PERSONAL STATEMENT (Hansard, 19 December 1946)

§ Mr. Piratin
I am grateful for being given the opportunity of making a statement in regard to my nationality, which was recently called in question. In the course of the Debate on India, on 12th December, I was described as a "foreign Communist," Subsequently, the words "a Communist of foreign descent" were substituted, but the original inference was not withdrawn. In order that there may be no misunderstanding either as to my nationality or my allegiance, I wish to make it clear that I am a British subject by birth. My father was a Russian. He found refuge in this country, as many before him had done with gratitude, after fleeing from Tsarist persecution in his own country. While it is true, therefore, that I am of foreign descent, that description would apply to many British-born subjects in some degree. For my part, I would merely emphasise that I am a British subject and that I have never considered myself as having any other allegiance.

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not gather that the noble Lord came into this.

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order. In the first place, I should like to say that, if the factual statement which I made gave any offence to the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry. Now, Sir, I desire to make a personal statement. In the course of the—

§ Mr. Speaker
An hon. Member cannot make personal statements without getting leave from the Chair. The noble Lord coolly says, "I am going to make a personal statement." There is nothing in the statement of the hon. Member for Mile 2192 End (Mr. Piratin) which calls for a reply of any kind. As far as it has gone, the noble Lord said that he was sorry if he had hurt the hon. Member's feelings, which is as far as anybody could rightly go.

§ Earl Winterton
On a further point of Order. It must be in your recollection. Sir, that I told you yesterday that I proposed to ask permission to make a personal statement arising out of an attack which was made on me by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) on the same occasion, which I will read out.

§ Mr. Speaker
Am I to understand that the noble Lord gave notice to the hon. Member for Mile End that he was going to make a personal statement arising out of an attack which he made on him?

§ Mr. Churchill
No, arising out of an attack made by the hon. Member on the noble Lord.

§ Mr. Speaker
Arising out of an attack which the hon. Member for Mile End made on the noble Lord. Is that right?

§ Earl Winterton
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
Did the noble Lord give the hon. Member notice?

§ Earl Winterton
I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
What is the good of giving me notice when the hon. Member for Mile End is concerned? It is not for me to say to the hon. Member for Mile End, "The noble Lord has made a personal attack upon you." Really, I am surprised.

§ Earl Winterton
I am sorry, but I must ask for your Ruling, Sir, on what is really a very serious matter. You do not permit me to read out the words of the attack which the hon. Member for Mile End made on me. I ask your permission to reply to the very serious charge made against me by the hon. Member. Do I understand you to say that I am not permitted to reply to that charge?

§ Mr. Speaker
I certainly think that the noble Lord should give the hon. Member notice before he attempts to do so. That is the normal custom of this House, and that is what happened the other day when the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made a statement in the House, correcting what he appeared to have said about the noble Lord being present in 2193 1871 when the Army Regulation Bill was discussed. That is the ordinary custom. One writes to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Mile End came to me and said that the noble Lord had hurt his feelings. I said, "Write to the noble Lord." He came again yesterday and I said, "Give the noble Lord notice." Has the noble Lord given the hon. Member any notice that he wants to raise the matter? I think that the usual custom should be observed.

§ Mr. Churchill
On a point of Order. Is it not the right of an hon. Member who considers himself impugned to make a personal explanation, quite independent of any letter he may be required to write or notice he may be required to give to any other Private Member, and if that hon. Member has informed the Chair, is he not entitled to give a personal explanation, if he so desires?

§ Mr. Speaker
I should have thought that the chance for the noble Lord to say something was when those words were first used, and that he would have got up at once and protested against them. The noble Lord is not usually slow in doing that. It is laid down in Erskine May that: General arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a reference to previous debates are out of order…. The noble Lord would have to go back to this Debate and I am afraid that I am bound to rule that out of Order.

§ Earl Winterton
I want to get your Ruling quite clear, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have now ruled that although a most serious charge of a most wounding character was made against me —the hon. Member accused me of being a murderer—I am not allowed to refute that statement now, or at any other time. Is that your Ruling, Sir?

§ Mr. Speaker
The noble Lord now says that the hon. Member for Mile End accused him of murder. All I am laying down is that I think that the noble Lord should write to the hon. Member and say, "I propose to raise the matter in the House." He could do it tomorrow morning if he liked.

§ Mr. Churchill
Apart from this particular incident, I am anxious to know, for my own future guidance and that of other 2194 hon. Members, what is the Ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, are giving in regard to the right to make a personal explanation. Is it now to be laid down that no personal explanation may be made, even after you, Sir, have been consulted, unless the hon. Member who has made some allegation about the Member concerned has already been notified, and should he be notified verbally or in writing, and, if in writing, in what form?

§ Mr. Speaker
To start with, Erskine May says that permission to make personal statements should be granted as rarely as possible, and that it is not a matter to be encouraged. But I say, quite frankly, that I think if one is aggrieved, one either raises the matter at once and protests against what has been said, or else, if one reads it in HANSARD afterwards, one writes to the hon. Member making the allegation and says, "I am aggrieved by what you have said, and I propose to make a personal explanation regarding what you have said at the earliest possible moment." That Ruling has operated all the time that I have been in this House, and it has the effect of keeping up the old courtesies of the House, which I think are so necessary.

§ Earl Winterton
Do I understand, Sir, that it would be out of Order for me to assure you, the House and the hon. Member for Mile End that I am not, as he has suggested, a murderer?

§ Mr. Speaker
Without knowing what the words were, I should really be surprised to learn that a real charge of murder was made.

§ Mr. Gallacher
On a point of Order. I would like to know if it is in Order for the noble Lord to raise the matter now, in view of the fact that he had the Floor when the alleged accusation was made; and, having the Floor, why did he not say something about it then?

§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot go back into that matter now.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker Is there any way, in Order, that you can suggest whereby the House can be protected against these repeated arid frivolous attempts to waste time?

§ Mr. C. Williams
Following the point of Order which we have been discussing, may I, with very' great respect, say that page 354 of the edition of Erskine May edited by Sir Gilbert Campion, goes on to say: though a Member has been permitted by the Speaker to make, at a subsequent sitting, an explanation regarding alleged misrepresentation in debate … Of course, I absolutely accept your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but, with that further quotation, and, having looked at the matter fully in HANSARD, I very respectfully suggest that it might be fair to the noble Lord to allow a rather full explanation of what the noble Lord said on that occasion by way of apology.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think we have finished with the matter now. I do not think we need go any further.