COMPLAINTS OF PRIVILEGE (Hansard, 22 January 1957)

§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of Privilege. On 17th December the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) complained of a passage in the Sunday Express of 16th December and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges.
On 21st December, in the B.B.C. programme called "Any Questions" a discussion took place on petrol rationing and Mrs. Mary Stocks, in the course of that discussion, said: … The only people who are really well off under this rationing scheme are M.P.s and potential M.P.s who are nursing constituencies and who, apparently, have as much petrol as they want to drive about their constituency. I have obtained from the B.B.C. a copy of the script and you will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the B.B.C. is aware—

§ Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please inquire whether there is anything wrong with the microphones or what the row is in the House? We simply cannot hear my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was more fortunate. I could hear the hon. Member quite clearly, but, then, he is closer to me. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the microphones.

§ Mr. Wigg
I have obtained from the B.B.C. a copy of the script and you will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the B.B.C. is aware of the matter, for on the slip attached are typed the words, "Relevant item on page 10."
In my submission the words used constitute a breach of Privilege, but the most serious aspect of the matter is that after the complaint had been referred to the Committee of Privileges, and before the Committee had reported, views were expressed similar to those that caused the original complaint. In other words, while the matter was sub judice, the original offence was repeated. In my submission, that is not all. Clearly, the B.B.C. is in a different, and more difficult, position than the editor of a newspaper who sees the words in front of him before he authorises publication, because the B.B.C. is faced with the words only after they have been spoken. But in this case, the B.B.C. had, from 21st December, a matter of four or five weeks in which to retract and apologise, and it is the failure of the B.B.C. to acknowledge and accept responsibility for what was said that constitutes the most serious aspect of this case.
I submit that not only the words themselves but the discussion of a matter which was sub judice and the failure to take appropriate action after the broadcast make it imperative that the matter should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. I trust, therefore, Sir, that you will rule that a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has been established.

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Member bring the document to the Table?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have heard what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has put before the House In view of what has occurred, I think that he has established a prima facie case. In saying so, I do not in any way prejudge the view, which is one for the House, whether there has been a breach of Privilege or not. It only means that I will now accept a Motion on the matter.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)
I beg to move, That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your notice and that of hon. Members a matter published in the Romford Recorder newspaper and supplied to them by Mr. Donald Paterson which, in my opinion, is a serious breach of Privilege.
The matter to which I refer was published on 4th January, 1957. The House will recall that at that time the Committee of Privileges was considering certain allegations made by another newspaper about the supply of petrol to hon. Members. I submit that this should have made for greater care being taken in this particular instance.
In large black print on the central page of this paper, under the heading, "M.P.s Too Kind to Themselves," there appears the following: In common with M.P.s and other prospective Parliamentary candidates, I have just been allocated a supplementary petrol ration to cover 750 miles per month—this in addition to my 200 miles basic for private motoring. Such an allocation is outrageously high—particularly when one considers how shabbily industry and people like commercial travellers are being treated. I have heard it said that the best club to belong to is the House of Commons. The privileges granted to its Members certainly seem to be on the increase even if democracy is suffering as a result. Moreover, it is my opinion that, in the light of their sad record over the past few years, which has more than anything else been responsible for the present crisis and petrol rationing, the very last persons to have supplementary rations should be Members of Parliament. As a result of this publication, Mr. Speaker, I have been told by many persons who have wished to consult me on petrol problems that they cannot expect sympathetic treatment from Members of Parliament who are treating themselves so well. One deputation of commercial travellers which I received confirmed this view to me. If hon. Members of this House are to carry out their duties, such untrue allegations must only hinder them and prevent them from doing their duties and disturb public opinion. I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling that a serious breach of Privilege has occurred and that a prima facie case has been made out.

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Member bring the newspaper to the Table?

§ Mr. Speaker
As the hon. Member has read the relevant passages, I will not ask the Clerk to read them again.
I have received notice from the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) that there is another complaint which is connected in its facts with the one that we have just heard, so perhaps it would be more convenient if we heard him first and I then ruled on them both together.

§ Mr. Ron Ledger (Romford)
I am well aware that hon. Members may be a little weary of these complaints—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but that depends on whether they actually arise in their own divisions or not. I suggest that if hon. Members happen to have a local newspaper in which such statements are made, they may take a very serious view of them and raise the matter themselves.
I want to support the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden), because these statements appeared in Romford papers. I read these particular statements as I was opening my mail, in which I received my supplementary allowance which was for 100 miles of motoring a month—which was totally inadequate. I immediately wrote to the prospective Liberal candidate and informed him of that, and I expected that in the paper the next week an apology would be made.
I think that there is a further breach of Privilege in the statement which was then issued by the prospective Liberal candidate to the local paper: Comment on this question, he told the Recorder, has been 'effectively muzzled' by the recent action of the House of Commons Committee of Privileges against the editors of two national newspapers. I suggest that this criticism of the Committee of Privileges is completely unjustified, especially in view of the fact that the prospective Liberal candidate had before him the facts about the supplementary allowance for M.P.s.
It is particularly serious, because I received an anonymous telephone call, probably from one of my own constituents, probably a commercial traveller, in which it was suggested that I was incompetent to deal with inquiries about supplementary petrol rations if I was getting more than sufficient for my needs, as was suggested in these reports. The caller made a request that I let him have some of my allowance.
44 It will be absolutely impossible for hon. Members to deal with this very thorny matter of inadequate petrol supplies unless it is made absolutely clear by someone in authority what the allocation to hon. Members actually is. I submit that I have established that there has been a breach of Privilege, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Member bring the newspaper to the Table?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is, of course, for the House to decide whether what we have heard constitutes a breach of Privilege, but, concerned as I am with the procedure of the matter, I consider that both hon. Members have made out a prima facie case with regard to the complaints they have made, and that I should, therefore, accept a Motion on the matter.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
I beg to move, That the matter of the complaints be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I should like to say no more on this subject, but simply to move that Motion, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
I feel that the House of Commons is in danger of making itself slightly ridiculous. I am sure that I speak for every hon. Member here in saying that the honourable reputation of the House of Commons is very near to our hearts. But this is not the way to sustain it. We are in danger of becoming pompous and hypersensitive. The truth is great and will prevail. If the facts are made known to the country, that will be the best way of protecting our reputation. A reputation for touchiness and undue sensitivity is not the way to do it.

§ Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)
On a point of order. Is not the matter which is now to be referred to the Committee of Privileges more or less sub judice? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Should we not prejudge the issue by debating it now? Should not the matter be debated when the Report of the Committee comes before the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have merely proposed to the House the Question, "That the matter of the complaints be referred to the Committee of Privileges", but the House has not yet ordered them to be so 45 referred. The matter is still in the hands of the House and any hon. Member can say anything relevant to the Motion.

§ Mr. Nicholson
I did not hear all that was said by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), Sir, but I do not wish to detain the House. I want merely to say that we are taking a sledge hammer to crush a nut. We are making a great mistake in taking this matter too seriously.

§ Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)
While it may appear to hon. Members that we must not seem to be too sensitive to public opinion, nevertheless it is the duty and responsibility of hon. Members to repel serious allegations about their behaviour. We are, therefore, justified in asking that these matters should go before the Committee of Privileges. I am bound to say that I cannot see how it will be possible to debate the Committee's Report without having a full statement from the Government about the allocation of petrol coupons not only to hon. Members but to Parliamentary constituencies. We must have all the facts established to enable us to form a sound judgment on the matter. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on this subject before we consider the Report from the Committee?

§ Mr. Desmond Donnelly (Pembroke)
I want to support what the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has said. The short point is that the House has made itself the absolute authority in the country. In that position we have to be very careful about how we use that authority if we wish to retain it in the public mind. In this case the facts speak for themselves. What does it matter if some people say that we have too large a petrol allocation, if we do not? If we have too much, it does matter, but if we do not have too much, it does not matter.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
It does matter.

§ Mr. Donnelly
It does not matter. I am prepared to ignore that kind of criticism.
Could the Leader of the House find some procedure by which we could dispose of these cases without making too heavy weather of them, without dragging somebody to the Bar of the House of Commons to explain himself and without 46 bringing Parliamentary Privilege, which is very important indeed, into the position where it is lightly regarded by the public?

§ Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)
I want most warmly to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). It seems to me that there is nothing in these cases. I thought when I heard the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden)—

§ Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
On a point of order. Surely the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is guilty of a grave discourtesy to the Chair. The Chair has ruled that a prima facie case been made out. To say that there is nothing in them is to reflect upon the Chair.

§ Mr. du Cann
I am sure that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that I meant no discourtesy to you. I believe that the House is being unnecessarily pompous and making itself a laughing stock in the country by taking these minor criticisms seriously.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), may I say that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is quite correct about the procedure of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. There is no alternative but for the Leader of the House to have this matter examined by the Committee of Privileges.
That in no way prejudges what Report may be submitted by the Committee which is a Committee of our own number and of our most senior Members. All I am doing is proposing that these matters be examined by the Committee. The fact that I have made no observations is more in line with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, than are the observations which have been made. That does not mean that the Motion is not debatable. It is in order for hon. Members to say that they do not want the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges, but I submit that I am right in asking that it should go before the Committee.

§ Mr. Henry Usborne (Birmingham, Yardley)
I do not think that anybody would deny that a prima facie case has been made, and that, in ordinary circumstances, the Committee of Privileges would probably find that there was a genuine breach of Privilege. The point is that it is silly now to press this point. The right way to handle the matter is for us, in the House of Commons at this moment, to accept the fact that we are making much too much out of this, and that the right answer to these criticisms—which, I think, are unfairly made—is to publish the facts and let the people know the truth.
I suggest that the House should reject the Motion which is now before it, but that it should also request the Government or the responsible Minister to publish a detailed list of the allocations of petrol which have been made to Members of Parliament. I am not the slightest bit ashamed to say what has been allocated to me. I think that it would be far better if my constituents and everybody else knew what I got. I believe that that is the right way to deal with this affair. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your allocation?"] It happens to be 14 gallons a month—about one tenth of what I needed.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I suggest to the House that if anything would bring the proceedings of the House into ridicule it would be to continue this debate at this time, or to refuse to pass a Motion which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is the inevitable consequence of the Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given. To use this occasion to debate the merits of the particular point raised would obviously be undesirable, and it is even more undesirable to drag into the debate a discussion of what the Committee of Privileges may have reported in regard to another matter altogether.
The question whether or not matters are too trivial to be referred to the Committee of Privileges has always been dealt with in the House in a recognised way, which has been followed today. It has always been left to Mr. Speaker to decide whether there is sufficient in the point raised to justify the matter being dealt with by the House of Commons there and then, without the necessity of putting a Motion on the Order Paper, to take its 48 chance with other questions in the day-to-day conflict over time.
I do not think that there is any precedent—there is none that I recall, at any rate—for the House of Commons deciding not to refer a question to the Committee of Privileges when the Speaker of the day has ruled that it is proper for the question to be debated there and then.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)
There are plenty of precedents. I myself raised an issue of Privilege upon which there was the clearest Ruling that a prima facie case had been made. The case involved the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. An apology had been sent to the House and, with the complete concurrence of everybody in the House, I believe, I moved that the matter be not referred to the Committee of Privileges and that the apology be accepted.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but the case to which he has referred is a totally different kind of case from that with which we are now dealing. The circumstances are quite different. A change of circumstance had taken place in that matter.
I can recall no case—containing no adventitious circumstances of that kind—in which the House of Commons has refused to send a matter to the Committee of Privileges after the Speaker of the day has ruled that there was a prima facie case. I should think that the dignified course for the House to pursue would be to let the matter go to the Committee of Privileges without further comment at this stage.

§ Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)
I hope that the House will accept the Motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, but I hasten to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend, who would apparently like to reduce the liberties of Members of the House. The fact that a custom has not been followed for many years does not reduce its importance to the House. Upon a future occasion we might well require to question the wisdom of a matter going to the Committee of Privileges. Hon. Members should be free to question such a course being adopted if they so wish.
I rise only because I believe that this opinion about the House getting touchy has been spread by the Press. The Press itself is very touchy. Anyone who 49 criticises a newspaper is in for a bad time. The newspapers seem to feel that they have a special privilege and that we have committed a breach of Privilege in sending these matters to an honourable Committee of the House.
During my time in the House—and I have been here for twelve years now—we have never, to my knowledge, treated questions of Privilege lightly. If they are frivolous, we have a Committee that knows how to deal with them. I believe that the good name of the House can safely rest, for the time being at least, with the Committee entrusted with the consideration of these matters. I earnestly hope that we will not be browbeaten in this matter by the attempt of some newspapers to prevent us clearing our name.

§ Mr. J. A. Leavey (Heywood and Royton)
I humbly seek your guidance on one point, Mr. Speaker. You having ruled that there is a prima facie case for referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House then having risen, almost as a formality, to move the Motion, is it not a breach of respect to the House, at least, if not a breach of Privilege, to vote against that Motion? If we are not permitted to debate the position, presumably, by voting upon the issue, we are supporting a point of view. It seems to have been suggested that it is improper to speak to this Motion in a contrary sense. Therefore, it would seem to follow that it would be wrong to vote against it. I earnestly seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I can tell the hon. Member straight away that there is nothing wrong, or unconstitutional, or contrary to the practice of this House in the House refusing a Motion that a matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. The duty of the Chair is to see that the minimum requirements which constitute a prima facie case of breach of Privilege are present, and he merely says that they are in order to give the Motion priority over the Orders of the Day. That does not imply either a Ruling on the part of the Chair that a breach of Privilege has been committed or that the House ought to send the matter to the Committee of Privileges. It is entirely a matter for the House to debate. For 50 example, there are many technical breaches of Privilege, such as giving reports of our debates in the Press, which the House has been content to ignore for a large number of years but which, if they were raised, would no doubt still be considered as technical breaches of Privilege. There may be many other such cases.
The duty of the Speaker is to safeguard the House from entirely frivolous invocations of the law of Privilege. In this ease, in view of what has happened in an earlier case, I took the view—as the House took upon the earlier occasion—that it was my duty so to rule. But it is by no means incumbent upon hon. Members to vote either for or against the Motion.

§ Mr. Bevan
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that many newspapers have now restored themselves to a respectful attitude to the House by not reporting the proceedings of the House at all.

§ Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)
Does the fact that these cases are referred to the Committee of Privileges make the whole matter sub judice, so that no statement can be made by the Minister as to the facts of the case? It seems to me that the facts of the matter are almost more important than anything else, and I should not like to think that deferring consideration of the matter until the Committee has met and reported would prevent the nation from knowing the facts immediately.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that that consequence would flow from the Motion being accepted. I think that the Committee, if it considers the matter, can take any evidence it likes from anyone to the question of Privilege. I think that the question of petrol allocation and the question of Privilege are two different things.

§ Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
I wish to support the suggestion that the Motion be not remitted to the Committee of Privileges. I think that it is becoming rather a farce. I am exceedingly surprised at these requests coming from Members of Parliament, who, in their day and generation, like myself, must find some of the things said about them now mild indeed, compared with what was said about them at one time.
51 I am told that this breach of Privilege is an attempt to prevent a concerted attack which, in concert, it is very difficult to raise in an action, say, for libel. But look at the concerted attacks made on the working-class. Who suffered more than the miners from these kind of attacks; or the engineers; or the shipbuilders? When I hear hon. Members talk so volubly about their dignity, I begin to wonder whether they have so little dignity that they require the time of the House of Commons to be taken up in maintaining what they have.
I ask, even though this Motion be carried, that there should be a debate on a scandal that is taking place today. I refer to the enormous allocation of petrol being given to constituency parties. If there is a Liberal Party, it has its allocation; if there is a Tory Party, it has its allocation; if there is a Labour Party, it has its allocation. What for? To cancel each other out. That is—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that there has been maladministration in this matter, that is a matter for the Government, and not for me, or for the House on this Motion and the Question before it. The Question is, "That the matter of the complaints be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

§ Mrs. Mann
On a point of order, Sir. I feel this particularly, because there are milkmen in my constituency who cannot get petrol so that they can deliver milk. I suggested that one of those should be run by an election agent—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady must choose a suitable opportunity to raise the matter, and that is not now.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)
I do not think that I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say whether he agreed with us that this should be passed on to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, or the Minister of Power, as the case may be, and a request made that the full facts of what is issued to Members of Parliament and to constituency parties should be published. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that that is desirable. That is the best answer Parliament can give to these allegations or suppositions; that the full amounts which have been issued should be publicised. If they are found to be excessive in the case of constituency parties, they should be substantially reduced.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
In answer to my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), I should like to say that the facts are almost in toto in the Second Report. But, in so far as they are not—there is certainly nothing to be ashamed of in the facts being stated—I will, without prejudice to the Motion or to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friends concerned.