COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (REPORT) (Hansard, 31 July 1947)

§ 45. Earl Winterton
asked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to afford time for a Debate on the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
I have been asked to reply. I would refer the noble Lord to the statement which I made on this subject in the House yesterday.

§ Earl Winterton
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adopting the procedure which I understand is adopted in the courts, requiring, or requesting through you, Mr. Speaker, or the Serjeant at Arms, whichever be the appropriate authority, a medical certificate from time to time as to the state of health of the hon. Member for Gravesend in view of the fact that we are in complete doubt as to when he will be able to return to this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman further, having regard to the 629 fact that while there was no difference of opinion on the main issue, there was complete conflict of opinion in the Committee as to the extent to which privilege extends to a Committee upstairs, undertake that the Motions on the Paper tabled by myself will be debated before any action is taken in regard to Mr. Schofield, since his position is to some extent affected by the issue raised by the Motions?

§ Mr. Morrison
I should have thought with regard to the Motions to which the noble Lord referred that we might be able to take them into account in the general Debate which takes place, but I cannot presume on the Rulings of the Chair. With regard to the medical certificate, I understand that the hon. Member for Gravesend did have a letter from his doctor which advised him that he ought to go away.—[Interruption.] There it is. My own feeling is that natural justice requires that we ought not to debate the case until the hon. Member is here whatever we may think about his absence, and, therefore, I do not see how we can very well debate the matter until he is available. We certainly must debate the matter and we must come to certain conclusions about it.

§ Mr. Hogg
Does the right hon. Gentleman's decision with regard to the main matter of the report also cover the matter dealing with the special report issued by the Committee, because it did occur to me that the issues raised in the refusal of an editor to answer questions during the investigation by the Committee did not have any immediate connection with the issues raised by the report on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend?

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman
Before my right hon. Friend gives his answer to that, he might answer at the same time whether it is not true that the special report can be considered in the absence of the hon. Member for Gravesend, because it raises issues that are not the same as those affecting him?

§ Mr. Morrison
The point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and 630 my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) are perfectly fair and legitimate points, and prima facie I can see they might be dealt with separately, and indeed, they might be dealt with expeditiously if the House so agrees, but I am most anxious that this shall be dealt with by the House as a whole and that we shall do our best to avoid any party lines about it. If the House will be so good, I should like to have some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition, or through the usual channels, in the hope that we can deal with this in a way which would express united feeling on the part of the House as a whole.

§ Earl Winterton
Is it not a fact that the decision does not rest with Mr. Speaker—if I may say so with respect—since I am informed that the Motion I put on the Order Paper is in Order and must be debated at the time when the report of the Committee of Privileges is taken?

§ Mr. Morrison
In that case I do not know why the noble Lord asked me for facilities.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
May I ask whether it was fully understood that "Committees upstairs" referred to just now in question and answer meant Committees upstairs in the colloquial sense and did not mean Committees in the strict sense of Committees of the House? I thought that the way in which this was put in question and answer might lead to some misunderstanding.

§ Mr. Morrison
I understood that the sense of the question meant party gatherings upstairs, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that, whatever may be said about their rights or absence of rights, we must distinguish in language between party meetings and Committees of the House.

§ Mr. Byers
Would the Lord President of the Council agree that it is desirable in the interests of the House and of the individuals concerned that this special report shou4d be dealt with expeditiously so that the House and the individuals are not kept in suspense; and will he give an undertaking that something will be done shortly and that they will not be kept waiting during 10 weeks of Recess.

§ Mr. Morrison
I will certainly give consideration to the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. I do not know that it is vital that it should be dealt with urgently. However, it is a fair point for consideration. It is not so much the editor of the newspaper concerned who is being kept in suspense as 400 Members of this House on whom suspicion rests.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Would the right hon. Gentleman make an appeal to the man affected to come forward and make an open confession and relieve Mr. Schofield of any further responsibility.

§ Mr. Morrison
If I make independent approaches to the editor concerned with a view to persuading him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, the Member"]—Oh, well, if there be a sinner among us who would like to come and repent nobody would be more delighted than I. I thought the suggestion was that I should approach the editor, a proceeding which might land me in front of the Committee of Privileges.

§ Squadron-Leader Fleming
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) referred to "the man affected," and surely that could mean either the particular hon. Member or the editor in question?

Hon. Members
No.