HC Deb 30 July 1957 vol 574 cc1065-8
50. Mr. T. Fraser

asked the Prime Minister if he has completed his inquiries into the circumstances of the meeting which one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland had with the directors of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister

I have already made a statement to the House on this matter. Since then I have made some further inquiries and I am absolutely satisfied that the dismissal of the editor of the journal in question was not the result of any representations or actions by my hon. Friend. I hope the House will be prepared to accept my assurance on this point.

I would also like to make it clear that my hon. Friend attended a meeting of the editor and directors only as a result of an invitation written by the editor in order to discuss the position in the constituency and for no other purpose.

Mr. Fraser

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will have noted that he himself has rather changed his ground? Last week he said that the Joint Under-Secretary had done what he had done as a Member of Parliament and not as a Minister. Now he is saying that he did not even do it as a Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, indeed, yes. My assertion on Tuesday and Thursday of last week was that the intervention of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson)resulted in the editor being sacked. It was then said by the Prime Minister that his hon. Friend acted as a Member and not as a Minister and that it was therefore no concern of his—the Prime Minister's. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Joint Under-Secretary himself. over the weekend, has made certain statements which, while I agree that they are conflicting, have none the less made it clear that he not only played a part in having the editor sacked but was responsible for recommending the editor's successor?

The Prime Minister

If the hon. Member will look at the statement which I made last week, he will see that there is no inconsistency with what I am now saying. My hon. Friend had nothing whatever to do with the dismissal of the editor, and I have the absolute assurance of the board of directors on that point. Nor do I think that that fact is contested by the editor himself. My hon. Friend attended the meeting at the editor's invitation, contained in a letter couched in cordial terms, asking him to come to this meeting and deal with the situation which had arisen in the constituency. I do not see why he should not have done that. I must therefore repeat that, having gone into this matter carefully and having made some inquiries since the statement I made, I am absolutely sure in my own mind that my hon. Friend acted with no impropriety and was not concerned with the reasons which led to the replacement of the editor.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that his Answer today is not only in conflict with what he said upon this matter before but is also completely at variance with what the editor himself has said about this matter? We on this side of the House are quite unconvinced by what the Prime Minister has said, and we still believe that the hon. Member ought to take the appropriate action and resign.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to state his conviction, and I can state mine. I do not think that I should have the respect of any hon. Member on either side of the House if I were to fall in with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wade

As the replies to some of the earlier Questions upon this subject have created the impression—perhaps unintentionally—that the Prime Minister makes some distinction between what is proper in the case of large national newspapers and what is proper in the case of small local and provincial newspapers, will he make it clear that in his view the principle of the freedom of an editor to express his views without outside interference applies equally to large and small newspapers?

The Prime Minister

I suppose that the rights of an editor and his relations with the proprietor are matters for the arrangement of the newspaper itself, and the structure upon which it is built. There is a variety of arrangements of this kind, ranging from those made by individual proprietors of certain large newspapers to the more elaborate arrangements made between various proprietors of others, and the right of an editor to say exactly what he likes without the slightest regard to the views of his proprietor is not, I would say, an absolutely unlimited right. It depends upon the arrangements upon which he is engaged. But I will stand corrected in this sense—that whatever is the right arrangement according to the original contractual plans, it does not vary as between the size or circulation of the newspaper. That I accept, but I say that if he is asked to do so a Member is entitled, as a Member, to take some interest in a matter which primarily affects his constituency.

Mr. Shinwell

Has the Prime Minister any idea why this editor was dismissed?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell

If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the reason why this editor was dismissed, will he enlighten hon. Members?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir—it was because it was the decision of the board of directors.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give further notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

The Prime Minister

The hon. Member seems determined to block any discussion of these affairs.