§ 47. Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the limitations on the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament, and others, that is being imposed by the directive of the Postmaster-General preventing discussion on the British Broadcasting Corporation of Bills that have been laid before the House of Commons and which have not yet been debated in the House; and whether he will now withdraw the ban.
§ 53. Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if he will remove the 14-day ban on radio discussion.
§ The Prime MinisterThe directions recently issued by the Postmaster-General do not impose any new restrictions upon broadcast discussions but they do require confromity to a practice which has been followed by agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the major political parties for some years. The rule was originated by the B.B.C. and in its present form dates back to 1948. The Government continue to believe that the principle 27 embodied in this rule is in the best interests of Parliament for many reasons, some of which my predecessor in office gave the House in February of this year. I understand that the right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Front Bench also continue to share this view, and I, on behalf of the Government, believe that the existing practice should continue.
§ Mr. DaviesWhilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him whether or not this practice also applies to newspapers, or whether hon. Members are to take into regard newspapers when they are discussing Bills?
§ The Prime MinisterIf hon. Members will take my advice, it would be strongly not to regard newspapers when they are discussing what they are going to say in this House.
§ Mr. GrimondDoes the Prime Minister think that a practice—however old—which is made by some hole-and-corner agreement between the party machines, which limits free speech and is quite clearly unworkable, really adds to the prestige of Parliament?
§ The Prime MinisterThe curious thing about this is that it has worked fairly reasonably well. It is like many of our practices which seem to other people unworkable, but they do in fact rumble along after a reasonably fair fashion. If hon. Members want to take an opportunity to discuss the matter on some occasion, I personally have no objection at all, but my advice to the House would be, let us see how this thing works out and not get too much perturbed by some of this rather unnecessarily frenzied agitation outside.
§ Mr. ShinwellLeaving aside the merits of the question, about which, obviously, there is a conflict of opinion—I do not express any view about it—does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that when he speaks about this agreement having been reached as a result of discussion between the major political parties, that is not entirely accurate, and that the agreement was reached as between the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and himself and the present Leader of the Opposition and Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, without consultation with Members of parties on either side? Does he not agree that, as this is a matter which 28 concerns back benchers, there ought to be free discussion in the House and a free vote of the House upon this matter?
§ The Prime MinisterTo the best of my recollection, it is quite likely that I was with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) at the meeting with the present Leader of the Opposition and some other representative which took place in 1948. We were not then the Government in power, but we were kindly invited by the Government, very properly, to attend the meeting. At this stage of affairs I certainly would not start telling the Government of that day who should have represented them at that meeting.
§ Mr. ShinwellI am sure that hon. Members really desire to get the facts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: inasmuch as he admits that he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford consulted some people on this side of the House, did he at the same time consult the Members of his own party?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have our constitutional methods, which the right hon. Gentleman may like or dislike. All I have to deal with is the complaint by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government of the day, which was not a Conservative Government, proceeded on the basis of inviting the then Opposition to send certain representatives. The Opposition did so, and I think they were reasonably good representatives. What I will not be drawn into is an expression of view as to whether the Government representatives were well chosen.
§ Mr. C. DaviesIn view of the fact that this matter involves a much wider question—the question of free speech and the right of people to express their views at any time—will the Prime Minister assist in having this matter fully debated in the House?
§ The Prime MinisterI simply cannot see how this affects the real rights of free speech in this country. Watching some European countries, I have seen free speech disappear, perhaps, because Parliaments did not take enough care of their own liberties and their protection. Perhaps the question can be discussed through the usual channels, but I hope that the Government will not be told that they have promised time for debate; that is a matter for discussion.