NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (PRIVILEGE COMPLAINT) (Hansard, 10 December 1953)

§ Mr. Lewis
I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, so that we may have your advice, guidance and opinion, a matter which I feel may prove to be a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. The subject matter of my submission is an article in the "Daily Worker" of9th December, written by a Mr. Patrick Gold ring. I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I intended to raise this matter, so no doubt you have obtained a copy of the paper in question. I know that you have seen the article and if you turn to page 2 of the paper—

§ Mr. Speaker
I should not like the hon. Member to proceed on a false assumption. I have just glanced at the article. I rely upon him to tell the House what it is about.

§ Mr. Lewis
In a few moments, Mr. Speaker, you will realise how inadvertently I am under a false impression, because you will find that I raised this matter with the Clerks at the Table. As you will observe, on page 2 of this paper a number of statements are made which I want to quote to you and to the House. The article is headed in large black type, "M.P.s Vote Money Into Their Own Pockets." It states: When they vote for the Bill to raise your rent Tory M.P.s are voting money into their own pockets. All of them are doing this in the general sense that raising rents, by increasing landlords' and property companies' profit, benefits the whole class that Tory M.P.s represent in Parliament. The article goes on: But in addition to this, many Tory M.P.s will get a direct, personal cash advantage if they succeed in making their rent Bill law. At least 20 Tory M.P.s are or have been directors of property or estate companies which may be expected to increase their already handsome profits if the Bill goes through. At least seven others are directors of investment or insurance companies which have substantial assets invested in house property. If rents go up their holdings will be worth more. The article proceeds to mention by name some 24 hon. Members on the Government side of the House and the article claims that those hon. Members only voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill because it was to their financial advantage to do so. The article mentions the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law), the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and some 20 other names. It clearly states that these hon. Members were not interested in dealing with this matter on its merits but for their own personal financial reward.
My first submission is that if the statements contained in this article are untrue and not in accordance with the facts, the paper and the author of that article are guilty of a breach of Privilege against the 24 hon. Members concerned and automatically against the honour and dignity of this House. My second submission is that if, 2189 however, the facts and statements contained in the article are proved and verified, as the article states, then there is a strong possibility that the 24 hon. Members who are mentioned are themselves guilty of a breach of Privilege in that they voted on the Second Reading of the Bill without disclosing their financial interest. It may be, therefore, that the Bill received a Second Reading incorrectly and not in accordance with the usual custom, traditions and privileges of this honourable House. It may well be, therefore, that that decision and the Division could be and might be declared nulland void.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is himself in danger of going out of order on this matter. He must not himself even inferentially make charges against hon. Members, or else he himself will be guilty of a breach of Order.

§ Mr. Elliot
Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members
There is no point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of order?

§ Mr. Elliot
Yes, Sir. I rise to ask whether the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who is making an attack on several hon. Members on this side of the House, has given notice to them that he intended to deal with this matter.

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Lewis
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I would ask the House to remember that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is making a submission on Privilege and this should be listened to in silence.

§ Mr. Lewis
In answer to the interjection by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), I should like to say that I spent about one hour writing in longhand to every one of the 24 Members mentioned in the article to say that I was raising this matter on the Floor of the House and each of the 24 has had an urgent message.
My final point is that, as hon. Members know, it is the custom to raise an issue such as this immediately it is brought to the notice of the hon. Member 2190 concerned. I did not see this article until 5.30 p.m. yesterday and immediately I took it to the Clerk at the Table. I must ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement that I have made, to say that this is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege and should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Member bring to the Table the article of which he complains?

§ Mr. Lewis
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must have the whole newspaper.

§ Mr. Lewis
It is the whole newspaper.

§ Mr. Speaker
First of all, to deal with the question of time, it is a strict rule in matters of Privilege that they must be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity, and in the past it has been held that, in connection with London newspapers of daily circulation, they ought to be produced to the House on the day of issue. But I find a past instance in which this particular paper was concerned when my predecessor allowed the same interval of time as has elapsed between the time the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) noticed this matter and today. So I say that the hon. Member is not barred on the question of time, though I draw the attention of the House to this very important rule of our procedure that, in order to gain precedence over the Orders of the Day in matters of Privilege, the matter must be brought up at the earliest possible moment.
I have listened to the hon. Member and have looked at the article concerned and I am prepared to rule that it constitutes a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. I am not saying whether it constitutes a breach of Privilege or not. I ask the hon. Member whether he concludes with a Motion that the matter be committed to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Bellenger
Is it not customary—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am myself rising to a point of order. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) must first move his Motion.

§ Mr. Lewis
In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move: That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Bellenger
My point of order is something in the nature of a point of procedure. Should not the correct procedure be for the Clerk first to read to the House the matter complained of?

§ Mr. Bowles
It has been read.

§ Mr. Speaker
It has been frequently ruled that if the article has been read in substance by the hon. Member raising the matter, the Speaker can dispense with that. That disposes of that point of order.