§ Mr. LiptonI wish to raise a point of order in connection with Question No. 48. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in this morning's issue of The Times the following words appeared in connection with Question No. 48:
… it was made clear in Government quarters yesterday that no warrant was issued by the Home Secretary to Reading police to authorise the interception …My point of order is this. I was always under the impression that when any Question appeared on the Order Paper, the answer to that question would be given in the House and not be made the subject of a deliberate Press release by some Government Department or other before the Question was answered in the House. In my submission, this precedent, if allowed to pass unchallenged, would be a most dangerous precedent and would not be in accordance with the respect that should be given to the House and to hon. Members in the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take note of this fact and perhaps give a Ruling, either now or later, which will prevent a recurrence of this kind of action on the part of the Government to the detriment both of the House of Commons and of hon. Members in it.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhether the views expressed by the hon. Member are right or wrong, they do not amount to a point of order for me. The Prime Minister.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat has not been raised. Strictly, the hon. and learned Member's question is out of order because I had called the Prime Minister to move the Business Motion.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerSurely if there is a matter which might be a question of Privilege—and if so, it would be of great importance—it should not be blocked by the fact that the Prime Minister was called, especially since no one has reacted to that call. It needed a moment of thought after your reply, Mr. Speaker, before one could decide what further to say. If this is a matter in which Privilege might be involved, surely it 1186 should not be blocked by the momentary calling of the Prime Minister, with no answer from him.
§ Mr. SpeakerPerhaps I may explain the position. Supposing an issue of Privilege is to be raised, this would not in any event be the moment to raise it. I was wrong in allowing the hon. and learned Member to raise a point of order after I had called the Prime Minister, because he was definitely too late. I gave, strictly, the wrong answer to the hon. and learned Member, for this is not the right moment to take a point of Privilege.
§ Mr. PagetMay I ask for your guidance? What would be the right moment? I understood that you were answering my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and you called the Prime Minister without resuming your seat. There could, therefore, not have been an interval at that point.
§ Mr. SpeakerStrictly it should have been before I embarked upon public business by calling the Prime Minister, that being the earliest possible opportunity in this context.
§ Mr. BevanWith all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, there was an altercation in the House. The point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and you then said, "This is not a point of order. It does not concern me." You then immediately called the Prime Minister, who did not respond—
§ Mr. BevanThat is not true. Therefore, in my respectful submission, a point of Privilege can be raised now, or not at all.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that there was no response when you called the Prime Minister. I have learned a due sense of modesty over the last four years and, when the Prime Minister is not present, I incline my head slightly towards you. On this occasion, I did so in the manner that I have used for the past four years, so I did respond in what I might describe as a normal manner.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerSurely the point of substance, Mr. Speaker, is that there was not really sufficient interval between your saying that there was not a point of order and your calling the Prime Minister for any hon. Member to ask whether a point of Privilege was involved. With respect, I suggest that there should have been allowed that moment for someone to ask that question. If I may say so, you ran your calling of the Prime Minister rather quickly on your answer to the point of order, so that there was not a moment available to raise this very considerable matter of substance. I am sure that that could not have been your intention.
§ Mr. PagetFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, the normal time to raise a question of Privilege is after Questions and before public business. In this case, we had Questions, and then, as part of a Question, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) raised a point of order. You answered that point of order, and, without resuming your seat, called the Prime Minister. A question of Privilege cannot be raised—nor, indeed, can any other point—while you are on your feet. Therefore, in my submission, I did take the first opportunity.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt was not through physical indolence, or lack of desire to exercise my muscles, but in accordance with my ordinary practice that, when I do not anticipate any need to resume my seat between two occasions. I remain upon my feet. In that course, taking the view that the point that the hon. Member had raised was not a point of order for the Chair, I proceeded to the next business, and called the Prime Minister. It was not done with the view of frustrating any other business, but only that I was unaware that any hon. Member desired to raise an intervening point I had called the Prime Minister. That was acknowledged in the conventional manner. Accordingly, the Question is, That the Proceedings on Government Business—
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the rule of the House that a matter of Privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity It seems that on this occasion 1188 there was no opportunity, on this day, on which it could be raised, because for physical convenience, you did not resume your seat at the moment that the point could have been raised. Can we take it, therefore, that if you insist on your Ruling, the earliest possible opportunity would be tomorrow?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Owing to my remaining on my feet, what would otherwise have been the last opportunity disappeared. I retreat from the impossible position I took up, and I permit the matter to be raised now, if the House so desires.
§ Mr. LiptonMay I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a question of Privilege, the facts contained in the point of order that I submitted to you a few moments ago?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am reminded that the hon. Member's complaint is based upon something in a newspaper. Has the hon. Member got the newspaper?
§ Extract from newspaper handed in.
§ Mr. SpeakerI regret that the rules of the House do not permit me to receive a fragment. I am compelled to require the newspaper.
§ Mr. PagetWill my hon. Friend get the newspaper? [Interruption.]
Further to this point of Privilege, Mr. Speaker. What you have said about the necessity for the production of the whole of the document is highly interesting. Would you give us this further Ruling? In view of the necessity to produce the whole document, is there also a necessity to read the whole document—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is addressing the Chair. I must ask the House to preserve enough order to allow me to hear him.
§ Mr. Ronald BellIs it in order for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to read a newspaper?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member is still on his feet. Has he ceased to address me?
§ Copy of newspaper handed in.
1189§ Mr. SpeakerI now have the newspaper to which the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) directed my attention. I observe what is there reported. My Ruling does not, of course, go to whether or no the conduct there disclosed does or does not, in the view of the House, involve a breach of Privilege. It does go to the question of whether or no a prima facie breach of Privilege is disclosed. I rule that no such breach is disclosed.
§ Mr. BevanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the circumstances in which this whole matter has been raised, and of the fact that no opportunity has been given either to the House or to you for proper reflection, may I call your attention to a variety of precedents where Mr. Speaker has asked that he might be allowed to consider the whole matter, without prejudice, and report upon it the following day?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is not an occasion on which I desire to avail myself of that facility which may be granted to me by the House.
§ Mr. BevanBut, with all respect, is it not a very remarkable fact that, first of all, the fragment was produced, and you said that you must have the whole of the newspaper; that the whole of the newspaper was then provided to you, and without, as it seems to me—apart from divine inspiration—any opportunity at all for reflecting on it, you then decided that no mater of Privilege arose? May I suggest, Mr. Speaker—I am trying my very best, and with all respect to you and to the procedure of the House—that it would be very much more in accordance with precedents if you said that, "In all the circumstances, and having had no opportunity of studying the matter, I ask the House to give me an opportunity to do so, and tomorrow I will give it my view."?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have expressed my view about it. I adhere to what I have said.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to guide us on this rather novel point, which raises a question of Privilege not against The Times but against the Government? Would you be kind enough to 1190 give us your reason for your Ruling, so that this would guide us on future occasions, either today or, if you wish, Mr. Speaker, after due consideration? It is a novel point and it would help us a great deal if we could have the reasons for your Ruling.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think on experience that it serves the interest of the House for the Chair to give reasons for its rulings. What usually happens then is that some form of irregular debate arises about them. The House has its remedy. It can discipline the Chair when the Chair is wrong, and I think, with respect, that it better serves the interest of the House that the Chair should not give reasons for its rulings, not because I feel that they would not bear exposure to the light of day or because I feel that some magic power of infallibility rests in the Chair, but because I feel that if the Chair's reasons come to be debated the time of the House is occupied in an irregular discussion when there is no Question before it.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhat you have said, Mr. Speaker, seems to me possibly to raise rather serious considerations. Do I understand from you that you do not ever intend to give reasons for your decisions on any point or are you merely saying that you are not going to do so on this particular point? Is it not the case that on many earlier occasions your predecessors, when asked to decide on a prima facie question of Privilege, have in fact given reasons and that it is far more in accordance with precedent that the Speaker should do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerI should like to look into the precedents before answering the right hon. Gentleman. I would prefer to confine myself to this occasion and to say that, on this occasion, I do not think that it is desirable in the interest of the House that I should give my reasons for thinking that this matter does not disclose a prima facie breach of Privilege.
§ Mr. C. PannellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I call your attention to the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges, when Mr. Speaker Morrison was cross-examined at some length on this and spoke of his considerable difficulty when placed in the situation in which 1191 you are now? There is a recommendation in the Select Committee's Report that Mr. Speaker should always be given time, and in the main the Select Committee on Procedure advised that the Speaker, or any future Speaker, should be able to say that he will answer the next day. Having listened to all this up to now, with great respect I suggest that that is a procedure that might be followed in such cases as this. Contrary to some of my hon. Friends, I am not in favour of the Speaker giving long reasons for his Ruling. All I am concerned with is that quite clearly the House should be seized of the idea that you should have enough time to give a mature judgment, and I am sure that you will acquit me of any disrespect when I say that you did not have time on this occasion to give a mature judgment.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have to get this right. The House entrusts me, presumably, with the decision in these matters, including the decision whether I regard this as a case in which I personally feel the need for further reflection before ruling whether there be a prima facie case or no. There is no finality about it. On that issue, which is the only issue upon which I now rule, I do not feel that this is a case in which I require the indulgence of the House.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So far as previous precedents are concerned, has it not been the case that hon. Members give reasons to the Speaker as to why he should rule otherwise rather than that the Speaker gives reasons why he has ruled in the way he has ruled, and that requests for time to consider a question upon which the Speaker had doubt have always been made by the Speaker himself and not at the instance of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat may be so. I should like to look at a number of precedents before agreeing or disagreeing.
§ Mr. GaitskellMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify this situation? You have told us, in effect, that you have no doubts in your mind and do not need time to think the matter over. Naturally we accept that. That seems to me to imply that you are very clear about the reasons why you are turning it down. 1192 I ask you to reflect on this point, that a refusal to give reasons for not accepting the proposal that there might be a prima facie case of breach of Privilege here has lead to the difficulty that hon. Members do not know what is in your mind or the basis for your decision, and they are not able to get guidance for future purposes which would otherwise be available? Perhaps this could be dealt with quite quickly if you would be so good as to tell us why, obviously with good reason and without the need for much reflection, you decided to turn this down.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have indicated that in this instance I do not think that it would be to the advantage of the House for the Chair to resume—what I think at one time was not the practice at all—the practice of giving reasons for its decision.
§ Mr. OramMay I, Mr. Speaker, touch upon the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the consideration given by the Committee on Procedure to this method of raising points of Privilege? Was there not an illustration today of the somewhat absurd method and are we not all placed in a difficult situation in that respect? May I ask you or the Leader of the House, whichever is the appropriate authority, to look into this to see whether some new procedure ought not to be adopted?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat no doubt is for the Leader of the House. What the hon. Member says will have been heard.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerWe are in a position of some difficulty, Mr. Speaker. You have, in effect, told us that there is some peculiarity about this case which has led you to the conclusion, in your discretion, not to give reasons. You also said that this was not to be taken to mean that you will never give reasons, but that you would not give reasons in this particular case. Unless we can have some idea of the peculiarity of this case which has led you to that conclusion so that we can distinguish between it and other occasions in which it might be, in your view, proper to give reasons, it is very difficult for us to know where we are. May I ask you, therefore, what is the peculiarity of this case which has decided you that it does not need any reasons to be given for your decision?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. I would prefer to decide upon each case as it arises whether or no I will give reasons and whether I feel that it is advisable in the interests of the House and for the performance of the duties of the Chair.
§ Mr. Hector HughesWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to look at this matter in another way? You have said that you have not given reasons for your decision because, in your view, it is undesirable that the Speaker's decision should be subject to debate in the House. May I point out that, if you give reasons, it does not necessarily follow that a debate will become necessary? If you give reasons it will not necessarily precipitate a debate but it will provide guidance to the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that what I said was that the giving of reasons, in my experience, often resulted in an irregular debate. Matters can regularly and properly be debated by putting down some substantive Motion criticising the Chair.
§ Mr. GaitskellI am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would not wish to put us in a position where we are virtually invited to put down such a Motion. That is a thing which no Opposition would wish to do in the ordinary case. But you do put us in a very difficult situation, if I may say so. I should like you to tell us whether you have reflected on the fact that this is a case in which, apparently, the possibility arises of the Government themselves having committed a prima facie breach of Privilege.
Naturally, I do not wish to make any comment on the rights and wrongs of the matter, but it seems to me that precisely because it is so, and that therefore it might be an issue, as it were, between the two sides of the House, it is of special importance that absolute clarity should prevail as to why you have decided that there is no prima facie case, and decided immediately and without even the reflection which it was proposed you should enjoy.
§ Mr. SpeakerI appreciate the way that the right hon. Gentleman puts it. Of course, I do not want a Motion on the Order Paper in criticism of the Chair, because the Chair is a mere servant of the House and it wishes that its decisions and conduct should receive general approval. Of course, I do not want that. The reason I did not ask for time for reflection was that I thought the matter was clear. If I had thought the matter was not clear, I would have asked the indulgence of the House for reflection. As I understand it, what is said is that there was a Governmental statement which, in effect, gave the answer to a Question in advance, and all that I have said is that that does not disclose to me a prima facie breach of Privilege. If the House thinks it is, hon. Members can argue about it in another context.
§ Sir G. NicholsonSurely, Mr. Speaker, there is a slight misapprehension. Am right in thinking that your Ruling merely rules that the question raised is not of such a nature as automatically to be entitled to precedence over the Orders of the Day, and that any right hon. or hon. Member can put down a Motion on the Order Paper, referring this question to the Committee of Privileges, which will be debated in due time?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes. I hoped that I had made that clear by indicating at the outset that all that my Ruling governed was the question, aye or no, is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege disclosed? The Chair does not purport to decide anything more; nor do I.