HC Deb 08 November 1949 vol 469 cc1031-5
9. Mr. H. D. Hughes

asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to a threatened dispute at the factory of Messrs. Mathew Harvey & Co., Walsall, arising from objections by shop stewards to the choice of daily newspapers by employees in the factory; and what action he is taking.

13. Mr. William Wells

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make regarding the industrial dispute at the works of Messrs. Harvey, Matthew and Co., Ltd., of Walsall; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Hughes

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The name of the firm as given in my Question is the "News Chronicle" version, the correct name is as in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells).

Mr. Isaacs

My inquiries into this story that appeared in the "Daily Mail" and the "News Chronicle" indicate that it is entirely without foundation. In fairness to the workers and the firm, I should add that my information is that the relationship between them is of a most harmonious character.

Mr. Hughes

Was not this a most irresponsible and provocative attempt to discredit the trade unionists concerned with false evidence endangering industrial peace? Has my right hon. Friend any power to protect industry from this kind of misrepresentation for which no apology whatsoever has so far been made?

Mr. Isaacs

I do not know that I have any power to prevent the newspapers telling these stories, but I think it is regrettable that, although these newspapers have given front page notice to this allegation, they should not at least have had the decency to admit that they were wrong.

Mr. Wells

While I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him if he is aware that these reports have caused great indignation in Walsall, and does he not consider that the whole episode throws a somewhat ironical light on the report of the Royal Commission that this country has the best Press in the world?

Mr. Isaacs

I can only say in answer to that question that it has caused a great deal of inconvenience, I know, to the firm and unpleasantness to the men of the union concerned. When they first saw the story, thinking it might be true, the firm at once got out an instruction to their people that such conduct could not be tolerated. They did not issue that instruction upon finding that not only had there been a mis-statement about the attitude of the men, but that one of the newspapers even reported the story that they had contacted the head office of the union that night, though nothing of that sort had taken place.

Mr. Byers

In fairness, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he can, from his own information, confirm that the statements reported in the "News Chronicle" were, in fact, made to the "News Chronicle" reporter by a representative of Messrs. Harvey, Matthew & Co., and that if there was ground for making an apology, that responsible newspaper would have made it? Will he confirm to the House that inquiries are still proceeding?

Mr. Isaacs

I am sorry, but it is not for me to express an opinion. A newspaper ought to accept responsibility for the statements it has made. When the firm notified that newspaper the same day that they had made a mistake, decency at least should have led them to publish a correction.

Mr. Byers

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to a mistake having been made, will he not confirm to the House that the statement which was reported in the "News Chronicle" was made by a representative of the firm and that it has not been denied that these statements were made to the "News Chronicle" reporter?

Mr. Isaacs

No such allegation has been made to me. As far as I understand it, the firm deny that anything of the sort has been done, and if the "News Chronicle" have such a story, why should they hide behind it? Why do they not make the statement?

Mr. Collins

In view of the last answer, can my right hon. Friend say if he has discovered what the actual source of the rumour was, and, if so, will it now be disclosed?

Mr. Isaacs

The firm say, and the men say, that they know nothing whatever about it and that nothing even of a colourable nature, could have given rise to such a statement. The whole thing is a malicious concoction.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is right in making a statement like that in view of the fact that there is definite evidence that the information supplied to the "News Chronicle" came from a responsible member of the firm.

Mr. Isaacs

If there is any definite evidence, it is for the "News Chronicle" to produce it.

Mr. Quintin Hogg

On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, are we not now proceeding beyond the range of the Minister's responsibility? As I understand it, these are questions to the Minister of Labour arising out of the original dispute. With respect to you, Sir, and I ask your Ruling upon it, I submit that the recent supplementary questions and answers have really been in the nature of a court of inquiry upon the behaviour of two newspapers. Is that within the purview of responsibility of the Minister?

Mr. Blackburn

Further to that point of Order, may I advert—[HON. MEMBLRS: "No."]—to the point of Order I raised yesterday which, in my submission, is a point of vital importance in the protection of the rights of hon. Members of this House, and which I should have expected the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) to confirm. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) stated, and it has now been confirmed by the Minister, that the whole story was—I quote his words, "a complete fabrication from beginning to end." Yet, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend was in the position that I was in, that if he put down any Question on the Order Paper asking the Minister to inquire into these allegations, he was Ruled as being out of Order and he was therefore told—I agree that these are the Rules—that he must accept the story which had been put in the newspaper. He has done so, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes).

Hon. Members are often in this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you whether you could not consider that there might be some slight extension of the Rules so that this matter could be raised from the beginning on a proper basis, namely, upon the fact that the allegation had been widely circularised, could have had adverse effects, and was untrue?

Mr. Speaker

In regard to the first point of Order, I think the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is correct. Our Questions are getting far beyond the responsibility of the Minister.

With regard to the second point of Order, the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is either casting aspersions on the Rules of the House or on the bona fides of the hon. Members who have asked these Questions. One cannot have questions allowed which refer to allegations. I do not know where it would stop. One might search the columns of all the newspapers and find allegations, and what Minister is to be responsible for allegations in the newspapers? One must, therefore, take responsibility on oneself for asking a question, and I must Rule that there is no point of Order in what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Blackburn

Further to that point of Order, I only want to say this—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that I had no desire to cast any aspersions on my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest admiration and, secondly, I only desired to draw attention to the fact that hon. Members are in this difficulty.

Mr. Speaker

Both hon. Members, having accepted responsibility, were able to bring the matter before the House, which seemed to me quite satisfactory.

Mr. Gallacher

There are slanders on the Communist idea every day.

Mr. Wells

Referring to the original Question, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.