, which I understand will be asked to report on that question, would it not be better now not to refer this matter again to the Committee of Privileges, whose Report has been upheld by the statement which Mr. Speaker has just made? Would it not be better for the question of responsibility to be left to the Select Committee to decide, and for the House to debate that question when the Report of the Select Committee is before us?

§ The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition was good enough to give me notice that he intended to put the question which the House has heard, so I have had a brief opportunity of considering the subject. The conclusion I arrived at is the same as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), that, on the whole, it would be better to leave the matter, as you suggest, Sir, where it is, because it is established, so far as this House is concerned, that a breach of Privilege was committed, and it is established that that breach of Privilege was in the summoning of the hon. Member in the circumstances detailed in the Report of the Committee of Privileges. It does not really make any difference so far as the House is concerned who summoned him; the breach of Privilege has been established, whoever summoned him. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for 1811 Caithness and Sutherland has reminded us, this matter is still under the consideration of the Select Committee——

Hon. Members
No!

§ Mr. Churchill
This point is very important. My right hon. Friend says that this Privilege matter is now under the consideration of the Select Committee. How can that be, seeing that the Select Committee was set up anterior to this incident occurring?

§ The Prime Minister
Perhaps it was not explicit enough when I said that this was under the consideration of the Select Committee. I did not mean that the question of Privilege was under the Select Committee, but I meant the whole story, and, in particular, the actions of the Ministers concerned. The House has had to spend a good deal of time over this, and it is desirable that we should not give the country the impression that we are spending too much time. If it be the case, as you have suggested, Sir—and I think it is the case—that there is no reflection upon anybody concerned with the summoning, I do not think there is any particular object in sending it back to the Committee of Privileges. I think the House will agree when I say it would be unwise to put down another Motion to rescind the report of the Committee which has already been presented to us and debated by the House. It would mean that the matter would have to be referred to the Committee of Privileges once again.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that we must remember what I said before, that we cannot have a Debate.

§ Mr. Buchanan
On a point of Order. I understand your answer was that we could not debate it. In view of the Prime Minister's statement, is what he said any longer a reply? The Prime Minister made this statement and it is a debatable statement and not an answer to the question that we had debated it enough. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] That may be, but it is a debatable statement and is not an answer to the question. I would like to ask you whether, in view of that you would reverse your Ruling and allow the matter to be debated?

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be quite outside my power to give such a Ruling, because there is nothing before the House.

§ Mr. Buchanan
The Prime Minister is surely entitled to obey it?

§ Mr. Speaker
The statement of the Prime Minister seemed to me to be a direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman, who asked whether he would put a Motion on the Paper, and the Prime Minister said that he thought it would be better not, and gave reasons for saying it.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Is it permissible, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister, to ask the Prime Minister certain quite relevant questions which we think ought to be answered at this moment?

§ Mr. Speaker
Questions sometimes give opportunities for supplementaries, and often that particular opportunity is exceeded, and I should not like it to be exceeded in this case, particularly if it took the form of a debate.

§ Mr. Stephen
On a point of Order. I would like to ask you, Sir, if a Motion would be in order just now to refer this matter again to the Committee of Privileges?

§ Mr. Speaker
No, that would not be in order. The first thing that would have to be done, if we wished to refer it back to the Committee, would be to give notice that the Resolution which the House of Commons agreed to be rescinded. Notice would have to be given of that before it could be put before the House.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
Is there anything in the Rules of the House which forbids a private Member to move the same Resolution that the Prime Minister moved on the occasion when this matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges? There is now before the House, in my submission, an entirely new fact constituting a new incident.

§ Mr. Speaker
The point of Order which the hon. Member put was clearly stated at the beginning of his remarks. In answer to that point, it would be quite in order for a private Member to put a Motion on the Paper to rescind the Motion to agree with the report of the 1813 Committee of Privileges. It is as much in order for him to put that on the Paper as anyone else.

§ Mr. Bevan
Did the Prime Minister put it on the Paper?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a different question.

§ Mr. Bevan
The question submitted by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is whether it is in order for a Private Member to move that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Speaker
I gave that ruling just now. It is not in order. The Resolution of the House agreeing to the Report of the Committee of Privileges must first be rescinded.

§ Mr. Attlee
In view of the fact that the Committee of Privileges has been misled,