CLOSURE OF NEWSPAPERS (RESOLUTION) (Hansard, 8 December 1960)

§ 71. Mr. THORPE
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the names of those who will carry out the inquiry into the Press, consequent upon the request made by the House of Commons on 2nd December, 1960, to Her Majesty's Government to institute such an inquiry.

§ 72. Mr. DRIBERG
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon, and in what form, the Government proposes to set up an inquiry into monopolistic tendencies in the Press, and kindred topics, in pursuance of the Motion approved by the House of Commons on Friday, 2nd December.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)
I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, now answer Questions Nos. 71 and 72.
During the debate on 2nd December my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave several reasons why the Government could not be taken as agreeing to institute an inquiry. We shall, naturally, keep under review the various points of view put forward by hon. Members during the discussion of the Motion, but the Government's position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the usual purpose of a Private Member's Motion is to allow discussion on subjects of public concern for which the Government very often have no time? Is he aware of the very grave anxiety expressed on both sides of the House on Friday and that there was a very real feeling that there should be such an inquiry? Could the right hon. Gentleman not go a little further than did his Parliamentary colleague, who merely assured the House that "something may happen"? Would he not really reconsider the matter?

§ Mr. Butler
No, Sir. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was carefully considered both by himself and after consultation with his colleagues in the Government. It represented the Government's view on this important 1444 matter. As it was in some detail, I think that it would be better to study it and see the reason why the Government felt that an inquiry should not be set up.

§ Mr. Driberg
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, this is an important matter and the Government's view was directly contrary to my hon. Friend's Motion, why was there no Division? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any reference in Erskine May which indicates that Resolutions passed by Parliament in private Members' time are, as it were, second-class Resolutions which have no validity and do not count at all? And, if that is so, why is there so much effort on other occasions by the Whips to ensure that such Motions are defeated?

§ Mr. Butler
This was essentially a Private Member's Motion. The Government stated their view and took no steps to stop the Motion going through. The House decided, and the Government's view remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is it not treating with contempt a decision of the House made in private Members' time? The right hon. Gentleman boasts of the fact that the Government did not oppose the view put forward in the Resolution, but if the Government were against it why did they not go into the Lobby? Why was it not challenged on that side of the House? What is the object of having these Motions and Resolutions if the Government ignore the decision of the House?

§ Mr. Butler
The Government did not ignore the decision of the House. My right hon. Friend stated clearly the Government's view. I was present for a large part of the debate, though I did not see the right hon. Gentleman there. I did not find it a very crowded occasion, though I found that views were sincerely and strongly expressed. We know the procedure of Parliament and I think that the Government took the right line in expressing their view and taking no steps to oppose the Motion.

§ Mr. K. Robinson
Is the right hon. Gentleman enunciating the doctrine that in future the Government will ignore any Private Member's Motion that the 1445 House carries if it is inconvenient to the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, within an hour of the closing of the debate, a Government spokesman told the B.B.C. and the Press that the Government proposed to take no notice of the decision of Parliament?

§ Mr. Butler
On the latter point, I have no information. The Government stated their view quite clearly in the debate and, therefore, I should not have thought that a further statement by the Government was necessary to be given.
On Private Members' Motions, the House cannot have it both ways. If the Government take energetic and strenuous steps to block a private Member's Motion they are regarded as going against the spirit of the House, but if they allow a free discussion on such Motions they are told by hon. Members that they ought to have opposed them.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that after the statement of the Government's view the House took a decision by carrying the Motion which was contrary to that statement? Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the fact that the House took its decision after that statement of the Government's view.

§ Mr. Butler
I do not take the constitutional view that the Government are bound to act on a Motion passed in private Members' time by private Members. The Government were right on this occasion to take the Motion very seriously, but I do not see a constitutional obligation on the Government to act on Private Members' Motions.

§ Mr. Wyatt
May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the constitutional position? Surely in this case one cannot distinguish between private Members and other Members, and this is an instruction from the High Court of Parliament to the Minister that there ought to be an inquiry. What remedy has the House of Commons, as the High Court of Parliament, against Ministers who refuse to behave as the High Court of Parliament demands? Ought not such Ministers to be brought before a Select Committee?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that any point arises there for me.

§ Mr. Bellenger
Is the Leader of the House not being somewhat inconsistent? Was he not a member of a Government during the war when a Private Member's Motion on equal pay, moved by Miss Cazalet, as she then was, was reversed the following day by the Government because it did not suit them? How, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman say today that he takes notice seriously of Motions passed by the House when he does not act upon them?

§ Mr. Butler
There is no analogy between the two occasions. I was involved in the previous one, because I was in charge of the Bill. That was a straight Amendment to a Bill which happened to be carried. The Amendment was then reversed when the House was in a better mood for common sense.

§ Mr. Woodnutt
Would my right hon. Friend not agree that he is not the only person who ignores the decisions of large assemblies purporting to have authority?

§ Mr. Shinwell
The hon. Member should come over to this side of the House.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Would the Leader of the House seriously reconsider the answers he has given today and the constitutional anomaly which seems to arise out of them? He said that the speech which the Minister of State, Home Office, made on Friday was made after consultation with the Minister's colleagues in the Government, but was not this in order to arrive at a decision on what advice the Government would offer the House of Commons on that occasion?
Now that the advice has been offered and has been unanimously rejected by the House of Commons, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in the light of that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Would it not be a very strange constitutional doctrine indeed that the Government were entitled to remain in office, depending on the confidence of the House, and still follow a policy—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must remember that this is a supplementary question to a Question. We cannot go on like this.

§ Mr. Silverman
There are only three more words, Mr. Speaker—and still 1447 follow a policy in flagrant contradiction of the unanimous view of the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Butler
I have explained the position as I see it. I do not think that the Government are obliged to act. We will certainly keep this matter under review if we feel that anything useful can be done in the light of the debate, but we have given our reason why we think that to add an inquiry to the recent Royal Commission's Report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eleven years ago."]—and all that followed would not necessarily be in the best interests of the Press.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Thorpe
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.