PRIVILEGE (NEWSPAPER STATEMENT). (Hansard, 20 March 1941)

§ Mr. Mander
I desire to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to a matter which appears to involve a question of a breach of Privilege. I may say that I raise this matter with the deepest regret and reluctance, but I feel it is my duty to the House to do so. It has reference to certain remarks made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in Scotland during the course of the last few days. The particular passage to which I refer is taken from the "Aberdeen Press and Journal" of 17th March. It reads as follows: After the meeting, Mr. Boothby said to a 'Press and Journal' representative: 'I am in course of preparing a confidential memorandum which contains the full story which could not be put before the Select Committee or any one else at the present time. I propose to hand a copy of this memorandum to Colonel Duff'"— I think he is chairman of the association— ' and as soon as the facts can be revealed, I will gladly appeal to the judgment of the constituency as a whole '. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that is treating the Select Committee of this House with contempt. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen had the fullest opportunity of presenting the full facts to the Select Committee. He now discloses that he deliberately did not do so, but he is prepared to disclose those facts to the chairman of his local association. I ask for your Ruling.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
My attention had been drawn to this question shortly before the Sitting, and I have had some opportunity of considering it. As I understand it, there appeared in the newspaper in question a statement, or allegation, that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) made a statement to a Press representative, which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has just read. It is clear to me—and this is the only point which I have to 297 decide— that there is at least a prima facie case of a breach of Privilege on the part of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen if this statement in the newspaper is correct. In those circumstances, it will be for the House to take such action as they think fit, which must, of course, involve in the first instance ascertaining what the hon. Member for East Aberdeen has to say, whether he admits that he did make that statement or whether he denies that he made the statement alleged and in that case any explanation he desires to make.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill)
I beg to move, That the House do take into consideration on the next Sitting Day the statement which has just been made to the House, and that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) be ordered to be in his place on that occasion. I move that Motion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in consequence of the Ruling which you have given that there is a prima facie case of a breach of Privilege.

§ Sir Irving Albery
I wish to put a point to you, Sir. It appears to me that if the House takes this action, it assumes that a Member has committed a breach of Privilege purely upon the statement, at present unsupported, of a third party. Therefore, it seems to me—and I most respectfully submit it to you—that if it would be in order, it would be more proper that the House should call before it the person who has published the statement to justify his statement, before calling upon the hon. Member concerned.

§ Earl Winterton
May I point out that the procedure proposed is the usual procedure that has been followed in dozens of cases in the past? Obviously, the first person whose views should be heard on the subject is the hon. Member for East Aberdeen himself, and if—I am not, of course, attempting to prophesy the course of the Debate—if he states that the statement in the newspaper is false, then the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) will arise, and the House will have to decide whether it will require the attendance of the proprietor of the newspaper at the Bar of the House.

§ Sir I. Albery
I have nothing like the Parliamentary experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham 298 (Earl Winterton), but it seems to me that if that is in fact the procedure of the House, it means that any person outside at any time can state that a Member of the House had made some statement and the Member has then to be involved in what is, after all, a quite exceptional and highly unusual procedure. In such cases I should think there must be some other procedure that could be followed. For instance, the hon. Member's attention will now have been drawn to this matter, and it seems to me that in the ordinary way he should have the opportunity to attend in his place in the House and repudiate that statement without being expressly called.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member scarcely seems to have followed the statement which I made with very great care. I referred to the point that the first question was what the hon. Member for East Aberdeen had to say—I am not sure of the exact words I used, but I intimated that it might be possible that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen would deny the statement. If the House took the course which has now been suggested, it would certainly not in any way prejudge the hon. Member, but it would merely give him an opportunity, which I agree he should have, which is also his duty, of giving the House information in regard to a statement which has been published in a newspaper.

§ Sir I. Albery
Having heard what you, Sir, have just said, I still respectfully submit that it has been stated in this House that a prima facie case exists against the hon. Member. It seems to me that before this House is prepared to state even that, the hon. Member should be given the opportunity, without being ordered, to attend this House.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I must again correct the hon. Member. I stated that If the hon. Member for East Aberdeen had said what it is alleged he said then there would be a prima facie case, but I am not for one moment assuming that what is stated in the newspaper is correct.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
May I point out that there is notorious pressure upon space in newspapers and particularly on the newspaper concerned, as I well know, representing a neighbouring constituency? Therefore, there would be nothing to prevent the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, 299 when he attends, from coming armed with a statement, if necessary corroborative of his own, from the newspaper concerned of what he actually did say. That may dispose of the matter.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
I understand that it will still be open to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, if he so wishes, to correct the statement in the newspaper before Monday—because if the many statements which are attributed to Members from time to time are to be made the basis of complaint in Parliament, we shall find ourselves in this position on many occasions. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen may, in my submission, if he so wishes, correct the statement in the newspaper, and if that correction removes the suspicion, then the matter will not arise. Do I take it, Sir, that that is in accordance with your view, and that if the hon. Member corrects the report in the newspaper, the matter will not arise?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Whatever the hon. Member for East Aberdeen may do in the meantime, he will have to attend this House.

§ Sir William Davison
Is it not the invariable practice of this House that, when a reflection of any kind is being made by one hon. Member on another, notice should be given to the hon. Member in question so that he can be in his place and meet any charges or reflections which may be made upon him? I should like to know whether notice was given to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen so that he could be in his place to-day and not be put in the invidious position of having to be summoned and ordered to attend the House, as if it were being taken for granted and assumed that there might be charges for him to meet.

§ Earl Winterton
Is it not also a fact that if a Member desires to raise a question, which in his opinion constitutes a breach of Privilege, he must raise it at the earliest possible opportunity? Is it not a fact that if my hon. Friend desired to raise the matter later, he would be too late to do so, and that he has to raise it on the first day?

§ Sir W. Davison
Is not that a hypothetical point? It would be quite possible to telephone or telegraph the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. I should like to know whether that has been done.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is a matter on which I cannot give any answer; but so far as it is raised as a point of Order, it would be entirely outside any question of order. The hon. Member who raised the question has raised it in a perfectly proper way, and I venture to hope that I have dealt with it in a perfectly proper way. I should like to repeat, for the information of the House generally, that this Motion which has been made should not be regarded as in any way prejudging the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. It is merely the proper, usual and customary course in cases of this kind, and enables the House to obtain the information which they think they are entitled to have from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen—information which he is entitled to give to the House in his own words.

§ Mr. Mander
When a question of this kind has to be brought before the House, as has been said, it has to be done at the earliest possible moment to be in order. It had to be done to-day. I received a communication on the subject yesterday, and I at once brought the question to the attention of the authorities, and certain consultations have been going on. I was not the only hon. Member interested in the matter, and it was only decided—I think I am entitled to say this—a very short time ago that the task of raising this matter should fall upon me. It had to be done to-day or not at all, and I venture to say that in the circumstances I had no opportunity of communicating with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. The case was clearly stated to me, and it was explained that no action would be taken until the hon. Member was here.

§ Mr. Bevan
The point which was made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) is a point of substance. There are statements appearing in the Press from time to time which are so telescoped—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Technically the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby
May I suggest to the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen did not have the usual notice to attend when this matter was 301 raised, that in the circumstances it might be better to substitute the word "invited" for the word "ordered" to attend, since the word "ordered" leads the public to believe that the hon. Member has been prejudged?

§ The Prime Minister
I moved the Motion in the proper form, which I am bound to do on the Rulings of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Denman
It is true that it is essential that this matter should be raised today for the purpose of being in order, but it is not essential that the House should come to a decision on the point to-day. Is not the simplest procedure, therefore, that we should postpone this Motion until the next Sitting Day, so as to give the hon. Member concerned an opportunity of writing to Mr. Speaker, and perhaps blowing up a whole mare's nest? If it is in order to do so, I would like to move that the Debate be adjourned.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
What we are proposing to do is to postpone the matter until the next Sitting Day.

§ Mr. Denman
We are, in fact, summoning to attend that Sitting the hon. Member, who may be engaged on other work, and travel in these days is not too easy. I suggest that the matter could easily be resolved through the medium of the post and that that would be far better than the extremely formal procedure which is now proposed.

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order. I hesitate to bring up a matter which has unpleasant recollections for me, but may I point out that I brought exactly the same kind of charge against an hon. Member in a former Parliament and that exactly the same procedure as that now proposed was followed in that case? It is the procedure which is constantly followed. In the case to which I refer, the hon. Member came to the House and made a statement in regard to whether or not he had really said what he was supposed to have said.

§ Sir W. Davison
Did you give him notice?

§ Earl Winterton
No, I did not, because I could not. It was physically impossible to do so.