§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order concerning the choice of words employed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—to whom I have addressed a note saying that I intended to repeat the point of order to you today—in a further supplementary question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on public opinion polls.
Your reply to my point of order yesterday, raised with you twice, was that you did not yourself hear the words used by the hon. Member for Dudley. I said during the course of a supplementary question that, so far as I was aware, everybody else on my side of the House heard them, and they have been faithfully reported in the Official Report. If I may, I wish to repeat to you now the words used by the hon. Member for Dudley. He said:
Will the Prime Minister also take into account the amount of pints which he bought the electors during the course of the campaign?"—[Official Report, 10th December, 1963, Vol. 686, c. 213.]
§ Sir G. NabarroThe purpose of my point of order is to inquire whether it is within the rules of order of this House for any hon. Member to impute to another an electoral impropriety involving corrupt practice and a contravention of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. Mr. Speaker, you did not hear the words yesterday, but they have now been printed. Though you did not hear them, I wrote to you this morning and asked you if you would read them, and I hope now that you will be able to rule that they are out of order and should be withdrawn.
§ Mr. SpeakerI regret that it was not possible from this Chair at that moment to hear the words used with sufficient precision to rule. I know that there have been times when my predecessors have diplomatically not heard things. It was not an instance of that kind. It was physically impossible to hear the words. Had I heard them at the time, it would have been my duty to direct that they should be withdrawn. At this moment of time I have no power so to direct.
§ Mr. WiggFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish, respectfully, to submit that I used the words, but I did not say pints of what. It could have been pints of—
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not wish to appear to fail to hear the hon. Member again, but I am afraid that I missed a word. For some curious reason it is well known that the position from which the hon. Member is speaking is the worst acoustically from the point of view of the Chair.
§ Mr. WiggI used the words referred to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sri G. Nabarro). I have not denied it, but I did not say pints of what. It could have been pints of water, or pints of milk but, fortunately, in the Daily Telegraph of 30th October, there is a photograph of the Prime Minister drinking with two gentlemen, one of whom, Mr. Copeland, said:
The Prime Minister bought me a pint.Mr. Copeland is seen drinking a pint of beer, and the Prime Minister is drinking whisky. The report quotes Mr. Copeland as saying that he will vote for the Prime Minister.That was not the only incident. On 31st October, the Daily Mirror carried the following article, which it had extracted from the Daily Telegraph:
The procession weaved its way into the Amulree Hotel, where Colonel and Mrs. Archie Haddow had assembled the local gamekeepers and shepherds. They had all been given a drink. But they were too shy to ask the Prime Minister questions. He quickly sensed this and made a brief speech instead. 'That was just right. It was lovely,' said Mrs. Haddow.Cassandra added:It wasn't lovely, it was ruddy marvellous.I could weary the House with other examples, but I want to make two submissions. The first involves reading an extract from the Daily Telegraph, a responsible newspaper for which I have the greatest respect. Referring to this incident, it said:'Treating' is a corrupt practice under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. As such it could be the basis of a petition to unseat a successful candidate.The essence of the offence is that drink must have been given 'for the purpose of corruptly influencing' someone to vote or 403 refrain from voting, or 'on account of' someone being about to vote or refrain from voting. But it would have to be proved that the drink had been provided 'corruptly'.My submission is that there is no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister and his friends, in accordance with the feudal practices extant in Scotland, went about buying pints left, right and centre while they drank whisky themselves. I did not allege then, nor do I allege now, that this was a corrupt practice. This is just the way that the Prime Minister behaves.May I now turn to the hon. Member for Kidderminster?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid not. Nothing about him arises on the point of order. If the hon. Member is making a serious point of order, I shall of course, hear him, but I cannot have a discussion on the point that has been raised.
§ Mr. WiggMr. Speaker, this constituted a personal attack of the most vicious and unfair kind. I have no complaint about that. I came into the House at two o'clock and received a note, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster had alerted the whole of the Press and the Gallery. Look at the Gallery. Every Press man in the House is there.
§ Mr. SpeakerI should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for making himself audible to me now, so conveniently. I should much dislike to have missed it.
Being conscious of my duty to the House, I must now deal with this matter a little more formally. The position is that in the context in which the words were uttered I should have been bound yesterday, had I been able to hear them, to ask the hon. Member to withdraw them, which no doubt, would have given him an opportunity of explaining, but I cannot allow discussion on this to continue. I have no power to require their withdrawal now. The time is past and in the interests of the House we cannot continue this discussion.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two things quite clear. Had you asked me to withdraw this remark yesterday or 404 today I should have refused, and I should have put down a Motion of censure upon you for asking me.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would not have deterred me from doing what I thought to be my duty. What I conceive to be my duty now is to put an end to this, and to proceed. I have a statement to make to the House.
§ Mr. WiggI did not start this. The hon. Member for Kidderminster started it, but I am going to finish it.
The hon. Member prefaced his remarks today by saying that he gave me notice. Therefore, I surely have a right to draw the attention of my colleagues and the House to the amount of notice given to me. I received notice at two o'clock. The letter was written to me in personal terms, beginning "My Dear George". That term is reserved for my friends, and those whom I respect—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must warn the hon. Member that despite this ritual I have determined that we should go on.