§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you intend to make a statement which would clarify the position that arose during the proceedings yesterday? Will you clear up a point that is still abstruse, whether, in the absence of a decision of the House about a secret session, the Official Reporters should have been asked to leave the Chamber? Will you clear that up, Sir?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can only say that according to practice it has always been the custom, when strangers are spied, to exclude the Official Reporters. The last time that this procedure was adopted was in 1925. There, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the debate, he will see that it finishes exactly as this morning's HANSARD finishes. The remainder of the Report will be taken from the Votes and Proceedings. That is the precedent of the House.
§ Mr. ShinwellIf that is your decision, Sir, I accept it, as no doubt will other hon. Members. But may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has anything to say about the incompetence of the Government, and whether he intends to offer any explanation—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman is out of order now. If he wanted to ask a question of that character he ought to have given notice. I myself deal with matters without notice very frequently, but I think that it is the duty of a right hon. Gentleman or an hon. Member, if he wishes to ask a specific question, to give notice of it and obtain my consent to ask it.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There were exceptional circumstances, circumstances which do not occur every day, and indeed, apparently have not occurred for many years. Surely it is desirable to ascertain the opinion of the Leader of the House about the cause of what happened yesterday in our proceedings.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the whole history of the House is one of exceptional circumstances, but the rules of order must be obeyed. That is the only way of reducing the number of aberrations from the normal which naturally occur.
§ Mr. BeswickFurther to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although, as you say, the decision which follows from the Motion which was passed is that the HANSARD reporters are excluded, the fact is that for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour the HANSARD reporters were not excluded, but were busily taking a report of the proceedings here. May I ask what happened to that report and whether we are to be privileged to see it?
§ Mr. SpeakerAll this happened in Committee; I was not present at all. If the HANSARD reporters were here after the Committee had decided that strangers should withdraw, they were here improperly and against the order of the House. It was proper that any notes which they took should not be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. J. HyndIn view of the fact that the HANSARD reporters were, in fact, recalled by the Chairman, is it fair to criticise the Official Reporters for having been here in those circumstances? They were not, in fact, present against the wish of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Member for making that clear. I was not here myself, but I understand that the 1151 Official Reporters came back at the invitation of the Committee, or of the Chairman or someone, but that that was speedily corrected as an error. It was no fault of the Reporters. I am glad to make that perfectly clear.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanArising out of the original point of order, may I ask a rather wider question, Sir? It was apparently assumed last night that the mere carrying of the Motion, "That Strangers do withdraw" would not of itself amount to providing that the rest of the sitting should be secret. For that, reliance was placed on the Resolutions about secret sessions which the House had on previous occasions passed.
I want to raise with you, Sir, the question whether that is really the correct position. Of course, I am aware of those previous Resolutions, but I submit to you that the purpose and effect of those Resolutions was not of itself to make a session secret, but to make available the powers under the Defence Regulations for any breach of secrecy, instead of relying on the rather artificial powers of the House itself under breach of Privilege. In support of that, Sir, I should like to draw your attention to a passage in Erskine May.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the hon. Gentleman need advance any authorities in support of his proposition. There has been some confusion about the term "secret session". That term really came into prominence in the First World War, when there was a Defence of the Realm Regulation prescribing pains and penalties for its breach. After strangers were spied, if the House decided to go into secret session, the Order applied. Exactly the same thing happened in the last war, under the general Defence Regulations.
The mere spying of strangers does not, technically, start a secret session, even though the House orders strangers to withdraw. As regards any penalties that there may be involved in that, they do not spring from any Defence Regulation or any automatic operation of law of that sort, but from the powers residing in the House of proceeding against any Member for contempt or a breach of Privilege.
§ Mr. SilvermanI am much obliged to you, Sir. It was because of that consideration that I ventured to put to you 1152 that the effect of a Motion, "That Strangers do withdraw", is to make any reference outside this House to anything that takes place after that Motion has been carried itself a breach of Privilege. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that there are differences of opinion, and I am putting mine. I will draw—
§ Mr. SpeakerI have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, if he is going to instance what might or might not be a breach of Privilege, I think that I could not possibly rule on that and that the House could not come to a decision unless it had all the facts before it. It is not a subject on which one can make an advance Ruling, or upon which the House can make an advance decision. We must know all the circumstances in each case, and must depend entirely upon them.
§ Mr. SilvermanAll I wished to do was to draw your attention to a passage in the latest edition of Erskine May, on page 54, which I should like you to consider. It will take me only a few seconds to read it.
Under the heading, "Right to exclude Strangers," the paragraph begins:
The House of Commons has always claimed and enjoyed the right to exclude strangers and to debate with closed doors. The first reason was the inconvenience caused in former times by strangers pressing into the body of the House or attempting from the galleries to influence debate. The other, and principal, reason was the possible intimidation which the Crown might exercise if reports were made of the speech and action of Members in days when freedom of debate did not in practice afford complete protection.Then there comes the final sentence, to which I draw particular attention:Later, in the eighteenth century, the motive was probably reluctance to be held accountable to public opinion.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. SilvermanAs it was always clear, and has now been further confirmed, that that was the motive for which the Government supporters accepted the Motion last night, it becomes very important to know whether we are entitled, outside the House, without breach of Privilege, to call the attention of the public to what they did.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must not try to embroil me in controversial matters.
§ Mr. DonnellyFurther to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and his question regarding accountability, could you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, about what redress might be had or what steps the House could take if, before the next time that he answers Questions, the Foreign Secretary spies strangers?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is entirely hypothetical, and a most unlikely question for me to have to answer.
§ Captain PilkingtonFurther to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a voice from this side of the House? On the general question, do you not think, Sir, that it would be very desirable and proper if the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) transferred his activities to the nearest pantomime?
§ Mr. WiggFurther to the point of order raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington). May I point out, Sir, that any action I took yesterday was in accordance with precedent? I followed the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), the only difference being that I succeeded and he failed.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can only remark that neither the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) nor that made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was a point of order.