Royal Commission on the Press (Hansard, 23 September 1948)

§ 60. Wing-Commander Hulbert
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the total cost of the Royal Commission on the Press to the last convenient date; and if an estimate can be given of its eventual total cost.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave on 21st September to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

§ Wing-Commander Hulbert
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider discussing with the Lord President of the Council the question of bringing this ridiculous farce to an end and saving public money? If the Minister will not do that, will he at least ensure that the public get some reward for their money by inducing the Minister of Health to give his evidence?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Is it not a fact that the answer to me to which the right hon. Gentleman referred my hon. and gallant Friend indicated his own inability to estimate the total amount which will be spent on this purpose?

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
On the contrary, I gave the figure of cost up to date, and said that, as it was difficult to determine how long this would last, it was quite impossible to say what the total cost would be. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that that is the correct answer to give, I feel rather sorry for him.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
Does not the Financial Secretary think, whatever the cost, it was worth spending the money to get the elaborate evidence in which Lord Kemsley has convicted himself?

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order to make a reflection upon a Member of another place? Is it in Order to ask a question 1090 about evidence given before a Royal Commission that has not yet reported? I respectfully suggest that this Rule should be put into operation, as this is a most serious Charge against a Member of another place.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think we have had this question before. This Member of another place is also the proprietor of a newspaper, and the question was not asked about him as a Member of another place but in his position as the proprietor of a newspaper. In just the same way we may have a question about a Minister who is a Member of another place, the question being asked about him, not as a Member of another place, but in his capacity as a Minister.

§ Earl Winterton
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the words used by the hon. Gentleman were, "Had convicted himself"? One can hardly imagine a more serious charge made against a Member of another place than to bring a charge of guilt against him in respect of evidence given before a Royal Commission, before that Commission has reported. I do not want, in any way, to reflect upon your Ruling, and, no doubt, there must be a certain latitude allowed, but, if I may say so, with the greatest respect, if a statement of that kind is allowed to go, there is nothing which one cannot say about Members of another place in their private capacity. One can describe them as liars, scoundrels or anything else. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Rule of Order has some meaning.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have known many references to noble Lords in another place in their capacity, for instance, as large landowners; not as Members of another place, but in a different capacity. I think that has always been allowed. As to whether it was improper for the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) to say that a noble Lord convicted himself is, I think, purely a matter of opinion.

§ Earl Winterton
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of your Ruling is—and it will be very useful for some of us in future who wish to attack Socialist peers—that one may call a peer in another place any name one likes if he is a landowner or anything else, provided one does not reflect upon him in his capacity as a legislator?

§ Mr. Speaker
There must be some further qualification than that of a peer. A Socialist peer can certainly be attacked, supposing he is a large landowner.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
Apart altogether from the question of the gentleman being a peer, is there not some rule with regard to the protection of witnesses before a Royal Commission?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know what that rule is. There is certainly protection of witnesses. I do not know whether the noble Lord has given evidence or not. I have not followed these proceedings myself, and I am quite ignorant about them.

§ Earl Winterton
Further to the point of Order—which seems to create great derision on the other side—may I ask whether the words used by the hon. Member had not reference to evidence given before a Royal Commission, whether given by a peer or not; and is it not a fact that upon the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, the hon. Gentleman in his statement did describe a particular witness as having convicted himself? I suggest that there is a well-established Rule of this House that a witness should be protected by the Rules of this House from being criticised before a Commission has reported.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that this matter has been published in the Press and, therefore, one is fully entitled to comment and form one's own opinion upon what has been published in the Press.

§ Earl Winterton
The word used was "convicted." Is it your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that that is a proper comment for a Member of this House to make about a witness who has given evidence before a Royal Commission, that he has convicted himself?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is entirely a matter of opinion for the hon. Member himself. He forms his own judgment from what he has seen in the Press.

§ Mr. Nicholson
Would it not be wholly improper, if the witness in question had been a Member of this House, that language like that should be used about him, and is it not the rule of Parliament 1092 that protection is extended to another place?

§ Mr. Speaker
If the matter is published in the Press, one is fully entitled to criticise it.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Is not this an effort, by points of Order, to confer a privilege on a Member of another place, not acting as a Member of another place but in a totally different capacity? Is not this an effort to protect him against all public criticism?

Mr. Wilson Harris
Is it not a fact that this witness's evidence has not merely been published in the Press but published verbatim by the Stationery Office, and that a copy of it can be purchased for 9d., and, therefore, it is for anyone to form any opinion he likes about it?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is what I was trying to convey somewhat politely.

Wing-Commander
Hulbert: May I ask the Lord President of the Council—as the Financial Secretary seems to have gone— if he will not agree that this whole series of replies on this matter of the Commission shows that the Government have no idea of saving public money?