COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE (Hansard, 5 April 1967)

§ Mr. Speaker
Yesterday, the House will recall that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made a complaint of breach of privilege, on which I promised to rule this afternoon, having taken the customary 24 hours to deliberate upon his submission.
The hon. Member founded his complaint upon two newspapers, and when a complaint is made of an article in a newspaper, the newspaper containing the article or report must be delivered in at the Table as an entire document. This the hon. Member did.
I have now had the opportunity of studying the passages complained of in each of the two newspapers which the hon. Member handed to me. The first newspaper is the Belfast Telegraph, dated 24th March, 1967, which contains a report of a speech by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Having considered all the precedents which might bear upon this case, I find that there is no prima facie case of breach of privilege which would entitle me to give priority over the Orders of the Day to the hon. Member's complaint founded upon the reports in the Belfast Telegraph.
The second newspaper which the hon. Member handed in was the Protestant Telegraph of Saturday, 1st April, 1967. A report in that newspaper dealt with proceedings in this House, namely, a Motion tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and other hon. Members and urged the arrest of the hon. Member who tabled the Motion, describing him as an "arch traitor".
Again in the light of the precedents available to me, I have no doubt that the hon. Member's complaint founded on this newspaper constitutes a prima facie case of breach of privilege which entitles the matter to priority over the Orders of the Day.
Perhaps I should remind the House that it therefore becomes necessary for a 270 Motion to be moved so that the matter can be dealt with now.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)
In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls to me, as Leader of the House, in accordance with past practice to, move, That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I think that it would be in the interests of the House as a whole if it were decided that no further debate should take place at this stage.

§ Mr. Heath
I support the Leader of the House in the Motion which he has moved and I hope that the House will accept his recommendation that no further debate should follow now.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
On a point of order. I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, not the subject of the complaint, but something which you have said in your Ruling which, with great respect, I question. You have referred to the "customary" 24 hours' delay. With great respect, this has become a cliché from the Chair and, strictly speaking, is not in accord with the facts.
The 1958–59 Select Committee on Procedure, of which I was a member, allowed Mr. Speaker to delay giving a decision for 24 hours when he deemed it necessary so to do. It is not, however, necessary to delay for 24 hours. There might be all sorts of situations in which a Ruling could be given straight away. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, with very great respect, that you will not use that terminology in future, because it is purely a matter of option on your part whether to invoke the 24 hours' delay.

§ Mr. Speaker
As the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said—and he is one of the experts on Parliamentary procedure—this was a recommendation from the Select Committee. It was, however, a practice which afterwards was followed constantly by my predecessor, so much so that it has now become a custom. There might be occasions when Mr. Speaker could rule at once that the matter complained of constituted a prima facie case of breach of privilege. On the other hand, it is not a bad idea for Mr. Speaker to have some time to consider what is a very serious 271 decision for him and perhaps later for the House to take.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully urge a course contrary to that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) and pray in aid the suggestion that, very often, by taking 24 hours for deliberation, a newspaper which may technically be in breach uses the period of delay to make an apology to the House, to Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member or Members involved which, in turn, often gives the hon. Member or Members an opportunity to withdraw the matter and the whole affair is resolved happily.
I respectfully urge that this is an extremely good system and not one which we should lightly waive.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is a classic illustration of the Speaker being at the centre of all the tensions of the House and receiving diametrically opposed pieces of advice.