HC Deb 10 May 1960 vol 623 cc203-5
Mr. Mellish

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to call your attention to an article published today in The Times. I should like to quote a short passage from it: Mr. Marples, the Minister of Transport, last night described the Pink Zone in London's West End last Christmas as 'the greatest bluff ever perpetrated'. He told the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association: ' There was no real enforcement power yet the public responded to exhortation '. I raise this matter with you, Sir, because that was a scheme introduced by the Minister with the full approval of the House. He came to the Dispatch Box and put it before the House, carrying right hon. and hon. Members on both sides with him in any efforts which might relieve traffic congestion, and at no time was a suggestion conveyed to any of us that there was any possibility of illegality. The imputation of the Minister's speech, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this House has, in the eyes of many hon. Members here and of many people outside, been associated with what the Minister himself described as a sheer act of bluff.

I am addressing my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, in the knowledge that you, as custodian of the House, would wish to protect the dignity and importance of the House. Perhaps on a later occasion you may wish to consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker

I am in this difficulty, that I cannot follow why what the hon. Member has put to me is a point of order. In other circumstances, it might be urged —I am not encouraging him—that it raised a matter of Privilege by contempt, but if that were so this is the wrong point in our proceedings to do it.

Mr. Mellish

With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the article, by imputation, alleges that all of us here, including yourself, who took the Chair at the time, were involved in an act which was a bluff upon the people, and, indeed, an illegal act. I have put the matter to you in this form, because I felt that you should be advised of it immediately.

Mr. Speaker

However much I am involved myself, I do not think that it is a point of order. We might discuss it at another stage, but not now.

Mr. Hale

On a quite separate point of order, but arising out of that, Mr. Speaker. It has always been the rule in the House that one should not impute or use the word "lie" in respect of any hon. or right hon. Member, and this is a usage which I have always struggled to observe, sometimes with difficulty. Arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Transport, would it now be out of order, in view of the fact that he boasted that he lied, for me to say that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke the truth?

Mr. Speaker

I should like to see what the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said before I could suggest to the hon. Member how his own standards should be governed in respect of that matter.

Mr. C. Pannell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this is rather more serious than has been portrayed. A Member of Parliament addressing the House takes responsibility for the truth of his statements. Having made a statement, he expects the House to accept it. This is what we mean when we call each other hon. Members, presumably. When an hon. or right hon. Member speaks from the Dispatch Box, the significance of that is that in the Box are all the things upon which Members swear to tell the truth. That may be a rather rash assumption, and it seems to have been wrong on this occasion. In his speech, has not the right hon. Gentleman, in effect, brought the House into contempt?

Mr. Speaker

If the allegation were that the right hon. Gentleman had brought the House into contempt, this is the wrong moment in our proceedings today to raise it. I want to get on.