HC Deb 02 May 1963 vol 676 cc1322-3
Mr. Speaker

Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) raised with me a complaint of a breach of Privilege founded on an article in the Daily Express of yesterday.

I have, naturally, given the most careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's complaint in the light of precedent and other guidance available to me. Having regard to the conclusion which I have reached, I do not think it is desirable that I should say anything about the article. The conclusion that I have reached is that the hon. Gentleman's complaint does not raise, prima facie, a case of breach of Privilege of this House.

As the House knows, what I now say has no effect at all in relation to an opportunity for the House to consider the matter, should it so desire, on an appropriate Motion. It merely means that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman's complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Bowles

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having considered that matter carefully, as I have no doubt that you have done. I must say that I am very surprised at your decision. But I can understand your natural sensitiveness, being so closely involved in this matter yourself.

May I refer you, Sir, to Erskine May, 16th Edition, page 124, where, under the heading "Reflections upon Members", it is stated: Analogous to molestation of Members on account of their behaviour in Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as Members. On 26th February, 1701, the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish any libels reflecting upon any member of the House for or relating to his service therein, was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House. 'Written imputations, as affecting a Member of Parliament, may amount to breach of privilege, without, perhaps, being libels at common law' … but to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a Member must concern the character or conduct of the Member in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to show any sign of discourtesy. But I am sure that he will give me the credit of understanding that one of the books which I have looked at is the modern edition of Erskine May. My difficulty is this. The effect of my Ruling that there is no prima facie case of breach of Privilege means that I ought not to allow the matter to be discussed now.

Mr. Bowles

With great respect, Sir, surely, although perhaps the precedents are binding on you, there is no objection to the House setting another precedent——

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is great objection to discussing it now. I am not putting any difficulty in the way of the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to put down a Motion forthwith, the matter could be decided by the House, if that is desired. But I do not know of any principle on which I can allow—even with great respect to the hon. Member and his care about it—the matter to be discussed now.

Mr. Bowles

Then may I give notice that I shall put down a Motion?

Mr. Speaker

Yes.