§ Mr. Scholefield AllenI wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity of drawing your attention, and the attention of the House, to a report published in the "Daily Dispatch," dated 16th March, 1949. I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, that this report constitutes a breach of Privilege. With your permission I shall read the report of which I complain. It is not very long. It is headed, "Recorder Criticised":
Mr. S. Scholefield Allen, K.C., Socialist M.P. for Crewe and Recorder of Blackburn, intervened to secure the release on licence from an approved school of a 12-year-old boy, the magistrates at Crewe Juvenile Court were told yesterday. Mr. B. W. Furber, the chairman, said Mr. Allen's conduct was ' highly improper.' The boy and his 11-year-old brother admitted breaking into a lock-up shop and an office, and to stealing bicycles and cash.
§ Mr. John FosterOn a point of Order. I think "conduct" is wrong, unless there are two editions. I think the word should be "action."
§ Mr. Scholefield AllenIt is "action." The report continued:
Mr. Furber said that but for Mr. Allen's action—taken, it was said, after the boy's mother had written to him—the boy would still have been under proper care and probably his brother would not have been before the court that day. The two other magistrates agreed.Mr. Speaker, I understand it to be the duty of a Member of this honourable House to make representations to the Executive on behalf of his constituents. This attack upon me by Mr. Furber I venture to say is wholly unjustified.On 26th May, 1948, I received a letter from a constituent asking me to make representations on behalf of a widow whose child was then in an approved school. Four years previously the child, then aged eight, had got into trouble whilst the child's mother was a widow, his father having been killed in Singapore. The child having been in the approved school for four years, the widow asked 2300 that he might be released, pointing out that in the opinion of the master of the school the child's conduct was good. I forwarded that letter to the Home Secretary and on 16th June, 1948, the Under-Secretary of State replied that the boy's conduct was disappointing and they were not prepared to release him. There the matter rested so far as I was concerned. I was entirely unsuccessful in any representation or intervention that I made.
Mr. Speaker, on those facts this extremely damaging and totally unjustified attack has been made on me as a Member of this House. I merely performed my duty. To say of a Member of this honourable House that his conduct was highly improper, is calculated to do widespread harm. This paper circulates all over Lancashire and Cheshire. In Lancashire, I act as Recorder, and in Cheshire, I am a Member of Parliament. Before I continue with the later facts, the House will be aware that boys who are sent to an approved school are not sentenced for a specific length of time—
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Member but, after all, I do not want to judge the case. I only want to know whether there is a prima facie case. That is all.
§ Mr. Scholefield AllenSo far as the facts are concerned, six months later this boy was released. He was not released as a result of my intervention, and I am informed by the Home Office that he was not released even on their representation, but the release was by the managers of the school entirely on their own authority Those are the full facts. [Interruption.] I have been attacked, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanIt is only Tory bad manners.
§ Mr. Scholefield AllenMy conduct has been called "highly improper." Surely, I can defend myself in this House. On those facts I am accused, with widespread publicity, of "highly improper" conduct.
It does not end there. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the magistrate went on to say that, but for my action, this boy would not have got into trouble again, nor would his younger brother have got into crime—and that is emphasised as a result of my intervention. In those circumstances, Sir, 2301 I ask for your Ruling whether the matter to which I have called your attention does not constitute a breach of the Privilege of this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have carefully considered whether or not I should rule that the hon. and learned Member has established a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. My conclusion is that, whether or not the words are technically defamatory, the implication cast upon the hon. and learned Member is not sufficiently grave to warrant giving to this matter precedence over the Business of the day. It is clear that the chairman of the juvenile court was not fully informed of the true facts of the case, and the action in releasing the boy was taken by the Home Secretary. No criticism can possibly be attached to the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) for his part in the matter.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanMight I make a submission to you, Sir, on that Ruling? It would appear, on listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this magistrate had accused the hon. and learned Member of misusing his holding of judicial office in order to secure a result as a Member of this House, that he would not otherwise have been able to secure. If that is so, is there not a degree of gravity in such an accusation?
§ Mr. SpeakerA Member of Parliament is not exempt from criticism. I have to look at it from the point of view, "Is it going to interfere with the execution of his proper duties?" I cannot think that the mere statement by a magistrate in court, which was misinformed, would really deter the hon. and learned Member from performing his duties as a Member of Parliament.
§ Earl WintertonMay I call your attention especially to the fact that I think it has been held by your predecessors that it would be very embarrassing to the Committee of Privileges that Mr. Speaker be asked to give his reasons, beyond his original statement that he rules that there is no prima facie case? Might I respectfully submit that there should be no further discussion on the subject?
§ Mr. SpeakerI quite agree. I have not to justify my Ruling. I have given a Ruling and there is must stand.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)In view of the 2302 statements that have been made, may I be allowed to say that this boy was not released by my order or on any representations from my Department? As a matter of fact, when the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) wrote to the Under-Secretary, we came to the conclusion that the boy had not sufficiently profited by the training in the school to ask that his release should be considered. Some five or six months later the managers of the school, of their own volition, without consulting the Home Office, released the boy on licence. I think that it should be made clear that the responsibility for his release rests on the managers and on no one else.
§ Mr. Scholefield AllenMay I then accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and having ventilated this matter, express the hope that the corrected statements will be read by my constituents and others and that good will result?