NEWSPAPER REPORT (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE) (Hansard, 26 July 1949)

§ Mr. Blackburn
I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise again today the question of Privilege which I mentioned yesterday and I would like to say a few words upon it, because I am in a difficulty. I was very anxious to make it clear that in certain circumstances, gross misrepresentation of this nature, of hon. Member's speeches can be submitted to you for your Ruling that they are, prima facie, a breach of Privilege. I am in the embarrassing position that the Business of the House is such that I feel it would not be appropriate for me to continue with my Motion. I hope that I may content myself with the statement that I do not withdraw one single word that I said yesterday, and that I am doing this only out of deference to the wishes of the House.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman
On a point of Order. Are we to understand from what has taken place that the matter submitted by my hon. Friend yesterday does, or does not, prima facie raise a matter of Privilege.

§ Mr. Speaker
The matter has now not been brought to me officially, and therefore there is nothing for me to say.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
It is a matter of the greatest importance to all of us. Many of our speeches are not reported to our satisfaction in many of the newspapers. 2251 If, every time they are not, we are to be permitted to raise a question of Privilege, the Committee of Privileges is likely to be kept busy. I submit that it is of some importance that we should have a Ruling on the definite matter which my hon. Friend raised yesterday. It was raised as a matter of Privilege and I submit with great respect that we are entitled to a Ruling whether a prima facie case was disclosed or not.

§ Mr. Gallacher
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I gave the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) permission to raise the matter today if he so chose. Today he has said he does not choose and does not raise it. There is nothing on which I am called upon to rule.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
If that means that my hon. Friend no longer invites you to rule that a prima facie case was raised by the circumstances he reported to the House yesterday, of course that ends the matter; but I did not quite gather that that was the form of words that my hon. Friend used.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was most careful to say yesterday in reply to the hon. Member that if he so chose he could raise it today. I put those words in deliberately.

§ Mr. Blackburn
It is only out of deference to the wishes of the House as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am wrong, may I proceed with my original Motion? May I bring to the Table the offending copy of the "Daily Worker"?

§ Mr. Speaker
Certainly.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have considered that matter as best I could in the circumstances, and I came to the conclusion—and this is as far as I can go—that there is a prima facie case. That is as far as I can go.

§ Earl Winterton
Is there to be a Motion?

§ Mr. Blackburn
I beg to move, That the report in the 'Daily Worker' of 22nd July of the speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton is a gross misrepresentation of his speech and a breach of the Privileges of this House.

§ Earl Winterton
I wish to raise a question—

§ Mr. Piratin
On a point of Order. You were about to put the Question, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for someone to raise a matter at that time?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not get as far as collecting the voices, when it would not have been in Order.

§ Earl Winterton
I think I am within the recollection of the House—this is no party matter—in saying that it was long ago agreed in this House that questions of Privilege should be remitted to the Committee of Privileges for their decision. In all the other instances that I recollect, the Motion was moved by the Leader of the House that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges. We are now being asked to devote a valuable afternoon to discussing a matter which should go to the Committee of Privileges. I object most strongly, and I hope that other hon. Members will go into the Lobby with me against the whole proceeding.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Is the Motion debatable?

§ Mr. Speaker
Certainly.

§ Mr. Eden
If I may say so, the mistake into which we have fallen is that instead of remitting the question now to the Committee of Privileges we have been asked by the hon. Member—I make no complaint but it was in error, I think—to pronounce upon it before it has ever been to the Committee. That is putting the cart before the horse. I suggest that the normal procedure should be followed by the Leader of the House and that, since you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case, the Committee of Privileges should be asked to pronounce upon it.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
There is some misunderstanding about this. It does not follow that the Leader of the House has to move a Motion that a matter of this 2253 kind shall go to the Committee of Privileges. My recollection is that in one case during the lifetime of this Parliament the Motion to refer such a matter to the Committee of Privileges—I hope I am right—was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I do not know if it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who was making that point. If not the Father of the House or somebody else was making it. The Leader of the House is not bound to do this. Sometimes it is convenient and sometimes it is otherwise. If my memory is right, without any consultation with me on that occasion the hon. Member for Oxford moved the reference to the Committee. That disposes of that point.
On the other point, there are plenty of precedents which are regarded as clear cases. With great respect, assuming that it is taken notice of at all, I believe that this is a perfectly clear case. In order to shorten the proceedings, the House is competent—it has in fact done so on a number of occasions—to express itself forthwith.

§ Mr. Piratin
Without Debate?

§ Mr. H. Morrison
I do not know about that. That is another matter, but the House has done so. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as you are about to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), it is competent for the House to come to a decision forthwith. I do not greatly mind which way it does, but it seems to me that this is a clear case which I should have thought the House could agree, without much discussion, to dispose of and finish. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend was willing not to pursue the matter. Unfortunately—I say that deliberately—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put the hon. Member for King's Norton into a position in which he was bound to proceed. We could have got into a situation in which it would not have been necessary for this to be dealt with, but I believe it is competent for the hon. Member for King's Norton to move his Motion and, if it is your pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that it is in Order, it is competent for the House to approve it. I think it is a clear case.

§ Mr. Eden
This is not a party matter at all, of course, but it is one of some 2254 importance. I was not complaining about the Leader of the House not moving the Motion, but I thought that somebody should move it and I suggested that he was the appropriate person. As the position is set out in Erskine May, I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Whenever a case of Privilege has been raised since 1909, according to Erskine May, it has been the usual practice in the Commons to refer the matter of the complaint to the Committee of Privileges—it is on page 134—and the House has suspended its judgment until their Report has been presented. I believe that that is what the practice was, and I think that, with great respect, the Leader of the House would be wiser to accept that practice, rather than suddenly leap into a Debate on a matter which has not been before the Commitee at all.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you will be good enough to rule what it is competent for the House to do. I do not greatly mind what the House does, but it seems to me that this is a clear case and that it can be dealt with forthwith.

§ Earl Winterton
It cannot be.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
The Father of the House really must not be so sure that he is right on procedure, because he is often wrong. I am asking for the advice of the Chair as to whether it is competent for the Motion to proceed. If the House prefers that it should go to the Committee of Privileges, it can go, but I should like to know whether it is competent for us to proceed and deal with the matter forthwith.

§ Mr. Speaker
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, the House is undoubtedly competent to deal with the Motion moved by the hon. Member for King's Norton.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that it would be a gross dis-service to the House to proceed in the way which is recommended. My right hon. Friend has suggested that this is a clear case, from which I infer that he thinks that my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton is right. I hope I speak for other hon. Members beside myself when I say that the case does not seem anything like so clear to many of us as it does to my 2255 hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If I were to express an opinion at all, it would be rather the other way. I do not profess to know anything about this; I have only heard what my hon. Friend said yesterday. I heard what was read out from the newspaper and what my hon. Friend read out from the record of what he said in this House. I should have thought that as newspapers go, it was as near to being a fair and accurate summary of what he said as anything—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but the fact that my right hon. Friend has thought it a clear case one way, whereas others think it may be if not clear, at any rate tending the other way, is surely proof conclusive that the House ought not to come to a decision about it without inquiring, without evidence and without giving everybody concerned in it a right to be heard. It is very easy to do this kind of thing to unpopular minorities, but democracy depends, I should have thought, upon seeing that unpopular minorities are as much protected in the exercise of their rights as anybody else in the country.

§ Mr. Eden
If it would be in Order, I should like to move as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for King's Norton, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add: the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Blackburn
If it be the wish of the House, I shall be only too glad to accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I want to know clearly what is happening here. Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, I can raise a question of Privilege from things which are said about me and about reports about me. Now I want to know if I shall get the same consideration when I raise a question of Privilege. I shall be prepared to raise many of them. Shall I get the same consideration as is being shown against the "Daily Worker" at the present time?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must not make allegations against his fellow Members. The Committee of Privileges is appointed by the House and must not be accused of bias.

§ Mr. Piratin
Before the Question is put, Mr. Speaker, may I recall to the House that two months ago, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Health drew the attention of the House to a report in the "Daily Graphic," which was really an outrageous report on something which the right hon. Gentleman had said and which he refuted in this House. On that occasion the whole House, even the Conservatives, were with the Minister of Health. Nevertheless, the case was not raised as a matter of Privilege or as a matter which should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It was a reflection on the Minister himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was an outside speech."] May I ask you whether we should bring to your attention all such cases of reflections upon hon. Members, so that they may be raised day after day?

§ Mr. Speaker
Matters of Privilege have to be brought by notice given beforehand, and I have to examine them to find out what they are. They are not brought to me at short notice or if they are, I ask for time to examine them and to see whether they are matters of Privilege or not. The matter to which the hon. Member for Mile End refers, was probably suddenly brought before the House. It was not raised as a matter of Privilege, and therefore it had nothing to do with me.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I raise this point with considerable diffidence and I confess that I do not like raising it but I feel it is the duty of somebody to raise it. The Committee of Privileges is now possessed of this matter and will have the duty which the Committee of Privileges always has, of making a judicial investigation into the complaint and bringing in an objective and judicial report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has expressed a clear opinion. He has said that this is a clear case and I want to ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order whether in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend ought to sit on the Committee?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Committee of Privileges is set up by the House and one cannot object to one member because of something he has said. One may object 2257 when the report of the Committee of Privileges conies back to the House but, at the present moment, it is impossible to object to a Committee, the members of which are already appointed by the House and cannot be removed except by a Motion on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I am not raising it as an objection in that sense; I am raising with you, Sir, as a matter of Order and for the guidance of the House, whether in those circumstances the Committee of Privileges ought to put itself in the position, or whether my right hon. Friend ought to put it in the position of making its report seem prejudiced in advance.

§ Mr. Speaker
It can be discussed when the Committee reports to the House.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
I can see the point of my hon. Friend. The House has come to a decision and I have no complaint thereon. I have no strong opinion whether it should go to the Committee or be dealt with forthwith, but it is a fair point that is raised and, if it is permissible within the Rules of Procedure, I should not propose to take part in the Committee of Privileges on this matter.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As it is well-known to you and to this House that certain members of the Committee of Privileges have shown time and again the most violent prejudice—

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must not say that. He should withdraw that instantly. That is an imputation against his fellow Members which I cannot allow. The hon. Member must withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The hon. Member will withdraw at once, please.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Mr. Speaker, I was going to say—have shown violent prejudice against Communism and against "The Daily Worker." Am I not entitled to say that?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member made allegations against his fellow Members.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I withdraw.

§ Mr. Pritt
On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is possible to consider the statement made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in this sense. It would be very wrong for any member of the Committee of Privileges to display violent bias, but it is part of the function of hon. Members outside that Committee, to display bias. I myself—not that that matters very much—as one who can understand English, understood that the hon. Member was speaking of certain Members having displayed violent bias. I took him to mean outside the Committee. If so, Mr. Speaker, whilst I would not question your Ruling for a moment, it is a matter of much less seriousness.

§ Mr. Speaker
One could take it that way. If it was meant that way, the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. No doubt he says certain things outside the House but, if he were a Member of the Committee of Privileges no one would suspect him of having bias.