§ 11. Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that Kemsley Newspapers, Limited, were recently fined £100 for wilfully publishing information which might be useful to the enemy, without forfeiting their right to be represented by war correspondents having access to many military secrets, he will reconsider his decision not to accredit a "Daily Worker" war correspondent.
§ Sir J. GriggNo, Sir.
§ Mr. DribergHas the right hon. Gentleman considered the representations made to him by many hon. Members of this House, including Conservatives and Liberals, and by many trades unions, including many who do not sympathise with Communism at all?
§ Sir J. GriggYes, Sir.
§ Mr. BellengerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the denial of a war correspondent to this paper is not only a reflection on the paper itself, but that it is a slur on the members of the National Union of Journalists, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish for; and cannot he reconsider the matter on those grounds?
§ Sir J. GriggNo, Sir. If the hon. Member will refer to my original answer, he will find the reasons for the decision fully set out.
§ Mr. GallacherAs there is nothing in that answer to justify political discrimination, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
§ Sir J. GriggIt is made clear in the original answer that the decision was the considered decision of the Government.
§ Mr. ShinwellWhat other reasons have induced the Government to refuse this newspaper facilities for having a war correspondent abroad?
§ Sir J. GriggThe reasons are all set out in my answer of 18th January.
§ Mr. ShinwellMay we know what they are? It is a very important matter. There is plenty of time, as there are very few questions on the Paper.
§ Sir J. GriggThe question was answered at considerable length.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs not this political prejudice of the worst possible kind, if it is true, as represented in the Question, and not denied by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Kemsley Newspapers were themselves fined for wilfully providing information to the enemy and yet can have correspondents abroad? Why interfere with this principle?
§ Mr. ReakesWill the right hon. Gentleman, in deference to the wishes expressed by hon. Members, give a sensible reply to this Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has"]—a just and fair one, and a logical reason why this paper should be treated differently from others?
§ Sir J. GriggIf the hon. Member will refer to the very full answer on 18th January, he will find the logical reason.
§ Mr. BowlesIs it not a fact that the Beaverbrook Press have eleven correspondents abroad?
§ Viscount HinchingbrookeIn view of the fact that six months have elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman originally replied, does he not think that this might warrant some further consideration?
§ Sir J. GriggNo, Sir.
§ Mr. ShinwellWhy these short, negative replies? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman open himself a little bit and let us see what he has actually in his mind? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman quite plainly, Is it not true that he is inspired personally by political prejudice?
§ Mr. Speaker rose——
§ Mr. ShinwellWill not he answer that question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that the hon. Member is being personal and I cannot allow that question.
§ Mr. ShinwellWith great respect, Mr. Speaker. As long as these questions are within the Rules of Order, I shall ask them.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat Question did not appear to me within the Rules of Order.
§ Mr. DribergIn view of the very unsatisfactory and curt nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.