PRIVILEGE

HC Deb 24 March 1965 vol 709 cc576-641

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I beg to move, That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Ashfield on 22nd February, 1965, regarding certain publications be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Sir, you will be aware, as will the House generally, that the Motion is not in the terms in which I had originally tabled it and thought to move it. I changed the form because it was brought to my attention that some right hon. and hon. Members thought that the terms of the Motion might seek to beg the question which the House was being called upon to decide. This was not my intention. What I had in mind was that one has no right to ask that a matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges unless what one complains of raises a prima facie case.

All I had in mind, in tabling the Motion in its original form, was to indicate what the prima facie case was. I quite recognise that, if exception is taken to it, the point can equally well, or probably better and more appropriately, be made during the course of the discussion. Therefore, I substituted for it the present Motion, which raises no issue at all, except the issue whether there is something here that the Committee of Privileges ought to be asked to investigate.

I want to begin by indicating the spirit in which the Motion is moved. We are all public figures. We are all, by reason of the very fact of our election here, in some sense representative of bodies, of constituents, and of opinion. It is inevitable and right that what we do and say in our capacity as Members of the House of Commons should be subject to review, subject to comment, subject to criticism. We have no right whatever to complain of that review, of that comment, of that criticism, even though the criticism be, as it very often is, ruthless and relentless.

All this, like the general question of free speech, is subject to conditions. The conditions of free speech are not modifications of it, or denigrations of it, or limitations of it. They are the conditions which are accepted as being vital if free speech is really to be free and not a mere mockery.

This is true not merely of the House of Commons, it is true of the freedom of the Press, it is true of the general freedom of speech. One of these conditions is that the comment shall be fair, and one of the conditions that it is fair shall be that it does not, except for very adequate reasons indeed, impugn the good faith, impugn the honour, or impugn the integrity of the person who has been attacked and criticised.

I quite accept that I am not entitled to ask the House to refer my hon. Friend's complaint to the Committee of Privilege unless it can be shown—only prima facie, we are not deciding the issue here—that prima facie there is an attack upon his honour, an attack upon his good faith and an attack upon his integrity. This I shall endeavour to do.

Again, before coming to the bones of the matter, I should like to make another preliminary comment. It is that we are all subject to the normal temptations of controversy. We are all convinced that our own party and our own group of political opinion is right and that every other group of political opinion is wrong. We all regard it as a duty to persuade people generally outside the House that our views are right and that other views are wrong, and accompanying that duty is the constant temptation to impugn the honour, good faith and integrity of hon. Members who disagree with us.

I recall too many speeches of that kind. One was made, a most unfortunate speech, on 6th March by—and I hope you will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I say it—the craven Leader of the Opposition. I use the word "craven" because it was his word, but I am sure that, on reflection, he would think that it was an unwise word to use. He is quite entitled to criticise the action of my hon. Friends and myself in putting down Motions critical perhaps of the Government, certainly of other countries, and of comments on international affairs which are fraught with the utmost peril, in certain circumstances, to the peace of the world. Let him attack us if he thinks we are wrong. He is entitled to attack us ruthlessly and relentlessly, but in advancing these propositions we are no more craven than he is in opposing them, and he does not do his case the slightest good by imputing motives, inadequacies or faults of charac- ter of that kind. It would be much stronger from his point of view if he attacked the arguments and left it at that, leaving people alone.

I am inviting the House not to say that my hon. Friend was right, that the charge is made out, or, even if the charge is made out that it was justified or not justified. I am only inviting the House to say that no fair-minded Member can read the matter complained of and not agree that on one interpretation it is capable of being such an attack as my hon. Friend complains of. If it is so capable it would follow inevitably, in accordance with the time-honoured practice of the House, that we should not try to debate it on the Floor of the House in the first instance, but that we should refer it to the Committee of Privilege and if, subsequently, we have to debate it, then debate it in the light of any report that the Committee may make. It seems to me that so far what I have said would not be regarded as seriously controversial in any quarter of the House.

Let us come to the complaint. It will he found in columns 42 to 44 of HANSARD of 22nd February. I do not propose to reread the whole of it. I propose to reread some of it and to intersperse a comment here and there as I do so. What is complained of is a passage in the Spectator of 19th February, 1965. The editor of the Spectator is the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I very greatly regret that he is not in his place. He must have known that the debate was to take place. He must have know that the complaint is, in part, a complaint about him, and I should have thought that he would have been better advised to come here and at least hear what was said about it, whether or not he replied to it.

There is just another point which, I think, it is fair to make in that connection. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West was for some years Leader of the House. As Leader of the House he accepted and discharged—and, certainly, I do not complain of the way he did it—the responsibility of looking after the rights of Members of the House on both sides. In this sense the Leader of the House is not a party figure. He is a party figure in many respects. I need not waste time by going into them, for they are clear to everybody, but in the matter of seeing that every Member of the House is reasonably protected in his legitimate activity as a Member of the House he is responsible for all Members and not merely from his party point of view.

If there is anything wrong with this article, if it offends against what is rightly said or may fairly be said with regard to the conduct of another Member, there is no hon. or right hon. Member who knows the circumstances, who knows what is right and wrong about it better than the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. Indeed, if he had been here and if he had said, "Whatever the words may appear to mean, I had no intention whatever of attacking the good faith, honour and integrity of the hon. Member for Ashfield", I think that many of us would have been inclined to accept that from him and feel that to be the end of the matter.

If the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "I do not like what he did, but, of course, he did it in all good faith, of course, he did it in all honour and, of course, his integrity was not in any way impugned by it, and I did not intend for a moment to suggest that it was", we need not have troubled the House any more. But he is not here to say it and there is no other hon. or right hon. Member who is entitled to say it for him.

The first part of the article said that, when my hon. Friend arrived in North Vietnam, he was met by the secretary-general of the Central Committee of the Vietnam Fatherland and other members of that body. No doubt, that is a mere question of fact and no comment need be made about it. We see what comments are made subsequently in the article, but, if it had stopped there, nobody would have complained.

The article goes on: For the next ten days they"— that means my hon. Friend and his wife— stayed at the Thong Nhat Hotel as guests of the Front. In the course of a television programme (Dateline, February 9), Mr. Warbey himself confirmed that his hotel expenses had been paid by the Vietnam Fatherland Front Again, that is a mere question of fact. My hon. Friend has always confirmed it and has said so. If the article had stopped there, if no adverse comment had been made upon it, it might not have been in the very best taste—that is a matter of opinion, as questions of taste always are—but it would not have raised any question of privilege.

Let us see what comments were attached to it, and whether directly or indirectly is not material provided that the comments were made with regard to the admitted fact that my hon. Friend's expenses were paid by the Fatherland Front. Now, the Vietnam Fatherland Front is a Communist 'front' organisation formed and financed by the Communist regime in North Vietnam, so that it is hard to understand how Mr. Warbey can reconcile his membership of the British Labour Party with his acceptance of the hospitality of such a body. There is the first faint—I admit faint—but quite real and significant accusation or suggestion of bad faith, that he ought not to have done it because he was a member of the Labour Party and that what he did was irreconcilable with being a member of the Labour Party and to that extent, therefore, was an act of disloyalty to the Labour Party.

There is no foundation for any such suggestion. If it were an act of bad faith in any way to be the guest of a Communist regime, or a Communist party behind a Communist regime, it would equally be so to be the guests, for instance, of a Nazi or a Fascist regime, yet hon. Members on both sides of the House, during the past 30 years, have done it and done it repeatedly. Many hon. and right hon. Members—I do not know whether any survive now, but at the time there were many—accepted invitations by Hitler and were Hitler's guests in inspecting the achievements of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939.

I am not suggesting that this was confined to one side of the House. It was not. It was done on both sides. The point that I make is that no one ever took any exception to it. Nobody ever said that a man's integrity was involved. Nobody ever said that, if a man accepted an invitation of that kind and then came back to the House and expressed opinions for or against the Nazi régime in Germany, his opinion was being improperly influenced by the hospitality which he had received. We never thought of making such an accusation, and, if we had made such an accusation, we should certainly have been subject to complaints of breach of privilege, for breach of privilege it would plainly have been.

But it is not only that. There is Italy, there is Spain, there is Egypt, the latter comparatively recent times. It seems to me that I ought to carry, and I expect that I shall carry, right hon. and hon. Members with me when I say that it is part of a Member's duty to find out for himself what is going on in respect of matters for which he accepts responsibility in the House as a Member. If the circumstances are such that he cannot do it without accepting hospitality, perhaps from people whose hospitality he would rather do without if he could, this is part of the game, part of the job, something which is inevitably involved.

I see sitting opposite an hon. Member who was in strong difference with his own party and his own Government at the time of Suez. He went out and accepted hospitality, as he was bound to do—he could not have collected his information otherwise—and came back with that information and gave it to the House. No one ever suggested that his integrity had been impeached or impaired by that. Of course not.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

indicated assent.

Mr. Silverman

It is part of the function of Members of Parliament, if they are discharging their duties with care and diligence, as we should all like to do, though, perhaps, we do not always succeed in doing it.

If people who do that, doing what they are not really entitled to do but what is, in a sense, their duty to do, cannot do it without having muck like this thrown at them, our capacity adequately to perform our duties, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, will be seriously impaired, and it is for this reason that I say that, if there is such a serious suggestion, even though it be no more than a suggestion, it is right and proper that the Committee of Privi- leges should inquire into it and report to the House on whether there has been a contempt of Parliament or not.

I am sorry to take a little longer than I intended, but I must deal with the matter adequately, though not for too long, I hope. I have dealt with the point about my hon. Friend's difficulty of reconciling membership of the British Labour Party with his acceptance of that hospitality. The article goes on: His trip appears more puzzling still in view of the fact that North Vietnam is at the present time directing and supplying armed aggression against a friendly state, South Vietnam"— South Vietnam, of course, is not a State, but I shall not pause to argue that— and is responsible for the killing of both South Vietnamese and Americans. Moreover, North Vietnam has repeatedly expressed its wholehearted support for Indonesian aggression against a Commonwealth country, Malaysia, in a war in which British soldiers are being killed. I do not for a moment say, though I do not share it, that this is not legitimate criticism. It may be legitimate criticism which my hon. Friend would, no doubt, be glad to have the opportunity of answering. It is only if this criticism appears to be founded upon an attack on his integrity that a question of privilege arises, and when we turn to the next column we see that this is clearly said: Mr. Warbey brought back to this country in his baggage a Vietnamese Communist propaganda film, part of which has already been shown on B.B.C. television. How terrible that is! He himself has not been idle since his arrival in London for he has published a long letter to The Times and two articles in The Guardian about Vietnam. In addition, he has appeared in three television programmes … and has spoken in sound broadcasts in the B.B.C. General Overseas Service. He is among the Labour M.P.s"— this is the final charge— who tabled a Motion in the House of Commons on 10th February to bring pressure on their leaders to change present British policy on Vietnam. This, of course, is perfectly true, and no complaint is made of it, and no complaint is made of criticism in relation to it, but when it is attached to statements that he went there and received hospitality, and that his receiving the hospitality is puzzling, and that it is not merely puzzling but is irreconcilable with his duties as a British Labour Member of Parliament, and that he brought in his luggage Vietnamese Communist propaganda, surely it is perfectly clear that the innuendo is that he would not, or may not have, done any of these things, or some of them, except because he had received that hospitality. It is not I who am connecting the hospitality with my hon. Friend's political activities as a Member of the House of Commons. It was the Spectator article which did that, and it is just that which forms the basis of the complaint.

My hon. Friend went on at the bottom of column 43 to say for himself what it was he objected to. I invite right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to say that he was perfectly right at any rate to the extent of raising a question which it would be proper for the Committee of Privileges to investigate.

I am quoting now from my hon. Friend's complaint: The passages which I complain of, by innuendo and insinuation and the false assotion of ideas, are likely to convey the impression, and appear intended to convey the impression, that because I have received hospitality from a foreign Government or political organisation, in the course of travelling abroad to obtain information for use in parliamentary debates I am not a witness of truth, but a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, cc. 43–44.] I would have invited the right hon. Member for Enfield, West to say whether this charge is one that he intended to make. I should have thought that it cannot be very difficult to deny that this was in his mind. If it was not in his mind, why the reference to who paid my hon. Friend's expenses? Why was it made at all? Why were all these comments and criticisms appended to the statement of fact that his expenses were paid unless it was to suggest that there was some kind of association between them, and if it was intended to suggest an association between them, then that is an attack on my hon. Friend and on every hon. Member whoever finds himself or has found himself in that position, and amounts to a contempt of the House.

The Committee of Privileges has recently reported to the House that it was a gross contempt of the House for an hon. Member to say that a group of undefined Members were half drunk. If it is a gross contempt to say that a group of unnamed Members were half drunk, it is difficult to see why it is not a breach of privilege to say that an hon. Member who is named is half corrupt. I see no escape from the proposition that it is something which ought to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, and if we hesitate to do it, and if we fight this on party lines, if we argue it as a party debate, if, in the end, we divide according to party differences, we shall ourselves be betraying the dignity and functions of the House of Commons.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral)

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) explained the reasons why he changed the terms of his Motion, and I think that we fully accept the validity of those reasons. We all listened to his speech with keen attention because he is a very experienced Parliamentarian. For all that, frankly, I do not think that his speech led to the conclusion that he desires, and it did not affect my view that this is a clear case and should be disposed of as quickly as possible by negativing the Motion.

I entirely agree that it is a House of Commons matter and not a party matter, and so far as we are concerned there is a genuinely free vote on the subject. In any advice that I may give to the House I speak in the interests of the House of Commons and not for a party or against an individual, although I have from time to time crossed swords dialectically with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).

I think that most of us are proud to be Members of the House, and that the longer one is in it the greater one's affection for it becomes. In spite of strenuous party differences, there is a sense of companionship and comradeship without which this place would not work. Notwithstanding that pride in our membership of this place, it would be a gross mistake for us to put our privileges too high.

We have certain rights of great antiquity—such as freedom of access, freedom of speech and freedom from arrest or molestation—but I think that we should very much beware of seeking to extend those privileges or to widen the interpretation of them. We should be particularly unwise to seek to extend them so as to curtail or prevent criticism or comment. I do not think that anything is more likely to affect for the worse the reputation and standing of the House than that sort of conduct on our part.

Sometimes—the hon. Member referred to one—there are imputations made against unnamed Members, general imputations, and the House is very sensitive about them because they smear the House as a whole and there is no other remedy easily pursuable than to raise such imputations as breaches of privilege. Even then, I think that Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the article in The Times in 1887 is still the established rule. The rule is that when imputations are made, in order to raise a case of privilege the imputations must refer to the actions of hon. Members in the discharge of their duties in the actual transaction of the business of the House. I think that by case law that has been widened to include behaviour within the precincts. That is why the drunkenness and bribery cases are covered by that Ruling.

But when we come to an alleged imputation against a particular named Member, I think that the rule should be just as strict, or possibly stricter, because the hon. Member has other remedies. If he thinks that his character has been impugned, he has remedies open to him at law. The personality of the hon. Member concerned is completely irrelevant. Whether his views are popular or not does not matter. Indeed, the fact that his view may be the view of a minority inclines me more to sympathise with him than the contrary. The character of the Member concerned, or the views that he takes, whether we sympathise with them or not, is not the material matter.

The point is whether there has been a contempt of the House. With respect, the Leader of the House indicated, when he said he would give time for the Motion, that the honour of the hon. Member had been impugned and, therefore, the Motion ought to be got rid of as quickly as possible. I do not think that that is the issue. I think that it is a question whether it is contempt of the House, whether the honour of the House is concerned in the matter. I think that that is the more correct view of privilege.

The law, and, I think, the practice was stated very clearly in a recent case which came before the Committee of Privilege in the last Parliament, and the fact that it was set out so clearly then is one of the reasons why I ask the House to dispose of this matter today. In paragraphs 7 and 8, the Committee of Privileges reported its unanimous finding: Your Committee recognise that it is the duty of the House to deal with such reflections upon Members as tend, or may tend, to undermine public respect for and confidence in the House itself as an institution. But they think that when the effect of particular imputations is under consideration, regard must be had to the importance of preserving freedom of speech in matters of political controversy and also, in cases of ambiguity, to the intention of the speaker. It seems to them particularly important that the law of Parliamentary privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside the House by Members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation. It has long been accepted that neither House of Parliament has any power to create new privileges. Your Committee believe that it would be contrary to the interest of the House and of the public to widen the interpretation of its privileges especially in matters affecting freedom of speech. Your Committee and the House are not concerned with setting standards for political controversy or for the propriety, accuracy or taste of speeches made on public platforms outside Parliament. They are concerned only with the protection of the reputation, the character and the good name of the House itself. It is in that respect only and for that limited purpose that they are concerned with imputations against the conduct of individual Members. That is a straightforward and clear statement of the law and practice in these matters. That is why I suggest that the House should deal with this case at once and negative the Motion.

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I think that it is in accordance with tradition and practice that my right hon. Friend should not take part in the debate or in the vote. I understand from him—and he has authorised me to say so—that he accepts full editorial responsibility for the passage complained of, although he did not write it himself. It was written by Mr. P. J. Honey, lecturer in Vietnamese at the School of Oriental Studies, London University, and one of the leading authorities on Vietnam in this country.

It is fair to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend had to say in the following issue of The Spectator: If I may follow Voltaire, I detest Mr. Warbey's opinions, but I would defend to the death his right to express them.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

That passage was, of course, published after my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) had made his complaint to the House. Would it not have been very much better if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West had been here to say it in the House today?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I think that it is more in accordance with traditional practice for my right hon. Friend to absent himself from the proceedings.

I do not think that anyone has disputed the accuracy of the facts stated. They depend upon a clear statement by the hon. Member for Ashfield himself. His frankness does him credit in what he said about the circumstances under which he went to North Vietnam. My point is that the practice of hon. Members travelling abroad at the expense of other Governments or other bodies or other individuals has been commented on many times before. This is not a new business.

I have been looking through some records and have read statements. Indeed, I have here an article which the Prime Minister himself wrote in 1961, with regard to "Voice and Vision". He suggested that it was very sinister indeed that hon. Members should go to Rhodesia under the auspices of "Voice and Vision", said to be acting on behalf of Sir Roy Welensky's Administration. The right hon. Gentleman said that the sponsorship of conducted tours by selected Members of Parliament was to be deprecated. He was very censorious about it and made reference to …similar activities on behalf of certain overseas arms interests…". That was a sinister suggestion to make, but no one suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should go to the Clock Tower for it.

In May, 1961, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) said in a letter in the Sunday Telegraph: As someone who has travelled fairly extensively in recent years since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion, after experience, that it is usually better not to do so on sponsored trips rather than face invidious difficulties. The present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), stated in the same issue of the Sunday Telegraph: A few months ago I went on a 'Voice and Vision' tour. I visited all three territories in the Central African Federation and took part in 35 meetings with various groups that included Sir Roy Welensky, Sir Edgar Whitehead, Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and others.^* The trip did not make me a colonial expert but it enabled me to speak and vote in the House of Commons on some of the problems facing the Federation with more knowledge than I could have gained in London. There have been articles and discussions on this issue again and again. Views have been put forward one way or another. The most recent letter on the matter which I have seen was from Mr. Percy Collick, who was then the hon. Member for Birkenhead. He wrote to The Guardian on 22nd July last: Comments made by a group of Members of Parliament on their return from Vienna are reported, including the statement that the visit was organised by the Roads Campaign Council. Is it not time that Members of Parliament refused to allow themselves to take on foreign trips organised by such bodies as that named which exist to serve their own vested interests? These accusations have been bandied back and forth. I have sympathy with those who go on these tours. It is not possible for the Government—and I held this view when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer—to produce funds for travel on the scale that hon. Members want. One must trust hon. Members to retain their integrity, but it is a matter for legitimate comment—and legitimate comment has been made on it over the years.

Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central)

In so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from articles, it is not clear to me, as I have not read them recently, whether the quotations are truly analogous. It appears, however, that none of them makes a specific reference to an hon. Member such as that complained of by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and that, therefore, the analogy is not a fair one to argue. It would help if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more specific in his quotations from articles.

^* Note: For correction, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965, col. 750.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

The matter under discussion is that the judgment and opinions of a Member of Parliament might be affected by the person who gives hospitality to him. That is the theme running through all these articles and discussions. I think that the worst insinuation was the one made by the Prime Minister when he talked about "sinister arms interests". That is the most sinister insinuation in all these leaders, letters and articles that I have seen about his subject.

My point is that this has been a matter of public controversy throughout the years. Allegations have been made backward and forward and I take the same view as the hon. Member for Greenwich—that, by this kind of foreign tour, hon. Members are enabled to get experience they would not otherwise get and that one must rely upon them to maintain their integrity.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that The Times itself, in a leading article, suggested that the practice of hon. Members going overseas at the expense of other organisations or Governments might lead to corruption?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

And no one really suggested that the editor of The Times should go the Clock Tower because of that.

To magnify this sort of thing into a deliberate and unequivocal direct attack upon hon. Members' good faith, integrity and loyalty is really to do no service to Parliament. If the article in the Spectator is defamatory, the hon. Member for Ashfield has his remedy. I do not think that it is a matter for the House.

Mr. William Warbey (Ashfield)

rose—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I must be allowed to make my speech.

Mr. Warbey

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the courtesy to give way?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I have given way about four times already.

Mr. Warbey

I do not wish to intervene in the debate at any length, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or another hon. Member, makes statements which are inaccurate or misleading to the House, I reserve the right to intervene. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice said that I have a remedy in this case in the law courts outside.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Warbey

He has suggested that I have.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Warbey

The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly suggested that in this case I, as an individual being attacked, have a remedy in the law courts outside. I want to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that I took advice on this point and was very firmly advised that, because of the wording of the matter complained of, and because of the possible defence that no malice was intended, it would be extremely difficult indeed to make any case at all which would be acceptable in the courts.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman really must—

Mr. Sydney Silverman

On a point of order. So that we shall not be misled into paths which are nothing to do with this matter, would you not say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it was right to say that the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield is being made in court now, the High Court of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)

That is a point of argument and not of order.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I have tried to be scrupulously fair to the hon. Member for Ashfield. What I said was that if it was defamatory—I do not suspect that he would very much value my opinion as a lawyer, and an opinion given free is worth exactly what is paid for it, but I do not think that it is defamatory—the hon. Gentleman has the right of action in the courts to defend his honour.

If one goes into public life, surely it is inevitable that, whatever one's profession, whatever one's occupation, whatever one's interests, whatever one's hobbies, someone will say that one is biased by reason thereof in this issue or that. It is foolish to be too sensitive.

The argument is put forward that this was a visit in the discharge of parliamentary duties in order to equip the hon. Member better to play his part in the House. That appears in column 44 of the HANSARD of the day on which he made his complaint. Where does one draw the line? If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House goes on holiday, I suppose that he goes to recover from the strain of leading the House and to recruit his energy better to lead the House of Commons. If a Member goes to the theatre, it can be said that he does so to broaden his mind in order to be a better Member of the House of Commons, etc., etc. The decision of 1887 is very good guidance to the House, both as to general imputations and particular ones.

The kernel of my opposition to the Motion is that if it were to be passed, whatever happened subsequently, it would be regarded as an attempt by Parliament to interfere with freedom of comment in the Press, on the television or radio, on the public platform wherever it might be, to interfere with freedom of comment on the actions of Members of Parliament who, by seeking and accepting membership of this place, have laid themselves open to comment, to criticism, to ridicule, to satire; in good or bad taste, ruthless or relentless, it matters not.

By coming here, hon. Members open themselves to comment of that sort, but, in fact, this is the kind of comment upon which the free functioning of a democracy completely depends. I ask the House to negative the Motion.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) invited the House to throw out the Motion, saying that if it were passed it would injure the rights of free speech and free discussion in the country. I propose to say something further on that very important aspect of the matter in a moment, but, first, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others to reflect that if the Motion is passed the consequences which he has described will not necessarily occur. If the Motion is passed, the decision as to whether a breach of privilege has been committed by the Spectator will still not be determined. That will be determined by the Committee of Privileges itself.

Therefore, on this occasion the House is not being invited to pass a final judgment on the article in the Spectator, or the other articles of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) is complaining. What the House is invited to do by the Motion is to accept that the position may be on all fours with the many other references which have been made to the Committee of Privileges, some of which have been accepted as breaches of privilege and some of which have been determined not to be. The consequences to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman appealed in order to deter Members from voting for the Motion do not apply.

However, on the general matter, all of us, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and myself and many others, have exactly the feelings which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described about the dangers of invoking privilege in improper cases. There are many instances in Parliamentary history when privilege has been used not to defend but to injure freedom, and throughout most of the eighteenth century privilege was invoked by the House of Commons in a manner which interfered with the right of free debate and free discussion throughout the country at large. Certainly, in approaching all questions of privilege we should be extremely reluctant about resorting to this weapon at all.

I do not think that there is any difference between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who are equally concerned to protect the area of free debate and the right to print in the country, and I have a vested interest in the matter—I declare my interest. I would be quite happy—I would not shed too many tears—if privilege were wiped. out altogether, if the whole idea were abolished. We might gain more on the swings than we would lose on the roundabouts, and we might gain more in Fleet Street than we would lose in the House of Commons, so I could bear it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced that proposition in his flights of enthusiasm for freedom this afternoon, I would have been happy to support him.

However, if we are to abolish privilege, let us not do it selectively. Let us wipe it out for the whole lot. Do not let us have one day when we are told that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), who was recently before the Committee of Privileges, has committed the most heinous offence which could be denounced and, on the following day, throw out a complaint against a member of the Front Bench, a complaint of a character which I would have thought on any grounds and on any estimation was more serious than the complaint against my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.

Do not let us have one complaint accepted and the other thrown out. That would be most unfair. That would be merely applying selective discrimination which would be a greater interference with freedom. [An HON. MEMBER: "Mr. Speaker decides whether it is prima facie."] We do not always have to agree with Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members should get out of the habit of believing that Mr. Speaker is infallible, or that even that Mr. Deputy-Speaker is infallible. The House of Commons has rights over its Speaker. I am sure that all too often hon. Members are inclined to think that they have to accept everything that he says. All he does is to give a preliminary view. He says that he thinks there is a prima facie case. However, I can say to your face, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Speakers often make mistakes in these matters and that some of us try to put them on the right lines when they have gone astray.

In a sense, that is what we are trying to do today, although Mr. Speaker himself never said, and went out of his way to emphasise, that he was not saying that the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was not a breach of privilege. He merely exercised the restricting duties which are conferred on him as Speaker in this respect.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Mr. Speaker says whether there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Foot

My hon. Friend supports my by saying that Mr. Speaker, on all such occasions, says whether there is a prima facie case; and the House has the remedy if it thinks that the matter should be referred to the Committee.

Let me deal with another point which seemed to be a main part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He referred to this invidious question of the forms of hospitality which it is proper for hon. Members to accept when they travel abroad, or elsewhere, for that matter. Although I do not often agree with The Times, I think that there is something in the argument which it used. The whole question of the facilities which hon. Members have when they travel abroad or the auspices under which they travel can give rise to great difficulties. In my opinion, there should be a special provision whereby the House of Commons paid for all these matters so that all these invidious difficulties never arose. If we are to apply a new rule in this matter, we cannot do it selectively; we must do it all round.

If we had a system under which every hon. Member, whenever he travelled abroad, had to make it clear and public who was paying his expenses, it might be a very interesting innovation. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite would be as eager that that should happen as we on this side would be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are extremely awkward and delicate questions involved. Speaking personally—I do not make any virtue of it—I have never had any expenses paid by any foreign Power in the whole period that I have been a Member of Parliament. It may be because I have not received any invitations; and I am not asking for invitations.

It would, however, be better if we could have a system whereby Members of Parliament, when they travelled to foreign countries, were able to recoupe their expenses out of a general pool. That would avoid all these difficulties. But, unfortunately, that system does not yet prevail, and until it prevails it is unavoidable that some hon. or right hon. Members, when they travel to other parts of the world, will have to accept hospitality from foreign Governments or foreign organisations.

Mr. William Yates

Neither the House of Commons nor the taxpayer would pay into this fund if, as happened during last year, we had only two foreign affairs debates a year. In this Session we have not yet had a foreign affairs debate.

Mr. Foot

I have sympathy with the hon. Member's point, despite its total irrelevance to what we are discussing.

There are much more recent examples of invitations which have been accepted from foreign countries and the payments which have been made than those in the list which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House in the past three or four weeks have been to East Germany to participate in the Leipzig Fair. Their expenses will have been paid by a Communist Government. Nobody, as far as I know, has suggested that the activities of any of those hon. Members were injuriously affected by this having occurred.

But, in the case of the Spectator article, exactly that charge on exactly those grounds is made against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. So it causes a slight difference in the case. Therefore, when an accusation is made that, because of the acceptance of hospitality from a foreign Government or foreign organisation, a Member of Parliament impairs his right to act as a Member in this House, it is a serious accusation, whatever remedy people may say it is right to take about it. The accusation contained in the article is a serious one, and I do not see how anybody honestly reading it can doubt that a grave charge was made against my hon. Friend and that a grave charge was intended. Because a grave charge was made, and intended, it does not necessarily mean, on the previous argument which I and others have stated, that resort to the Committee of Privileges is the right way to deal with it. There are other ways of dealing with it, and let us see what they are.

There is the remedy of resort to the courts. If it were true that the statement made in the Spectator was defamatory of my hon. Friend, almost certainly the charge is a breach of privilege. We may dislike the broad nature of the question of privilege, but almost certainly that would be the case.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

Prima facie not.

Mr. Foot

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Prima facie not ". But if the statement was in law defamatory of my hon. Friend so that he might have been able to recover considerable damages—it is extremely likely; I have not said that it is certain—it would constitute a breach of privilege.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Surely it depends entirely whether it comes within the 1887 Ruling.

Mr. Foot

The 1887 Ruling was about transactions in the House.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

In this exchange it is being forgotten that part of the charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was his signing a Motion which appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. It was an attack on what he did in a proceeding of Parliament.

Mr. Foot

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has taken the words out of my mouth and made them more concise and elegant in the process.

I should have thought that certainly the matter would come within the ambit of privilege on those grounds, but if, in addition, it was shown in the courts that this accusation were defamatory, I should have thought that almost certainly it came within the ambit of privilege.

But there was another remedy open to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Write an article in Tribune.

Mr. Foot

We have been glad on many occasions to have had articles from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, and I hope that we will have many more.

I think that there is a great deal to be said for this argument. Here was an argumentative attack on my hon. Friend in the Spectator. It may be said by hon. Members, "If there is an attack, the hon. Gentleman should not be too thin skinned about it. Instead of resorting to privilege, why did he not just write an answer himself? Why did he not take the matter up with the editor of the Spectator and say, 'May I send a reply'? Or why did he not make a general statement saying, 'This is my general reply'?" I see that I carry some hon. Members opposite with me. They think that this would have been a better way of dealing with the matter. That would have avoided, perhaps, any reference to the question of privilege.

But that is exactly the course which my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field took. He did not buy the Spectator that Thursday. He first heard about the matter when many other newspapers rang him up and said, "What do you say about all these charges made against you in the Spectator?" He said, "I have not read them yet. I will look at them and tell you what I think". Several other people rang him up. Let it be noted that the journalists from the other newspapers who rang him up so swiftly thought that the article constituted a fierce attack on him. That is why they asked for a reply. They said, "What comments have you to make?"

Therefore, my hon. Friend issued a reply which he sent to the Exchange Telegraph on the Friday morning following the publication of the Spectator. That was within a few hours of the Spectator being published and of my hon. Friend being rung up by several newspapers. My hon. Friend issued a reply to Exchange Telegraph. He has shown me the reply, in which he replied In strong terms, as he had every right to do, to the attack which had been made upon him. It may very well have been that if that reply had been published by Exchange Telegraph the matter might have been settled there and then—

Mr. Sydney Silverman

And in the Spectator.

Mr. Foot

—and if the reply could have been published later by the Spectator, too.

What happened was that Exchange Telegraph, which had circulated on its files and its lines the attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield in the Spectator, did not circulate the reply which my hon. Friend sent. He had given it to the people who had circulated the attack upon him, as he was entitled to do.

My hon. Friend did not, therefore, rush to the House of Commons for protection in privilege. He sought to reply to what he regarded, and what many others might regard, as an attempt of character assassination against him by the editor of the Spectator. He sought to reply to the arguments and to get them published.

The reply was not published, partly because of the brilliant state of our libel laws, which the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral is so eager to defend, because the Exchange Telegraph said, "We are not sure whether we can publish attacks upon the editor of the Spectator like that". Those may not be the exact words, but that was the meaning. Here was my hon. Friend, having been attacked in the Spectator in this manner, attempting to reply by issuing his reply to the Press, but finding that his reply was completely suppressed.

But that is not all that happened. During the next two or three days, in my hon. Friend's constituency, many other papers, including the Daily Telegraph, which he cited to the House and many other people were obviously seeking to stir up the issue. My hon. Friend then decided that he should come to the House of Commons and ask whether the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I say this in response and in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, who said that my hon. Friend had other remedies. My hon. Friend sought to use the other remedies to issue a reply, but he did not succeed in getting anything published on that basis. [Interruption.] By the time that Tribune was published, which was the following week, the matter had been raised here. If they had the idea that my hon. Friend should have left the matter for a week when these attacks were continuing to be made upon him and when he found that what he attempted to circulate on a general Press distribution line was not circulated, hon. Members are not looking at the facts properly.

These facts that I have recited briefly are not by any means the full story. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield asked for was the right to be able to state these facts, which he knows in detail much better than anybody else, before the Committee of Privileges. He was asking that that Committee should be able to judge what had happened and whether he had behaved correctly in the matter. That is what would have occurred if the Motion had been accepted originally and it is what will occur if today's Motion is accepted.

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

Will the hon. Member say whether his hon. Friend, in addition to circulating his reply to Exchange Telegraph, also sent it to the Daily Worker the very next day?

Mr. Foot

That is the kind of smear we are trying to deal with in this debate. [Interruption.] The intervention was not made for the purpose of elucidating the facts. It was made for the purpose of injuring my hon. Friend's character. That was its purpose. The hon. Member should have the courtesy to withdraw.

Mr. Warbey

May I elucidate the facts on this one point? The interview with me which appeared in the Daily Worker was totally different from the statement to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has referred. [Laughter.]

Mr. Foot

I do not know what hon. Members find so extremely comic about it. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was asking the House to do, following the circumstances which I have indicated, and what he was asking the Committee of Privileges should do, was to examine all the facts and that the Committee of Privileges could examine all the facts it wanted. That appeal has so far been denied to my hon. Friend. If today's Motion were to be rejected, that right would be denied to him again. It would be a gross injustice to my hon. Friend if that right were to be denied.

Hon. Members affect to think that this may be a comic issue. Some of them have talked as if no very serious charge was contained in the article and that the matter could be swept aside easily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne suggests, there are bound to be two or more opinions about what the article is intended to say. Reading the article myself, I cannot see any other purpose in it except to make an accusation of corruption or half-corruption against my hon. Friend. That is the purpose of it. The purpose of it is to suggest in some way or other that my hon. Friend's views are such that he is not serving the interest that he purports to serve and that the fact that he took money from a foreign organisation affects this situation. That is what the article says.

Of course the article does not say it outright. That is one of the dirty things about it. Had the article said, "I accuse the hon. Member for Ashfield of being a mere traitor, or being a partisan of subversive activities", to use the delicate phrase of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that would have been at least a little more courageous. The meaning, however, would have been the same.

In my opinion, everyone in the House understands the aim of the article. It was to smear my hon. Friend, but to smear him in such a way as would not involve the Spectator in difficulty in the courts and so that the Spectator could wriggle round any question of privilege. That was why it was done. That is not a very commendable process.

We are a bit fed up with smears of this kind. We had one the other day from the Leader of the Opposition—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has referred to it—who said that those of us on this side who put down Motions about Vietnam constitute the craven core of the Labour Party. Another smear is in attempting to say that those of us who hold certain views on this subject are in some ways cowardly. Of course, those who say these things do not say them in the open. They dare not use the word that way. They try to get round it to make the smear.

I am very glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone present, because he, in his little way, is probably the greatest master of the smear since McCarthy. We have already had reference to the breach of privilege case of the right hon. and learned Member a few months ago. It is relevant to what we are discussing now. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to it, although he did not refer to it completely. I do not blame him for that. He was trying to illustrate his own point. I will illustrate mine.

What happened in that case was something very similar. The right hon. and learned Member made a speech in the country in which he sought to suggest that several members of the Labour Party were partisans of subversive activities. The actual words were quoted in the Report of the Committee of Privileges: No honest person since we came into power can accuse us of pursuing a reactionary or illiberal policy. Nevertheless, our elbows have been jarred in almost every part of the world by individual Labour members' partisanship of subversive activities. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, most of us, though not all, assumed that he was referring to some Members of the House of Commons, amongst others. I certainly did when I read the speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who raised the matter as a question of privilege, thought that, too. I do not know which hon. Members the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind. Maybe he had in mind my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, or perhaps myself, as one who had over the years been engaged in showing partisanship of subversive activities in other parts of the world. It was a very bold utterance. it was a very audacious attack by the right lion. and learned Gentleman on his opponents, accusing them of having been partisans of subversive activity in Cyprus, Kenya, and other places which he specified, and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges.

What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do when he got to the Committee of Privileges? He ran away as fast as his two legs would carry him. He would not stand by the charge. He got up in the Committee and swore on his heart, if that is what they do there—

Mr. Hogg

I never went to the Committee of Privileges at all. I wrote to the Committee, at its request. I said that what I had said was intended as a legitimate exercise of my right of free speech, and that I adhered to what I said. I said This was intended to include a number of acts of partisanship by a number of individual members of the Labour Party who were, or who have since become, or who have been throughout, members of the House of Commons, and thus of the Parliamentary Labour Party. But my reference was not confined to these. In other words, I repeated what I had said, and I was found not guilty.

Mr. Foot

I must correct—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—what I said in one minor and quite subordinate aspect. It is true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not get to the Committee of Privileges, because it did not want to hear him, but it did accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite will get their answer much quicker if they listen to what I have to say. There is no question of an apology, as I shall show.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to the Committee of Privileges. I withdraw the statement that he appeared there, but it does not alter the fact that his letter to the Committee of Privileges constituted an abandonment of what he had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his interpretation of what the Committee said. Perhaps I might refer to the Committee's Report. In paragraph 9 the Committee said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not guilty because he had abandoned his charge.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, having said boldly that the elbows of Her Majesty's Government had been jogged all over the world by the partisanship of subversive activities by members of the Labour Party, then told us, much to the amazement of everybody, that he was referring not to Members of the House of Commons. but to members of the Willesden League of Youth as having jogged the elbows of the Government all over the world.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had written to the Committee of Privileges and said, "I am making this charge of partisanship of subversive activities against Members of the House of Commons" he would not have got away with it.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what I said. I said that the words were intended to include a number of acts of partisanship by a number of individual members of the Labour Party who were, or have since become, or who have been throughout, members of the House of Commons, and thus of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I said that to the Committee of Privileges, and I was found not guilty.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Foot

There is nothing to withdraw at all.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am afraid that we are drifting into discussing the wrong case. Perhaps the hon. Member will come back to the Motion.

Mr. Foot

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that I am entitled to quote what was said by the Committee of Privileges on the point which is before us at the moment.

The facts are that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made an accusation which, in the minds of most people, embraced Members of the House directly, but when he appeared, or when he presented his case in writing, to the Committee of Privileges, the charge was very much diminished, and this is borne out by paragraph 9 of the Report, which says: The Lord President, in his memorandum, assured your Committee that he did not intend to refer to the Parliamentary Labour Party as such; that he was not referring to activities of any Members of Parliament within the Palace of Westminster or in their capacity as Members of Parliament; and that the phrase he had used was 'partisanship of subversive activities', by which he did not intend to convey that any Labour Member had himself engaged in any subversive activities. That is the interpretation which the Committee of Privileges placed on the apologia which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made to it, and I say that what he was doing on that occasion—and he knows it—was engaging in the kind of grave smear which we expect from many right hon. Gentleman opposite. They are not prepared to make an open accusation, because it is conceivable that they might be had up in the courts, or that the Committee of Privileges will come down against them. Instead. they seek to advance their case by the forms of disreputable innuendo employed by the right hon. and learned Member, and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). That is how they have sought to conduct this argument.

I think that it would he better for the House of Commons, and better for public debate, if, on these matters, hon. Gentlemen opposite would make their charges openly. Let them pluck up their courage and say what they think openly. If they want to accuse us of being partisans of subversive activity, let them not say that they are referring to some unspecified people outside the House of Commons. We are here. They can name us. Let them make the charges.

Mr. Hogg

They were made.

Mr. Foot

They were not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ran away from any accusations against hon. Members of the House.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman must not say the contrary of what took place. I said that I did accuse people who had been, and who had been throughout, Members of this House as partisans of subversive activity. I did not run away from it at all. I offered to the Committee to say exactly what I meant. The Committee said that it did not want to know what I meant. It accepted what I said very quickly.

Mr. Foot

I have read to the House the verdict of the Committee of Privileges on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case. I do not think that it bears out what he says. If he is telling us the truth, and if, indeed, he meant to accuse only those people whom he informed the Committee of Privileges he intended to accuse, his charge was hardly worth making.

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Is it not possible to get to the meat of the charge made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have already suggested that to the two participants in the last half hour's debate.

Mr. Foot

I was illustrating the fact—and I think it is quite proper to do so—that it is not only the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, but other hon. Members opposite, including the Leader of the Conservative Party, who have sought to deal with this question other than in the open manner of making accusations against people by name, which accusations could be tested. They do not seek to argue in that fashion, or to conduct a debate in that fashion. They prefer to make general charges or sneers against individual Members which they hope cannot be tested.

I do not believe that the Committee of Privileges is the best place to settle these problems. As I said at the beginning, if the House were generally agreeable I would be prepared to wipe away a great deal of these privileges. It would be a good thing to do. But in the meantime the House must decide, on this Motion, whether it will allow the system of privileges to be used in a selective manner, and whether it wishes to invoke the Committee of Privileges to deal with matters such as that which arose in connection with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—as hon. Members opposite were so quick to do.

I notice that no hon. Members opposite rose to protest on behalf of free speech on that occasion, but here, in a matter which is clearly of a more serious character, they say that they are in favour of free speech. If they are in favour of free speech, let them in future speak a little more openly.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and 'Woodbridge)

Will the hon. Member tell the House which Members were specified by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). He has an obligation to do that now, to complete his argument.

Mr. Foot

If I had been in the same position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, as I have indicated elsewhere, I might have put the whole thing in a proper perspective and in a much milder manner by saying that certain specified hon. Members opposite were half sober. If I had said that, apparently it would not have been a breach of privilege. If it is said the other way round it is, and the whole panoply of the Committee of Privileges is invoked in order to bash my hon. Friend on the head. He wrote a dignified letter to the Committee, which parried the blow considerably.

Sir Herbert Butcher (Holland with Boston)

Does the hon. Member recollect that the decision to refer the matter of the breach of privilege on the part of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) was moved by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Foot

There is a general convention—it does not always apply—that when Mr. Speaker rules that there is a prima facie case the Leader of the House moves that it be sent to the Committee of Privileges. In my opinion, that case was a completely trivial one and could have been disposed of with much less paraphernalia. This is much more serious, and it would make nonsense of any system of privileges if, the case concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley having been sent to the Committee of Privileges, this case were to be excluded.

I suggest that after the discussion that has taken place and after the complete failure of the Spectator or anyone else to justify the accusations made against my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field, the only decent course, in order to provide justice for my hon. Friend, is for this Motion to be passed. If at a later stage, hon. Members opposite who hate privileges so much will come forward with a Motion to change its nature, they will get my enthusiastic support. But they will not get any enthusiastic support from me for an idea that there should be a selective system of privilege, which can be used to injure some hon. Members while allowing others to go scot free. Let us have the system applied faithfully and in the same manner for all hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they sit.

The passing of this Motion will not settle or resolve the matter. All it will do is to enable my hon. Friend to put his case in detail before a respected Committee of this House. That Committee will then be able to make up its mind and report back to the House, and the House can then judge on the facts which are not in its full possession at present. If hon. Members opposite vote against a Motion like this, in these circumstances, they are voting to inflict a grievous injustice on an hon. Member of the House. I hope that no hon. Member wishes to do that.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour (Norfolk, Central)

This Motion is partly to do with the question of declaration of interest, and I have one to declare in that I am the controlling shareholder of the Spectator.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has made a long, rambling, inaccurate, ill-informed and irrelevant speech. I propose not to follow it, but to return to the Motion. The article in the Spectator was written—as my right hon. and learned Friend has said—by a lecturer in Vietnamese at the School of Oriental Studies in London. He is one of the few men in England or America who speaks Vietnamese, and he is probably the greatest expert on that subject in Britain or America.

The man referred to in the Daily Telegraph report, Mr. Brian Crozier, has been Reuter's correspondent in Saigon and Foreign Editor of the Economist—so he, also, very much knows what he is talking about.

When he first raised this matter the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) complained that the articles contained innuendo, insinuation and the false association of ideas. But these articles were almost entirely factual. There were two half comments and one comment in them, otherwise they were entirely factual, and related to the public activities of the hon. Member.

None of these facts has been challenged. Exactly the same situation applies in connection with the article in the Daily Telegraph. It would be a remarkable thing if to tell the truth about the political activities of an hon. Member were to be a breach of privilege. The Spectator article also included a quotation from what the hon. Member had said in Hanoi. This quotation has been challenged in no way. It is entirely accurate, and was not taken out of context.

Mr. Warbey

I said earlier that I did not wish to intervene in this debate except to correct inaccurate statements. I have in my file—which I wish to present to the Committee of Privileges; this is one reason why I want the matter to go to that Committee—the text of an article which I dictated to my wife in Hanoi, which she typed in Hanoi, and which I sent to the editor of the offending newspaper for publication before I left Hanoi. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw that additional charge against me and that, moreover, he and the House will now recognise that this is a matter which can properly be investigated only by the Committee of Privileges, and not fully answered and dealt with in the course of a debate of two or three hours.

Mr. Gilmour

The hon. Member quoted from the Spectator article at great length when he put down his Motion. It is a little unfortunate that he should not have quoted the one bit that he now says is inaccurate. Why did he leave that bit out?

Mr. Warbey

I am sorry, but the hon. Member has still not got it right. I did not say that that bit was inaccurate. The bit which is quoted from the Hanoi newspaper is not inaccurate except that it is inaccurately translated, as I discovered when I was there. What is inaccurate is the suggestion that I did not protest against the publication of this article. On the contrary, I protested most vigorously and, as I have said, I wrote an article in reply and sent it to the newspaper while I was in Hanoi.

Mr. Gilmour

I did not say that it was inaccurate. The Spectator quote was from a radio broadcast in Hanoi and not an interview with a newspaper, so I do not know what the hon. Member is worrying about.

If the hon. Gentleman does not like having his political and public activities narrated and reported with complete accuracy, and his words quoted, he should alter the nature of his activities, and not try to prevent descriptions of them appearing in the public Press or elsewhere. If the mere recounting of facts about the hon. Gentleman's politics is damaging, he would surely do better to alter his politics than to try to stamp out discussion of them. He and his hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and for Ebbw Vale have set themselves up as inverted Voltaires. Their attitude is, "I detest what you say, and I shall do everything in my power to stop you saying it".

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I beg the hon. Gentleman, whose speeches are usually listened to with respect and attention even on this side of the House, to try to realise what is the complaint that is being made. The complaint is not a recitation of the facts, but the imputation of a lack of integrity, an attack on his honour, and an innuendo that my hon. Friend was acting as the paid spokesman of a foreign inimical Power. That is the complaint.

Mr. Gilmour

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been a little less impatient he would have saved time, because that is the point I was coming to.

When the hon. Member first raised this matter in the House he made two broad complaints. He said that the articles were reflections upon my loyalty to my parliamentary oath and the political party which promoted my election to Parliament"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 44.] The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that there had been a character assassination by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). In fact, what the Spectator said was a mild stricture indeed compared with what was said in 1948. If what was said in the Spectator was a character assassination all I can say is that the hon. Member's character has been dead since 1948. The Labour M.P.s who signed the Nenni telegram wanted to sabotage the foreign policy of the Government they were returned to support. They wanted to see Italy go the way of Roumania and Czechoslovakia. It has been obvious for some time that there were Members—not very many—whose whole attitude seemed to be far more consistent with membership of the Communist party than with loyal adherence to the Labour Patty. You will seek in vain for any condemnation of the destruct on of democracy in other countries. For them everything that the Communists do Is right … That was said at Plymouth on 1st May, 1948, by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee. It is particularly relevant because, of course, the hon. Member for Ashfield, who was then the hon. Member for Luton, was a prominent signatory of the Nenni telegram. Other signatories of the original Motion who also signed the Nenni telegram were the hon. Members for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) and, of course, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. If the Spectator reflected upon the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman, how much greater reflection was cast by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee—

Mr. Sydney Silverman

rose—

Mr. Gilmour

Let me finish, I wanted to finish my sentence.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

The hon. Gentleman is surely not saying that every time an hon. Member of this House differs from the leaders of his party he is thereby committing an act of disloyalty? If he is saying that, there is no hon. Member who has not at some time done it. The point is that no one then suggested, and no one has suggested since, that there was any element of corruption in what we did. That is what is being suggested now, and that is a wholly different matter.

Mr. Gilmour

The hon. Gentleman really should liaise better with the hon. Member for Ashfield, who talked about his loyalty having been impugned. I do not think that that interruption was relevant. The fact is that no one tried to bring Lord Attlee before the Committee of Privileges.

The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is not present in the Chamber, was even more outspoken. Speaking at Glasgow the day after Lord Attlee, he said: These so-called rebels, these so-called revolutionaries, these wretched renegades, are destroying the working class. No one on this side of the House would go so far as that.

The second point raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield, when he first made his complaint, was that the articles conveyed the impression that because I have received hospitality from a foreign Government or political organisation in the course of travelling abroad to obtain information for use in parliamentary debates I am not a witness of truth, but a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February. 1965; Vol. 707, c. 43–44.] What he has not pointed out—and nor has any other hon. Member opposite—is that the foreign organisation in question has nothing to do with Spain, Hitler or Mussolini. It is at present waging war against a friendly State and is killing South Vietnamese and Americans, which makes it a little different. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to accept hospitality from such people must be a fit subject for comment.

If the hon. Gentleman resents publication of the fact that he has been a guest of the Fatherland Front, he should choose his hosts more carefully. If he is not ashamed of being the guest of these people he should not resent publication of the facts. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), in an excellent article in the Daily Express on 10th March, said that hon. Members going abroad should declare their interest. He may be right or he may not. The Spectator declare the hon. Member for Ashfield's interest for him.

Travelling abroad at the expense of foreign Governments has been the subject of a great deal of comment on both sides of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend made one or two quotations. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's complaint I relied on the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, a former Leader of the Labour Party and a Prime Minister. On the second point we are discussing I rely on the present Leader of the Labour Party and the present Prime Minister. He has been quite explicit on this point. He said: The activities of Voice and Vision on behalf of Sir Roy Welensky's administration —and particularly their sponsorship of conducted tours by selected M.P.s—have been strongly condemned inside and outside Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that these sort of people should deploy their arguments in the full light of day, in the public Press, through full-time Embassy or company spokesmen or, in the case of Portugal, at the United Nations, not by under-cover and surreptitious pressure on M.P.s or Congressmen. If the Prime Minister was so worried about the activities of Voice and Vision and by what he called the "under-cover and surreptitious pressure on M.P.s" he must have welcomed these articles very much, because they brought them into what he called the "full light of day".

Like Lord Attlee, the Prime Minister went a good deal further than either the Spectator or the Daily Telegraph has ever done. In this debate I am, for once, very happy to find myself ranged solidly behind Lord Attlee and the Prime Minister, which is a good deal more than can be said for the hon. Member for Ashfield, or the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, either in 1948, or today.

Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham)

Has the Spectator ever criticised anybody who has gone to the United States to be brainwashed by the Americans?

Mr. Gilmour

I should not think so. I do not know anybody who has been to the United States and been brainwashed.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

Who is your Leader?

Mr. Gilmour

Mr. Speaker has already ruled that these articles do not prima facie raise a breach of privilege, and, in my submission, they are not within a moon flight of a breach of privilege.

There are two gloomy paradoxes about privilege which have been made clear this afternoon. One is that one of the great privileges of Parliament is to preserve freedom of speech, yet these days privilege more often tends to have the effect of curbing freedom of speech. The second is that the function of privilege is to maintain public respect for Parliament, yet a constant preoccupation with privilege does more than anything else to lower the reputation of Parliament in the eyes of the public.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said the other day that the Committee of Privileges was a quasi-judicial body. With all respect to the very distinguished membership of that body, it is very quasi indeed, because of its procedure. It sits in private, it is the judge in its own cause and those who appear before it are not allowed legal representation. This means that its procedure is contrary to the rules of natural justice and contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights, which might be a trifle embarrassing if the Committee ever seriously tried to punish somebody who was not a Member of the House. But of course, because of its procedure, it never could try to punish anyone in this way, because there would be public uproar. It has a sanction which it cannot use.

When I was editor of the Spectator I was continually coming up against possible breaches of privilege, as all political journalists do, and I remember being advised by one of my hon. and learned Friends that if I were found guilty I should decline to apologise and come along here with my suitcase, ready and willing to go to the Clock Tower, or to Newgate. One of these days, somebody will do that, and then the House will be in a most awkward position. Its bluff will have been called. Surely, before that happens—I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on this—the House would be wise to have a look at the whole question of its privileges—

Mr. Woodburn

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting that the Committee of Privileges has any power to send anyone to the Tower? This is quite wrong.

Mr. Gilmour

I did not say the Tower. I said the Clock Tower.

Mr. Woodburn

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. All that the Committee of Privileges can do is recommend to the House its finding on any subject.

Mr. Gilmour

I take the point, but what I was saying was that my hon. and learned Friend suggested that I should come along here, and that it would be done on the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges.

I think that the House would be wise to have a look at this. There is no other free Parliament in Western Europe or the United States which feels it necessary to protect itself in this way. In these countries, either there is no specific offence of privilege or cases of privilege are tried by judges. The House handed over its jurisdiction over disputed elections in 1868, and I think that, sooner or later, it should do the same with privilege. It seems to me, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that it would be utterly wrong to extend the frontiers of privilege. Since this matter deals with Vietnam, one might say that the frontiers of privilege should not be infiltrated by parliamentary guerillas. Parliament exists to protect freedom of speech, not to intimidate it.

I shall not vote this evening, because I have an interest, but it seems to me that nobody can support this Motion without saying that Lord Attlee committed a breach of privilege in 1948 and that the present Prime Minister did the same in 1963.

5.44 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot)

I propose to make only a brief intervention in the debate. There will, of course, be a free vote, and the Motion does not involve in any way the fate of the Government. Nevertheless, it was thought proper on this occasion for one of the Law Officers to be present to advise the House. Since the Motion is for a reference to the Committee of Privileges and my right hon. and learned Fiend the Attorney-General is a member of that Committee, it appeared more proper that I should intervene on this occasion.

As the House knows, a Law Officer is a hybrid animal. He is both a politician and a legal adviser. In the former capacity, he takes his full share in the political controversy of the day, but in the latter, he must advise either the Government or, it may be—as on this occasion—the House, on the law, without regard to the political consequences. In the few minutes during which I propose to address the House, I shall attempt, in succession, to sustain both rôles.

Speaking first as a politician, I would say that I have not always agreed on issues of foreign policy with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). Nevertheless, I have sympathy with him on this occasion. He has been subjected in the Press to a violent attack. It seemed to me, when I read it, that the innuendo in the Spectator article was tolerably clear. Any reader might have drawn the inference—and I think that readers were intended to draw the inference—that my hon. Friend had been influenced in his public conduct by the hospitality which he received in North Vietnam. That is an imputation which any hon. Member is entitled to resent, especially as, in the case of my hon. Friend, he was denied, by another organ of the Press, a suitable opportunity to reply.

Of course, it may be argued that it is unwise for hon. Members to accept the hospitality of foreign Governments or of foreign political organisations associated with Governments. That is a matter which every hon. Member has to decide for himself, but, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), it is a situation which has frequently arisen in the past.

Like my hon. Friend, I sat in the House during the 1930s and I remember at least two occasions then when this question of foreign hospitality arose. Every year for several years, in the summer, I received an invitation to spend part of the Summer Recess in Hungary. The invitation came from a leading Budapest newspaper closely associated with the Hungarian Government. I was asked to pay my own fare to and from the Hungarian frontier and thereafter, for about three weeks, to be the guest of the newspaper and to be taken all over Hungary. I was unable to accept that invitation, but there were other hon. Members who did. They came back having not only enjoyed themselves but having been made fully aware of the views of the Hungarian Government on the question of the revision of the treaty of Trianon. Nobody suggested that they had compromised their political integrity.

I recall another occasion, which I think was the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne had in mind. It was in the days of Nazi Germany. An invitation was received by the Parliamentary Road Group which was a group of members belonging to the party opposite. The invitation was to inspect the autobahn, which were at that time the principal exhibit of the Hitler régime. Their host was Herr Fritz Todt, the German Inspector of Roads. The invitation was accepted and eight members of the party opposite went to Germany, obviously as the guests of a governmental organisation. This, I repeat, was in 1937. It is only fair to say—

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

To be accurate, that Parliamentary Road Group was formed by members on both sides of the House. If I remember correctly, on that occasion there were a number of members of the Labour Party.

The Solicitor-General

I was just coming to that. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept from me that I was going to say that, although the group was a group of the party opposite, they were joined on that occasion by members of the other two parties, but that group was taken to the major German cities, and, as a sort of climax to the tour, they went to the annual rally of the Nazi Party at Berchtesgaden, and listened to speeches by Hitler and Mussolini. Again, nobody suggested, whether it was wise or not, that their integrity was compromised.

Of course, there are other and more recent examples. We have been reminded that only a year or two ago, in the last days of the Central African Federation, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—I am not distinguishing for this purpose—were invited to visit Central Africa by an organisation which was sponsored by the Central African Government. In a number of cases these invitations were accepted, and some of the hon. Members who went afterwards took part in our debates on Central Africa.

I would agree that any Member who accepts the hospitality of a foreign government or a foreign political organisation may find himself in a position of some delicacy, because he may find it necessary thereafter to disappoint his hosts by taking a line in public controversy of which they would not approve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not, indeed? It is a matter, I suppose, for each individual Member to decide in the circumstances of a particular case when it is desirable and when it is proper to accept hospitality of this kind. But, as I have tried to make it clear, it has frequently been accepted in the past by Members of every political party without the suggestion ever being made, as it was clearly made in the Spectator article, that the Members concerned are thereby influenced in their political judgment. That is why I say that I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, and I understand entirely his feelings about the attack which has been made upon him.

I come to the question of privilege. This is where I have to appear in my other capacity, which is simply to advise the House regarding the law, because, of course, the law and custom of Parliament are only part of the law of the land. I listened with a good deal of interest to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) about Parliamentary privilege. I respectfully agree with what the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central said—that it would be a good thing if at some time in the not-so-distant future we were to look again at the boundaries of privilege. When speaking from the other side of the House I have myself expressed the view that privilege ought to be confined within the narrowest possible limits.

But the Motion here, with which I have to deal, is simply whether we should refer this complaint to the Committee of Privileges. Here I entirely agree with the test which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. We must satisfy ourselves before we pass this Motion that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt of the House. It is rather a fine distinction, and for this purpose a distinction which does not matter. In a sense, on such an occasion we act as did the Grand Jury in years gone by. We do not ourselves reach a decision. We merely decided whether there is a case proper to go for frial.

May I remind the House for a moment what privilege is about? It is in order that the House may transact its business and in order that we may perform our functions as Members of Parliament. For those purposes we are given certain special immunities, protections and powers. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central said, they are wholly exceptional powers. We are immune from any kind of prosecution or civil process in respect of words which are spoken in the House. We must not be impeded in any way either in coming here or in the discharge of our duty when we are here. And both Houses have the power to punish by reprimand, by admonishment or by imprisonment those who offend against their privileges or who are in contempt of the House. But, as hon. Members from both sides of the House have observed, the jurisdiction which is given to us is one which we must exercise with the very greatest care. It is something, as we have been reminded, which is unique in our law, because each House, is, in effect, judged in its own cause. Against our decision, whatever it may be, there is no appeal. Moreover, it is well established, and the House has always accepted, that we cannot and must not attempt to add to our privileges. Therefore we must be exceedingly careful in any particular case that we do not, in effect, create a new offence.

That, as I must advise the House, is the danger here. I have very carefully studied the precedents and I have done so, as I have said, with every possible sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. But, even so, I am afraid that I must advise the House that in my view—of course, the House is not bound to accept my view—this does not and cannot amount either to a breach of privilege or to a contempt. Of course, there have been occasions in the past when an attack made upon hon. Members in the Press or in some public speech or by whatever medium has been treated as a contempt of the House and the offender has been dealt with accordingly. There has been a number of occasions when those who were not Members of the House—sometimes newspaper editors, and others—have been summoned to the Bar and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, or earlier in Parliamentary history they were not infrequently committed to Newgate. On each occasion when this has happened—I am dealing with the scandalising of Members of Parliament—the imputation complained of has been in relation to something which has been done or omitted to be done in or in the precincts of the House itself, and it is that distinction which I feel bound to make on the present occasion.

The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) referred to the precedent of 1887. He did not remind the House what it was. I think that it might assist the House if I were to cite the matter of the complaint on that occasion. It was on 22nd February, 1887, and the complaint was raised by Sir Wilfrid Lawson. He complained of a leading article in The Times newspaper with reference to the Irish Members of this House. This was the passage of which he complained: History will record with amazement that these men, whose political existence depends upon an organised system of midnight murder, and who draw at once their living and their notoriety from the steady perpetration of crimes for which civilisation decrees the gallows, are permitted to sit in the British House of Commons. This was, not unnaturally, regarded as a grave reflection upon the group of Members concerned, and in making a statement to your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir Wilfred Lawson said: Now, Sir, I think that is a reflection upon this House—namely, that we permit an organised band of murderers to sit with us in this House, and that organised band of murderers are the very men who, as essential to the Constitution, a large Party on the other side of the House have declared must remain at Westminster. I wish to ask whether I shall be in Order in moving a Resolution in reference to this extraordinary statement as a question of Privilege? Mr. Speaker gave this ruling, which is germane to the matter which we have to consider today: My attention has been called only a short time ago to the article to which the hon. Baronet refers; but, however grave the charges and imputations made in that article may be, I do not think it is a case of Privilege. It has been the practice in this House to restrain privilege under great limitations and conditions; and these restrictions and limitations have been, in my opinion, very wisely imposed by the House upon itself. The Rule is that, when imputations are made, in order to raise a case of Privilege the imputation must refer to the action of hon. Members in the discharge of their duties in the actual transaction of the Business of this House; and though I quite understand the hon. Baronet having brought this matter to my notice, I cannot rule that this is a case of Privilege. Of course, if hon. Members think themselves aggrieved, they have a remedy; and they will not be precluded from pursuing their remedy elsewhere than in this House". There, I suppose, it was difficult to imagine a graver imputation on a body of hon. Members, but since it referred to something which was done quite outside the House Mr. Speaker held that there was no breach of privilege and no contempt.

The same reasoning is to be found in the Report of the Committee of Privileges in the case concerning the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). It has already been quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and, therefore, I will only invite the attention of the House to one passage. In paragraph 5 of the Report, when various precedents which were collected by the Clerk of the House were referred to, it was stated: In every case, however, the imputation was expressly directed to the conduct of a Member or Members either in the transaction of the service or business of the House or within its precincts.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Is my hon. and learned Friend not overlooking the fact that one important element in the article complained of is precisely the charge that in acting as an hon. Member of the House of Commons and signing a Motion on its Order Paper he was the paid spokesman of a foreign Government? I quite accept everything my hon. and learned Friend has been saying, and of course there can be no privilege unless the matter complained of affects the conduct of an hon. Member as an hon. Member, either in his activities as an hon. Member or in the precincts of the House. However, what I cannot follow is how he comes to hold that this matter now complained of is not a complaint of my hon. Friend's action as an hon. Member of the House of Commons, since it plainly is.

The Solicitor-General

I assure my hon. Friend that I had not overlooked that point. I was coming to it. But before doing so I will make one other reference, since both my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale referred to the contrast between this case and the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), who was recently censured by the Committee of Privileges.

I take it that on that occasion the Committee of Privileges was applying precisely the test which I am now putting to the House. If it is said that there is a group of hon. Members who, in a debate, were half drunk or half sober, whichever way the matter is put, that is clearly an imputation on hon. Members regarding something which happens within the House. It is, therefore, a reflection upon Parliament. But if the imputation refers to what I might call the extramural activities of hon. Members, then that falls within an entirely different category.

I assure hon. Members that, of course, I have considered this very anxiously indeed. As I say, I have to advise the House—without taking advice from anybody myself—and I did consider very carefully whether the one sentence to which he refers was sufficient to take the case, so to speak, across the line.

One must look at the matter of the complaint as a whole. What was said in the first place was that my hon. Friend and his wife had been guests at a certain hotel of the Vietnam Fatherland Front. Then there was a reference to articles which they had brought back—a propaganda film which had been brought back —to his letters in the Press and appearances in television programmes and sound broadcasts. There followed this sentence: He is among the Labour M.P.s who tabled a motion in the House of Commons on February 10 to bring pressure on their leaders to change present British policy on Vietnam." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 43.] I make two observations about that. In the first place, the complaint is not confined to that particular passage. The complaint of my hon. Friend was in reference to all these matters and he was suggesting that it was imputed to him that, in respect of all these matters, he was acting corruptly because of the hospitality which he had received in North Vietnam. In the second place, the reference here is not only to himself but to "Labour M.P.s". There is no imputation against a group of hon. Members. It is merely stated that he was one of a group against whom, as I say, no imputation was made.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I am trying to follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument and at the moment I am not following it. Suppose a charge is made against an hon. Member that his signing a Motion was brought about by his acceptance of a bribe? What would it matter that other hon. Members had signed the Motion without a bribe and what would it matter that the bribe was given to him outside the House instead of inside it?

The Solicitor-General

It would matter in this respect. Having consulted carefully the precedents I have found a number of precedents where it has been held that there was a breach of privilege or contempt where a group of hon. Members were impugned. I have not found a single precedent where only the conduct of one hon. Member was impugned. I do not know whether there is any imputation contained in this sentence. The complaint was not directed to the conduct of a group of hon. Members but at what was said of the general conduct, not only in this House but elsewhere, of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. It is into all those matters that the Committee of Privileges is being asked to inquire.

Mr. Warbey

On this point of whether the complaint concerned only myself or other hon. Members, my hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind that I did also raise and quote in the House a passage from the Daily Telegraph which quite clearly extended the charges to others of my hon. Friends. This appears in column 43 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 22nd February.

The Solicitor-General

The passage which is complained of in the Daily Telegraph is this: Privilege ' Issue in B.B.C. Dispute Mr. William Warbey, Labour M.P. for Ashfield, Nottingham, refused to comment last night on a controversy over a radio programme on Vietnam as it was 'connected with a subject which might be raised today as a matter of Parliamentary privilege.' 'Mr. Crozier said yesterday: I was not surprised when I heard that Mr. Warbey would not appear with me in view of what happened in a Dateline programme the previous night. when I asked him who had paid his hotel bill at Hanoi. He said it was the Vietnam Fatherland Front. This is a Communist organisation. Several M.P.s have been their guest in the past. I accept the view that the programme the B.B.C. put on was not unfair, but the fact is that two experts on Vietnam were kept out because of Mr. Warbey's objections.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 43.] I cannot, I am afraid, on that passage classify the other hon. Members there referred to with my hon. Friend, because there is no suggestion that the public conduct of other hon. Members has in any way been influenced by the fact that they have been to North Vietnam, so I am afraid that I cannot bring them into the same group.

All hon. Members who take part in political activities outside the House expose themselves to attack. We address public meetings, lead processions, sometimes join in protest demonstrations, write in the Press and we televise and broadcast. When we engage in these extramural activities we are, I suggest, in precisely the same position no better, no worse—than any other member of the public and it would be entirely wrong—

Mr. William Yates

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further, could he answer this question? When I am speaking in my constituency is that extramural studying? I should be glad to know because the hon. and learned Gentleman made an interesting observation.

The Solicitor-General

The answer is "Yes". The answer is that we are protected here in respect of the words spoken in the House, because we could not otherwise carry on Parliamentary debate. But if the hon. Gentleman were to claim some special privilege or protection in respect of words spoken in his constituency the claim would not get him very far.

As I say, it is wrong that we should claim the protection of privilege in respect of anything done outside this House. Therefore, after a great deal of consideration, and not in any way having overlooked the point that has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, I must advise the House that there is not here a prima facie case to go to the Committee of Privileges. That being so, I cannot advise the House to accept the Motion.

Perhaps I may be allowed to add this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said that he did not feel that reference to a Committee of Privileges was necessarily the best way of testing a complaint of this kind. I respectfully agree with him. The position of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield is that he has had very serious charges laid against him in the Press, he has not had an opportunity of replying, and he, very naturally and properly, wants this matter to be fully investigated.

My answer to that is that that is not the business of the Committee of Privileges. The task for the Committee of Privileges is not to investigate the truth or falsehood of allegations which may be made against a particular hon. Member or group of hon. Members but simply to advise this House as to whether, in the Committee's view, there has been a breach of privilege or a contempt. Therefore, even if this matter were to go to the Committee of Privileges there could not be the kind of investigation that my hon. Friend desires. For the reasons I have given, I do not think that there is here a prima facie case and, therefore —although I say it to my hon. Friend with very deep reluctance—I have to advise that this Motion should not be supported.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

Before I address myself to the terms of the Motion, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would not think it improper of me if I tendered to him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, our deep sympathy in the family bereavement which we were very sorry to see reported in the Press, and for which we offer him our heart-felt condolence.

I hope that the House is now in a position to accept the advice given by the Solicitor-General in what, I submit, was a really conclusive argument. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) conceded that we could not refer this complaint to the Committee of Privileges unless we thought that there was a prima facie case to refer. Surely, that must be right. The position is that Mr. Speaker ruled that in this case there was no prima facie case to refer.

Of course, as we have been reminded, we are not bound, on a substantive Motion, by the opinion of Mr. Speaker, but, of course, even on a substantive Motion, we treat the opinion of Mr. Speaker with a good deal of respect. One would need, I think, to be convinced that there was something rather obviously wrong with it before one took the serious step of referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges, over-ruling his Ruling, which is what I think we are being asked to do—

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the word "over-ruling". If this Motion of mine were carried we would not be over-ruling the Speaker at all. All that the Speaker decided was that the complaint was not one to which he could give precedence over the order of business for that day. That is all he decided, and no one is seeking to overrule that.

Mr. Hogg

On the contrary, the basis of Mr. Speaker's Ruling in all these cases is whether or not there is a prima facie case. If there is a prima facie case, he is bound to give it precedence over the business of the day and, if there is not, he declines to do so. I say that with great respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who moved the Motion in terms of great moderation. But I was replying to an argument put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), in which he said that he was differing in this case from Mr. Speaker —as he is fully entitled to do on a substantive Motion.

Then the Solicitor-General, who is one of the two Law Officers who are the legal advisers to the House, advises the House himself on the Motion, and he comes to the same conclusion that there is not a prima facie case. Again, of course, we are not bound by the opinion of the learned Solicitor-General, but, again, we are surely right in saying that on matters of this kind we treat the opinions of the law officers—given as they are, as we know, impartially, and not as partisans but as legal advisers to the House—with very great respect indeed. Although we can dissent from them if we wish, surely the House would be making a great mistake if, without very strong reasons to the contrary, it overruled, if that is a word that does not cause offence, the opinion of the Solicitor-General to the effect that there was no prima facie case.

But it does not really stop there. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne frankly based his case, when he argued its merits, on the doctrine that this particular article was not fair comment. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey)—to whom I say, in passing, that I desire to say nothing that could possibly give him offence and whose sincerity I do not wish to impugn in any way at all—whose conduct in the matter has been one of commendable and complete candour, said that he had been advised—we know not by whom, but no doubt by competent legal advisers—that he would fail in any action in the courts on the precise ground that he would be unable to establish malice. That means, as every lawyer in the House will know, one thing and one thing only; that he was advised in terms that the defence of fair comment would there succeed.

We are not bound by the legal advisers of the hon. Member for Ashfield, but we have Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the original complaint, we have heard the advice of the Solicitor-General in this debate, we have heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield himself the reason why he did not issue a writ for libel, and for some reason I should have thought that the House would be really well-advised to accept this complete unanimity of opinion—

Mr. Warbey

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not mislead the House, though he has himself been well-advised. He knows very well that an action in the courts would be an action in order to obtain personal damages. That is totally different from the procedure in this House in order to maintain the reputation of the House itself and of its Members in the eyes of the public, and to enable its Members to exercise their rights of free speech within this House without intimidation from outside.

Mr. Hogg

I intended to base a very great part of my argument on that precise difference. All I was seeking to do at the moment was to point out that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, in moving the Motion, expressly based his case on the charge that this was not fair comment, and, by his candid intervention, the hon. Member for Ashfield has, with commendable candour, disclosed what could only be a clear indication that that view did not coincide with that of his own legal advisers—

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I dare say the fault was entirely mine, and I want to explain it. When I used the expression "fair comment", I was not using it as a term of art as applied in libel actions in the courts. What I meant was that it was not the kind of comment that the House of Commons ought to accept with regard to the actions of a Member of Parliament. I am sorry that I used the expression "fair comment", because I agree that it is misleading and ambiguous. I therefore hope that the House will indulge me in giving this explanation.

Mr. Hogg

Naturally, I would accept the explanation of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in its entirety. But this puts him in an even worse position dialectically, because the fact of the matter is—the learned Solicitor-General has referred in part to the precedent—that the House of Commons in dealing with matters of privilege and contempt does not, in fact, punish with censure or with other punishment for privilege and contempt all the things which would be defamatory in the courts. Therefore, the situation is a fortiori to that with which I was dealing, on a misunderstanding of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it was a genuine misunderstanding.

In the Report from the Committee of Privileges to which attention has already been drawn this passage appears, which I commend to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, because this disposes of the complaint in this case: The Clerk of the House referred Your Committee to a line of cases in which the House has considered treating imputations upon Members or some one or more of them as a contempt of the House itself. In every case, however, the imputation was expressly directed to the conduct of a Member or Members either in the transaction of the service or business of the House or within its precincts. So we have, not only Mr. Speaker's Ruling, by which we are not bound; not only the opinion of the learned Solicitor-General, by which we are not bound, in the same sense; not only the advice of the legal advisers of the hon. Member for Ashfield, by which, again, we are not bound; but also the recent precedent of the Report from the Committee of Privileges, which was a unanimous Report and which Committee consisted of some of the most respected and distinguished Members of the House. It is worth while remembering that the decision of the Committee of Privileges was expressly accepted by the House.

Lest there should be any doubt about this, I point out that the Committee said this a little later in its Report: It seems to them"— that is, to the Committee— particularly important that the law of parliamentary privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be evoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside the House by Members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation. Coupled with the first quotation which I have made, the clear conclusion of the Committee of Privileges, whether upon precedent or upon common sense—in this I submit that commonsense is at least as good a guide as precedent—was that this kind of thing is not a breach of privilege or contempt; that the procedure by way of privilege or contempt is not a substitute for an action for libel or slander in the courts, to which every citizen, including the hon. Member for Ashfield, is entitled to resort if he thinks that a charge of a serious kind has been made against him; and that it should not be used in this way.

The Report from the Committee of Privileges, accepted by the House, contained these words also: Your Committee and the House … are concerned only with the protection of the reputation, the character and the good name of the House itself. It is in that respect only and for that limited purpose that they are concerned with imputations against the conduct of individual Members. Let me say again that I do not make the smallest imputation whatever against the sincerity in all his actions of the hon. Member for Ashfield. I think that he has been very misguided in a number of- things he has done, but that is not surprising, since we stand about on the opposite poles of political opinion. I have never made any attack upon his integrity, and I do not make it now. However, to treat this article as an attack, not upon the hon. Gentleman, but upon the dignity and honour of the House, would be a frontal attack upon the whole tradition of free speech and free expression of opinion, upon which the whole basis of the honour and dignity of the House has been founded.

I sincerely hope that no serious attention will be paid by the House to the argument of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, which seemed to me to go a great deal further than that of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne conceded quite frankly, and I think wholly properly, that we should not pass the Motion, unless we think that there is a prima facie case. In one passage of his speech the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seemed to take another and, to my mind, a much more mischievous and irresponsible view. His view appeared to be, "Nothing much is decided if we refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, because no decision has been taken. The Committee will have to advise the House, and the House will ultimately have to come to a conclusion. Therefore, we can safely go ahead with this Motion".

Mr. Sydney Silverman

What is the difference?

Mr. Hogg

I think that there is this clear and absolute difference. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne frankly and properly conceded that we should not do this thing, unless there is a prima facie case, as the learned Solicitor-General agreed. In one passage at least of his speech the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seemed, at least to me and to some of us on this side of the House, to be inciting us to do it because it was not a final conclusion. They are very different things.

If we started referring things in respect of which there was not a prima facie case, great damage would be done to the dignity of the House, which is not enhanced by using the procedure of contempt or breach of privilege to protect individual Members from Press criticism. It would do a very great inconvenience to the very distinguished members of the Committee of Privilege, who include the Leader of the House and many leading Members on both sides. It would do an injustice to those who are charged.

May I say this, in passing? It must be remembered that this is a penal prosecution which is proposed. It is a prosecution which can result in pains and penalties. In extreme cases it can result in people being sent to prison. We should not altogether forget the position of those who are charged with a breach of privilege—the editor, I suppose, of the Daily Telegraph; the editor, I suppose, of the Spectator; perhaps the printers, for aught I know; the author of the article, and numbers of other people. Injustice is done to those who are put to the expense, worry and trouble of defending themselves on a criminal charge when there is no real substance in the allegation; when Mr. Speaker has ruled that there is no prima facie case; when the Solicitor-General has advised that there is no prima facie case; when the Ruling of Mr. Speaker in 1887, repeatedly accepted by the House, concludes the matter against the hon. Gentleman; and when the unanimous Report from the Committee of Privileges only a year ago, accepted without a Division in the House, equally concludes the matter against the hon. Gentleman.

I accept that this article was intended to criticise the actions of the hon. Member for Ashfield. Of course it was. Today, we are not determining one way or another the validity of those criticisms. We are determining whether a writer in the newspapers is entitled to make them at all. I do not myself think that anybody reading the articles would put the precise meaning upon them attributed to them by the hon. Member for Ashfield, that he was speaking as a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 44.] I do not think that the author of the article meant it. I do not think that any reasonable person would so understand it. I do not mean it. I do not think it, and I do not think that anybody else thinks it of him either. The point is, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said in the earlier speech he made and which seemed to me to be very much to the point, there is no doubt either that this is a question, as I think the Solicitor-General reminded us, which in one form or another has very often been the subject of Press comment and criticisms.

It does not affect only one side of the House. I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to visits to the Middle East or the dictatorship countries. We know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House habitually visit behind the Iron Curtain and it may be, for aught I know, very difficult indeed not to accept Government hospitality when in these strange parts one happens to want to travel.

One recent case was when Sir Roy Welensky's Government provided through a public relations firm for a visit to parts of Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), on that occasion, was only one of a number of people who criticised those who participated in that Government's hospitality, and that Government and the public relations firm for offering it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral quoted one remark made publicly by the hon. Member for Pembroke. I would quote another even more definitive. The hon. Member said: The plain fact is that it is extremely difficult for Members of Parliament to accept invitations from foreign Governments or from public relations organisations working for them without being compromised. That is the plain fact. The test of these matters in each case must be, as the Solicitor-General has told us, our individual consciences. We can accept hospitality without compromising our integrity.

I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. Member for Ashfield compromised his integrity by accepting the hospitality of Hanoi. I have known the hon. Member for 20 years as a Member of the House and outside the House. He has made his general sympathies in politics so well-known that no one would for a moment suggest that he was moved further to the Left as a result of having booked a room in one of the North Vietnamese hotels. But it is open to those who do not agree with his conduct to make the kind of observation which was made in the Press about him. The hon. Member does lay himself open to criticism, right or wrong, by accepting hospitality from those who attack this country verbally, support our enemies, make war on our allies, and subvert freedom in neighbouring territories. He no doubt acted with sincerity. He is on the other side to me in this matter.

Mr. Warbey

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he began with great sincerity and with the obvious intention of being fair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—is now including in his speech matter which really confirms one of the reasons why I brought this matter before the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—namely, that the publication of this material in the Spectator, the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers in the country would have the effect of creating certain prejudices in the minds of my colleagues so that when I came to speak about these matters in the House they would not then take a fair and unprejudiced view of what I was saying to the House.

Mr. Hogg

I do not think that there is anything at all in what I said to give rise to that comment. I said at the beginning, and I say now, that I do not willingly mean to say anything which could possibly give cause for offence of any kind to the hon. Member. But whatever else I was saying I was certainly not saying, and I here quote from the hon. Member, the thing that he was complaining of on 22nd February, because what he was then complaining of was that the article meant that he was a "bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation".

The whole basis of my argument was that nobody thinks that, nobody has said it, and certainly I do not mean it. But what I was saying at the same time was that if the hon. Member goes to Vietnam, which nobody in the House asks him to do, and he comes back with a propaganda film for the Communists in his luggage and disseminates it here, and if he goes on the wireless, whether the B.B.C. or the commercial network, and propagates the views of the North Vietnam Government, he must expect to come in for criticism.

Mr. Warbey

On a point of order. I distinctly heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, "If he goes on television and propagates the views of North Vietnam Government". This is precisely the thing about which my hon. Friends and I are complaining, namely, the insinuation that in speaking, whether in this House or outside, I am propagating the views of the Government from whom I received hospitality.

This is precisely our complaint and precisely the reason why we regard it as essential that this whole matter should be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, with all the evidence on one side and the other which can only be properly considered by that Committee and the Committee, having examined the evidence and heard the various persons in their own defence, should make their report to the House.

Hon. Members

Speech.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said, "On a point of order." I do not think that this gives rise to a point of order, but it tends to define the issue.

Mr. Warbey

I will correct that, Mr. Speaker, to "on a point of intervention".

Mr. Hogg

I can only say again that I was in no way intending to give personal offence to the hon. Member. But if he prefers me to say that he promulgates views which happen to coincide exactly with those of the Vietnam Government I will willingly substitute that phrase if it will cause him consolation. I only say that if he does it he lays himself open to criticism and his intervention demonstrates his extreme touchiness in this matter.

Mr. William Yates

When we go to the Yemen or other countries and we come back and give our opinions here we must not be so touchy about the matter. We must stand up and argue the thing out. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) getting so worried about the matter.

Mr. Hogg

So am I, but I do not want to detain the House any longer and will conclude by saying that the whole of the arguments based on precedents and law have again and again been demonstrated to throw this Motion out of court, and all the arguments of common sense go in the same direction. I venture to say that if we were to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges we would be doing a real disservice to the dignity and honour of the House and we would be making a frontal attack on the tradition of free speech, for which I am sure both hon. Members opposite and we on this side of the House are unitedly determined to stand.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

If I intervene at this stage, it is simply that I have sat throughout the debate and I have put my name to the Motion. We have heard the opinions of two learned Members, my hon. and learned Friend the Solcitor-General and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to the effect that, on the face of it, there is no breach of privilege here, but, as they both concede, it is, in the end, a matter for the House to decide. I regret that the debate has, from time to time, taken party lines. I regard it as entirely a House of Commons matter. I have put my name to the Motion not because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) as he well knows, in the special views which he holds about the situation in South-East Asia. I have differed very much from my hon. Friend on foreign affairs from time to time, but I have put my name to the Motion because I sincerely believe that he has been badly treated.

As I see it, the issue is the right of a Member of the House to express minority views and, I take it, somewhat unpopular views without his loyalty to his country, to our democratic system and to his party being called into question. There have been references to the policies being pursued by the Government of North Vietnam. It is as well to remember that this Government, much as I, like others, dislike its policies, is not a Government with which we are at war, or, for that matter, one with which the United States, our ally, is officially at war. North Vietnam is a country with which we maintain correct and so-called normal relations, as I understand it. Therefore, it seems to me that it is very hard on my hon. Friend, and it does much harm to his reputation as a Member of the House, that he is accused in this way of disloyalty simply because he visited that country.

I agree with those who say that there could be two opinions about whether the article questions my hon. Friend's loyalty, but, when I read it, I certainly thought that it did, and I thought that it was the intention of the writer of the article to question my hon. Friend's loyalty to his country and to his Party. I believe that most people would take the same view.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

My hon. Friend means the Spectator article?

Mr. Palmer

Yes, the Spectator article.

Mr. Manuel

It was a "lousy" article.

Mr. Palmer

Maybe, but I think that it was likely to lower my hon. Friend's esteem in the eyes of the public and his esteem in the eyes of his colleagues in the House. Therefore, I feel that it is a proper matter for the Committee of Privileges at least to inquire into. But if opinions may vary on the issue of the disloyalty charge, on the other offensive implication of the article there is far less room for argument. The other suggestion is that, because my hon. Friend accepted hospitality in North Vietnam, he was influenced in putting forward arguments in favour of the Government of that country against the policy of the Labour Party and aganist the policy of the present British Government. Having carefully read the Spectator article, I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylelone that nine out of 10 fair and open-minded people reading it would not take that view. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman be right, why does the article go out of its way to drag in the name of the hotel at which my hon. Friend stayed, to mention that his wife was there and received additional hospitality, and so on?

The Spectator was, of course, perfectly entitled to attack my hon. Friend's views on Vietnam or questions of foreign policy in South-East Asia. I should not use quite the same arguments, but I might well criticise him myself. But it is, surely, possible to do so without dragging in the name of the hotel at which he stayed or mentioning the amount of hospitality which he received. These matters were dragged in because the writer of the article intended to do so with a purpose. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), the proprietor of the paper, made no attempt to apologise in his speech today. I do not complain about that. He was, in fact, almost brazen in his justification of the article. It seems to me that the intention was to suggest not only that my hon. Friend was wrong in his opinions, but that his opinions were influenced by the amount of free board and lodging and, perhaps, other favours he had received—to put it bluntly—that my hon. Friend is corrupt.

I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for many years. I do not think that he will mind my saying that he takes plainness and simplicity of life almost to a fault. I should have thought that there was no one less likely—the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone also made this observation—to be influenced by food and drink offered or by the warmth of the reception accorded to him. My hon. Friend is an obstinate man. Like Robespierre, he means every word he says, and there is nothing in material wealth, at any rate, that is likely to shake him in his views, either to confirm his convictions or take anything from them. He is always charming, but he will be as obstinate at the end of the party as he is at the beginning. These material things make no difference to him or his views.

I mention that fact in passing, but, of course, it is irrelevant since precedent has laid down that privilege is absolute, that the fact of bringing into contempt is enough. But what greater bringing into contempt could there be against an hon. Member of the House than an allegation of corruption? This, as I see it, is the allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, that he is the tool of others, that he is a hired hack, that he pursues policies not based on his own beliefs and principles but on the interests of others, in a word. of outside masters.

That is the interpretation I place upon the article. My hon. Friend deeply resents it, and I do not blame him. In justice, therefore, I submit that he is entitled to the opportunity which the House offers at this stage, that his case should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. It has been said that he has the recourse open to every citizen of this country, if he likes to take it, the right of recourse to the courts. But if the courts of the land were sufficient to protect hon. Members, there would be little point in having our vast and complicated edifice of parliamentary privilege.

I regard this issue as particularly important in today's conditions because hon. Members are more or less bound to travel abroad in the course of their duties if they are to be well informed on world affairs and to bring back opinions and information to the House. In the conditions of the world today, they cannot hope to do this always at their own expense, and, in any case, there are countries where, even if one offers to pay, one is not allowed to do so, such is the tight control which some modern Governments impose on the movement of their citizens and visitors. Therefore, this issue goes wider than just my hon. Friend's case. It affects the position of hon. Members generally when they travel. For this further reason, in spite of the arguments we have heard from both the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I should like the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges, for the rights of one are the rights of all in this House.

I began by saying that I regretted that to some extent this afternoon the matter of my hon. Friend's complaint had become one of party feeling. I have not approached it in this way. I assure the House that precisely the arguments which I have used in defence of my hon. Friend and to advocate that his complaint should go to the Committee of Privileges I should use if a Conservative Member or a Liberal Member of the House were involved.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)

Listening to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), it is clear—I say it in all courtesy—that he has not taken in the arguments of the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General has completely torpedoed the Motion.

I had already armed myself with the 1887 quotation which the Solicitor-General produced. It ends the argument. In face of the quotations from your predecessor in 1887, Mr. Speaker, nobody can possibly assert that it is a breach of privilege to make imputations against the morals or the good name of individual Members of the House.

Mr. Warbey

rose—

Mr. Curran

I will give way in a moment.

It was ruled then, and it has been ruled since, and I think it must now be taken for granted, that there is a very wide gap between the good name of the House and the personal reputation of an individual Member or of a group of Members.

Mr. Warbey

The hon. Member has missed the contrary arguments which were put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. He made it clear, first of all, that what we are concerned about is the freedom of speech of all Members of this House collectively and severally—their freedom to take part in debates, proceedings in Parliament, without any intimidation. Moreover, the article in the Spectator referred, first, to the question of the Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, and then, secondly, to the question of whether I am fit to be a member of the Labour Party, and, therefore, by implication, whether, when I speak in the House of Commons, I am legitimately speaking as a member of the Labour Party or not, and in all three cases these are references to proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. Curran

That is rather an abuse of the courtesy that I give the hon. Gentleman in giving way to him. I was prepared to give way for an intervention but not for an extract from the "Encyclopaedia Britannica". I repeat that to most of us the argument which was put forward by the Solicitor-General, and which was developed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), is an argument to which there can be no answer.

Therefore, we are left with a second question, and it is this second question which, I think, lies at the back of the interruption to which I have just been subjected. It is clear that the opinions expressed by the Spectator, whatever their merits, are not opinions which can be taken before the Committee of Privileges. This House is not, in fact, required to discuss whether the opinions which the Spectator expressed are in any sense of the word right, true, valid, tenable or tolerable. We have nothing whatever to do with any such question. We are concerned simply with the question whether a citizen—any citizen—is free, if he likes, to express that sort of opinion about a Member of Parliament.

I submit that in a free society there can be only one answer. Suppose the Spectator, or any citizen, holds the view that no Member of the House ought to accept hospitality from a Communist front. That is an opinion. Any citizen is free to hold that opinion if he likes, and any citizen is free to print it, and no citizen should be made answerable for having that opinion. The hon. Gentleman may not like it. There are many opinions expressed about us that we do not like, but we have to put up with them.

Mr. Warbey

They are not entitled to draw dirty conclusions.

Mr. Curran

I would tell the hon. Gentleman that we must not be too thin skinned about this. All of us are very apt to say that we do not mind criticism so long as it is fair, balanced, and reasonable. The fact is that, from the point of view of the target, criticism never is fair, balanced and reasonable. Any politician who says that he does not mind criticism so long as it is fair is rather like the lady proclaiming, "You can say what you like about me so long as you say I am lovely".

The fact is that, whether we like it or not, we must all put up with criticism of a sort that we think is harsh and unjust. We had better remember—I commend it to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey)—the alleged remark by Harry Truman, when somebody complained to him that he had been criticised in a fashion which was harsh, unfair and unreasonable. Truman replied, "This is what comes of going into politics. If you do not like the heat, you had better keep out of the kitchen".

Mr. Palmer

Is not the hon. Gentleman missing the point? My hon. Friend has complained not about criticism, but about the suggestion that in following his duties as a Member of Parliament he is corrupt.

Mr. Curran

I will take it a stage further. Suppose the Spectator formed this view, or sought to suggest it. I do not believe that it did, but let it be granted for the sake of argument that it did. Let it be granted that the Spectator, though I do not believe it did, sought to say that in going to Vietnam as he did the hon. Member for Ash-field was being corruptly influenced by the Communist front. Let us suppose that that is the opinion. Is it asserted that nobody may express that sort of opinion about a Member of Parliament unless he runs the risk of being made answerable to this House?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the assertion in the Spectator article amounted to an assertion that he had become a corrupt instrument of the Communist front in Vietnam, then his remedy was not to come here but to go to the courts. But the hon. Gentleman said that when he took legal advice on the

point he was told apparently that he had not a case. Why should be expect us to do for him here what the courts are not prepared to do for him?

There is all the difference in the world, I repeat, between accusations against individual Members, which may be right or wrong, and accusations which involve the dignity and the good name of Parliament. We cannot in this country seek to stop, and I hope we never shall seek to stop—

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 159.

Division No.76.]	AYES	[6.58 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Howie, W.	Oswald, Thomas
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hoy, James	Owen, Will
Atkinson, Norman	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Palmer, Arthur
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)	Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Bessell, Peter	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Parker, John
Bishop, E. S.	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Pavitt, Laurence
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Jackson, Colin	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Janner, Sir Barnett	Rankin, John
Carmichael, Neil	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&st.P'cras,S.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coleman, Donald	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Dalyell, Tam	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Huli, W.)	Rose, Paul B.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rowland, Christopher
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Delargy, Hugh	Kelley, Richard	Silkin, John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &Chatham)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dodds, Norman	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Skeffington, Arthur
Driberg, Tom	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Small, William
Dunnett, Jack	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lomas, Kenneth	Swingler, Stephen
Ensor, David	Loughlin, Charles	Symonds, J. B.
Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)	Lubbock, Eric	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fernyhough, E.	McGuire, Michael	Thornton, Ernest
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)	Mclnnes, James	Tuck, Raphael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)	Wainwright, Edwin
Fletcher, Raymond (IIkeston)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd	MacMillan, Malcolm	Wallace, George
Gregory, Arnold	Manuel, Archie	Warbey, William
Grey, Charles	Marsh, Richard	Whitlock, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mendelson, J. J.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Mikardo, Ian	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)	Millan, Bruce	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hannan, William	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Harper, Joseph	Molloy, William	Zilliacus, K.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Hayman, F. H.	Newens, Stan
Hazell, Bert	Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Heffer, Eric S.	Norwood, Christopher	Mr. Sydney Silverman and
Hill, J. (Midlothian)	O'Malley, Brian	Mr. Michael Foot.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Orme, Stanley
NOES
Agnew, Commander Sir Peter	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Box, Donald
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Berkeley, Humphry	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Awdry, Daniel	Biggs-Davison, John	Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Barlow, Sir John	Birch, Rt, Hn. Nlgel	Brinton, Sir Tatton
Batsford, Brian	Blaker, Peter	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Bossom, Hn. Clive	Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Buchanan-Smith, AlicK	Hilt, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Buxton, R. C.	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Carlisle, Mark	Hooson, H. E.	Rees-Davies,W.R.
Channon, H. P. G.	Hopkins, Alan	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hordern, Peter	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Cooke, Robert	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Royle, Anthony
Cooper, A. E.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Corfield, F.V.	Johnson Smith, G.	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Costain, A. P.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Sharples, Richard
Crawley, Aidan	Kimball, Marcus	Sinclair, Sir George
Crawshaw, Richard	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chlswick)
Curran, Charles	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	stainton, Keith
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Litchfield, Capt. John	Stanley, Hn. Richard
Dean, Paul	Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	stodart, Anthony
Doughty, Charles	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Longbottom, Charles	Studholme, Sir Henry
Drayson, G. B.	Loveys, Walter H.	Summers, Sir Spencer
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)
Emery, Peter	MacArthur, Ian	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
English, Michael	Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)	Thomas, Rt, Hn. Peter (Conway)
Fell, Anthony	McLaren, Martin	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Fletcher-cooke Charles (Drawen)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Tiley, Arthur (Bradrord, W.)
Fletcher-cooke, Sir John (S"pton)	McNalr- Wilson, Patrick	Turton, Rt. Hn. R.H.
Fraser Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Maude, Angus	Van Straubenzee
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Walder, David (High Peak)
Gardner, Edward	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Gibson-Watt, David	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Walker Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Glover, Sir Douglas	Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)	wall, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	More, Jasper
Goodhew, Victor	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Walters, Dennis
Gower, Raymond	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Ward, Dame Irene
Grant, Anthony	Neal, Harold	Weatherill, Bernard
Gresham-cooke, R.	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey	Webster, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Wells, John (Maldstone)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard	Whitelaw, William
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)	Onslow, Cranley	Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Wills, Gerald (Bridgwater)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Winterbottom, R. E.
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Page, R. Graham (Crosby)	Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hawkins, Paul	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Hay, John	Peyton, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth	Sir Herbert Butcher and
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Pounder, Rafton	Sir Leslie Thomas.
Hendry, Forbes	Prior, J. M. L.