QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING) (Hansard, 18 March 1955)

§ Mr. Driberg
I beg to bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, as a question of Privilege, a matter to which I referred in last night's debate on the Report stage of the Army Estimates. The reference in HANSARD is cols. 1575–1579, and to save the time of the House today I will give only a brief summary of what I then said.
On8th February I had down for answer by the Secretary of State for War a Question relating to a cocktail party in the Packway Mess, Larkhill. The information on which the Question was based was supplied to me by the Rev. J. P. Stevenson, Senior Chaplain atLarkhill, who is known to me personally as a man of integrity and strong sense of responsibility.
On 7th February, the day before my Question was due to be answered, the Deputy Assistant Chaplain General, Salisbury Plain District, the Rev. J.J.A. Hodgins, visited Mr. Stevenson. A summary of that conversation was conveyed to me by Mr. Stevenson in a letter which first came to my notice yesterday afternoon. In the course of this letter, Mr. Stevenson states that the Deputy Assistant Chaplain General said: finally that I was to write a letter to you (which he would post, to make sure it went) … to say that I was 'satisfied'that all the information I had given you was untrue, and to beg you not to rise when the Question was called. On that condition he said he was prepared to do nothing in the matter: … otherwise he would take such action as he thought fit.

§ Mr. Speaker
In order to get the record right, will the hon. Gentleman give the date of that letter?

§ Mr. Driberg
I was coming to the question of time in a minute, with respect, Mr. Speaker.
Since then, as I explained in the debate last night, there have been further attempts to impose duress on Mr. Stevenson. According to the Army List, Mr. Stevenson is a Chaplain to the Forces (3rd Class) ranking as a major, while Mr. Hodgins is a Chaplain to the Forces (2nd Class) ranking as a lieutenant-colonel. Mr. Stevenson was thus put under duress, as I contend, improperly by his superior officer in the Royal Army Chaplains' Department because he had exercised his constitutional right in communicating certain information to me and in an attempt to influence indirectly the proceedings of this House and the conduct of an hon. Member of it.
On the question of time, the importance of which I realise, I should explain that this letter was posted to me at the weekend—it is dated 12th March; that is last Saturday—but that I did not actually see it until I began to prepare my speech for last night's debate after I had spoken in the debate on the Air Estimates, for the simple reason that, in accordance with my instructions, all recent letters relating to matters which I was intending to raise in the Estimates debates had been simply acknowledged by my secretary and put aside in two files, one Air and one Army. These files I collected in the Members' Lobby on arrival at the House halfway through Questions yesterday, but it was not until later in the afternoon that I went through them in detail.
I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the constitutional relationship between members of the public and Members of this House is itself one aspect of or element in the Privileges of the House and that an attempt to restrict it and, in so doing, to limit the actions of an hon. Member in respect of his Parliamentary duties constitutes prima facie a breach of Privilege. I respectfully ask for your Ruling.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) mentioned this matter last night. For the purposes of my Ruling on this question, I take it that about 8.30 at night was the time when he first drew the attention of the House to the matter.

§ Mr. Driberg
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
In this connection the facts of the case are somewhat peculiar and I have first to consider the question of time, because it is a strict rule of the House in matters of Privilege that, in order to give the Motion on the subject priority over the Orders of the Day, it must be raised at the earliest possible moment. That is a rule strictly enforced and by which I am bound. I am aware that I once transgressed it myself in the case of a complaint about the "Manchester Guardian" which was not raised the same day, but that was because I was labouring under the misapprehension that the "Manchester Guardian" was a provincial newspaper and was not published in London. That misapprehension got me into some trouble with the paper in question, but it has now been amicably settled.
It seems to me that in this instance this matter was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The letter on which the hon. Member for Maldon bases his complaint was dated 12th March. He gave us the circumstances, which might occur to any hon. Member, under which he did not, in fact, become aware of its contents until later in the afternoon of yesterday. I find, in referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT of what transpired last night, that the hon. Member for Maldon, in dealing with this matter, after quoting the passage from the letter which begins Without reference to me, Colonel Harington then rang up my Deputy Assistant Chaplain-General and indicated that he wanted suitable action taken against me. The D.A.C.G. came to see me …and said that I was to expect a posting away from Larkhill in about a week's time. went to to say: This morning, I discussed the matter further by telephone with Mr. Stevenson, and I learned from him that the latest development is that he has been summoned for an interview either today or tomorrow—I am not quite sure which—with the Army Commander himself, the G.O.C.-in-C. Southern Command."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th March, 1955; Vol. 528, c. 1577.] It seems from that that the hon. Member was at least apprised of the matter in the morning when he was telephoning.

§ Mr. Driberg
I am sorry if there is any misunderstanding, Sir. I got in touch with Mr. Stevenson by telephone yesterday morning, because my secretary had informed me that he was trying to telephone me. I had not at that time seen the letter.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have to take that into account and, applying the rule as I do, I cannot hold that the matter has been raised at the earliest possible moment. There may have been circumstances which prevented the hon. Member for Maldon from raising it, but we have to hold to the rule. I am not in any way complaining that this matter of Privilege was not raised by the hon. Member for Maldon but was raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

§ Mr. Wigg
With respect, Sir, surely that is not really important. I raised it, but I would have given way to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was about to say that. The fact that it was raised by the hon. Member for Dudley does not prevent the House from considering it as a question of Privilege. It is relevant only to the extent that the hon. Member for Maldon himself was not intending to raise it as a matter of Privilege and it was not raised at the earliest possible moment.
There is this further point that had there been any question of an attempt to threaten the hon. Member for Maldon with any unpleasant consequences if he fulfilled his duty as a Member of this House in bringing the matter before the House, then the case would have been clear. But it seems to me a novel doctrine to rule on such short consideration that the Privilege of Parliament, as distinct from legal privilege, extends to every letter written by a member of the public to his Member of Parliament. That has never been, so far as I can find out in the time available to me, the doctrine of Privilege of this House.
Therefore, I cannot rule that in all the circumstances of this case I should be entitled to find that there was a prima facie case raised at the earliest possible moment which justified me in giving this matter priority over the Orders of the Day. That does not prevent the House, which is the final judge of its own Privileges, from considering the matter and if the hon. Member for Maldon puts down a Motion to that effect for the consideration of the House, that procedure is open to him.

§ Mr. Driberg
In the telephone conversation yesterday morning there was no specific mention of the Question or particular matter which, I contend, affects 1611 Privilege. There was discussion of the threats to Mr. Stevenson and the difficulties that he was having, but there was no reference at that time to the Question in the House. The other point which very respectfully I should like to ask you is this: you said that if there had been a clear threat to me, duress on an hon. Member, then, of course, the matter would have been very different. Would the element of time not be equally operative in that case?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, it would have been. I merely put out that second observation to show that I think that, on the whole, it is not an instance on which I can rule that there is a prima facie case.
The real objection which stands, as lawyers say, in limine is the objection of time and to that I must hold. The other point of my observations was that I do not like, in matters which hon. Members regard as important, to appear to be resting the whole matter on what may be called atechnicality, although, indeed, a very important technicality for the procedure of this House.

§ Mr. Attlee
May I submit on the second point, Mr. Speaker, that here is a principle of the right of the citizen to approach his Member? A case of that kind is abreach of Privilege in endeavouring to prevent a Member from doing his duty by his constituents. I would respectfully submit that the pressure does not necessarily have to be brought on the Member. You will recall, Sir, the case where pressure was brought on a railwayman not to give evidence in a case upstairs and very drastic action was taken by this House. I suggest that this case is somewhat on all fours with that, because pressure has been brought to bear to hamper the proceedings of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having made that observation. Perhaps I should have distinguished the cases. There is a clear category of case where witnesses before this House, or a Committee thereof, are protected by ParliamentaryPrivilege. The House will intervene to protect them. That is undoubtedly the case, but what I am reluctant to do without further consideration—and the time for it would be given by the Motion which the hon. Member for Maldon would put before the House as a whole—is to say 1612 that, to the writer of every letter to a Member of Parliament, Parliamentary Privilege extends.
I made some observations about this time last year about a case which, in the short time in which I have been able to look up cases before the House, I think was raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths). It was a case about a building society and someone being threatened with legal proceedings because of a letter to that hon. Member. But there is a distinction between the legal privilege which the courts may extend to such a letter and the Privilege of Parliament. In this case, I feel convinced that the proper course is for the hon. Member to put down a Motion.

§ Mr. Wigg
It will be within your recollection. Sir, that in January, 1953, a matter was raised which, in many ways, was very similar to the case now before the House. The case rests upon the point that a citizen outside is placed in jeopardy, because of the action that person has taken in communicating with my hon. Friend. I submit that when my hon. Friend put down his Question, the communication on which it was based was ipso facto a part of the proceedings of Parliament. The doctrine of Privilege does not at all depend on what happens to an individual, but is dependent on the Privilege of the whole House.
It is perfectly clear that in this case the action of the Senior Chaplain, in going to his subordinate and threatening him with certain action.was an attempt to prevent subsequent proceedings which might have taken place in this House had my hon. Friend not been satisfied with the answer to his Question. May Irespectfully suggest that there has been little time for any of us to consider all the precedents? However, there is one that comes readily to my mind and that is the case of a police inspector in Southampton. He was subject to proceedings because of a letter which he had written to a Member. It may well be that the case will be within the recollection of hon. Members; but I think it is established by precedent that a communication to a Member upon which subsequent proceedings have been taken in the House, either in debate or in Question and answer, is part of the proceedings of the House itself.

§ Mr. Speaker
First, I refer to the case which the hon. Member has mentioned. I remember that one. I think it was the case of Mr. Pritt which he has in mind. In that case, this point did not fall for consideration because it was clear, as I remember it, that the words which were made the ground of a threatened proceeding for contempt of court in Kenya were words published by Mr. Pritt in a local newspaper. The matter was not founded on the telegram. I do not think that there is anything more to add about that. It would be a new doctrine for the House to say that Parliamentary Privilege as such extends to the writer of every letter to a Member of Parliament. I think that that would be new.
The case of Rex v. Rule refers to a legal privilege as distinct from Parliamentary Privilege. I dealt with that in the case of the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange. I should not like to leave the House under any misapprehension as to my views on this incident. I am by no means dealing with the merits or demerits of those concerned in the narrative of the hon. Member for Maldon. That is a matter with which Iam not called upon to deal and which can be pursued in the ordinary way. It has nothing to do with me. I am bound to adhere to the Ruling which I have given.

§ Mr. Wigg
In view of the shortness of time, Mr.Speaker, would you be kind enough to give the matter further consideration and to make a statement on Monday when all of us have had a chance to consider with some care the precedents by which we are all bound? With respect, it seems to me that in your Ruling you have departed from the doctrine which has grown up in this House on the question.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member can test that by a Motion.

§ Mr. Hale
One difficulty that your Ruling places us in, Mr. Speaker, is that this sort of statement is not conspicuously rare. In matters of military discipline from time to time hon. Members get letters from people complaining of infringement which bear on this kind of case, even though at first sight this may be prima facie a rather more serious and more grave case than usual. What is an hon. Member to do?
1614 I suggest that all he can do is what my hon. Friend, in fact, did—to do his best to investigate its accuracy first before throwing out an allegation and to ask the Secretary of State for War to institute an inquiry; and if that cannot be done, to try to raise the matter in the House. Otherwise, we shall be in the difficulty that we shall have to raise matters before investigation. We shall have to make allegations against people before they have been checked—allegations which might be wholly untrue and wholly unfair.
That puts hon. Members in great difficulty. It is one thing to raise a matter reported in the national Press and to say, "It is the responsibility of the paper concerned and I raise it."It is another to raise a matter from a private letter from someone one has not heard of before. If the obligation is put upon the hon. Member of coming straight to the House, rising in his place and asking for a Ruling on the matter, we shall have not only that difficulty but, with respect, the difficulty which occurs today when Rulings are being given by you on a matter raised at very short notice and in connection with which a precedent may be established for the future which, once more, narrows the Privileges of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that my Ruling carries those consequences at all as regards particular cases. The first mention I heard of this matter was a Question by the hon. Member for Maldon, I think about 8th February. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I would say that hon. Members who raise Questions in this House about their constituents are absolutely privileged. I have never heard it stated that any member of the public who writes to his Member of Parliament is himself covered by Parliamentary Privilege. That, I think, would be a new doctrine, and one which I could not give on a prima facie Ruling.

§ Mr. Hale
I cannot match my recollection against yours, Mr. Speaker, because I only heard the matter raised two minutes ago; but my recollection in the Sandys case was that the Ruling applied not only to Captain Sandys himself—he was then a Captain—as a Member of this House but also to the other officers who made communication with him. The issue was raised in that 1615 case, and there are observations on the record to that effect.

§ Mr. Speaker
My recollection is that the House intervened in that case to protect the hon. Member who was threatened with some penal consequence for raising a matter in the House. I made it clear that if the hon. Member for Maldon had been in any way threatened in this matter, a different consideration would have arisen

§ Mr. West
I think that all hon. Members appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the question. This is a matter of the utmost importance which, I think, the House will have to deal with at some time or other. Is it not a fact that the complaint of my hon. Friend is not so much of the pressure brought to bear in this case upon the gentleman in question but of the action which he is being required to take to mislead my hon. Friend in his duty in this House? The complaint is based upon the attempts which have been made to mislead him in his duty in this House. Therefore, is not that a breach of Privilege?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that we can carry as far as that the doctrine of Parliamentary Privilege. The hon. Member has means and complete Privilege in raising in this House any injustice that might have occurred; but that is not the same thing as the extension of Parliamentary Privilege to members of the public who write to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Wigg
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you are placing the emphasis on the rights of the hon. Member. I hold the view that the emphasis should be placed, not on the Member, but on the House of Commons; it should be on the House and not on the individual Member. May I earnestly ask you to give the matter further consideration? If, on Monday, you adhere to your view, well and good. Then my hon. Friend, if he wishes, can proceed by Motion. Would you be good enough to look at this doctrine again?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is one of my tasks to make up my mind, even at very short notice. I have made up my mind in this matter and I have said what I think about 1616 the submission that this complaint raises a prima facie case. The hon. Member for Maldon is perfectly free to put down a Motion to test the opinion of the House on the matter. The House, not I, is the final arbiter in these matters. I can deal only with the procedural aspects of the case.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Before we leave the matter, Mr. Speaker, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is here, may I ask whether he can give an assurance that no action will be taken against this man pending a full inquiry?

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot allow that question to come in at this moment. No doubt what has been said has been heard. That aspect can be considered administratively.