§ Mr. Kenneth LewisMr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to raise a question of privilege of which I have given you notice, namely, the proceedings of the Conference of the Transport and General Workers' Union on Thursday last, 13th July, the result thereat, and the comment in support of that resolution as reported in the Evening News—it was, of course, reported in other newspapers, too—of that day.
It comes under the sub-heading:
Cousins men to 'vet' Ministers.There is a main heading:Pop Pirates Walk Plank …but the heading with which I am concerned—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is submitting a very serious matter.
§ Mr. LewisThis is simply to register that the heading with which I am concerned is: 1536
Cousins men to 'vet' Ministers",and perhaps I might read the article concerned. It said:The 26 Labour M.P.s sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union can be 'vetted' by Frank Cousins men as the result of a decision taken at the union conference here today.I apologise for reading this. I understand that hon. Members have read it, but it is, nevertheless, necessary for me to read it again. The article went on to say:There were cheers when a unanimous vote in favour of the resolution was announced after Mr. Cousins, general secretary, said it had the backing of the union executive.When this Parliament ends, loyalty tests can be applied to the 26 M.P.s—they include some Ministers—and they can be asked to account for their actions.Reason for today's decision is that some of the T.G.W.U. Members of Parliament backed the Government's wages policy in the teeth of union opposition.The mover of the resolution, Mr. Len Burgess, a Midlands delegate, summed it up: 'You can't expect us to buy dog licences for dogs that bite us'.The 26 are members of the union's Parliamentary Panel which will be reconstituted, with existing members having to apply for enrolment when the present Parliament ends.These include the Foreign Secretary, Mr. George Brown.At first it was thought that he had not been financially sponsored by the union since 1965, when £420 was given to his Belper (Derbyshire) constituency. But later it was learned that his constituency received £636 last year, although he is not included in the unions annual report listing sponsored M.P.sOther financially sponsored members on the panel include Housing Minister, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Public Works Minister, Mr. Reginald Prentice, Housing Ministry Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Robert Mellish, Economic Affairs Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Peter Shore and Government Chief Whip Mr. John Silkin.Mr. Cousins, in his winding up speech, said they were asking M.P.s on their panel to report on their stewardship.He made it clear that not all of them had voted against union policy. Some had done their best to get amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill.The T.G.W.U. chief revealed that he had the 'sadistic satisfaction' of asking some of their M.P.s who believed in union policy if they were going to resign with him when he left the Commons.They replied that unlike him they had no jobs to go back to.1537'But they could have given voice to their opinions', he went on. 'If they had, the Government might have had to look at the whole proposals in a different way'.He went on to say that he did not accept that if you 'pay the piper you call the tune'. M.P.s have a right to think for themselves but if they had a conscience and could not support union policy they should say so.'If they say they want to oppose you', declared Mr. Cousins 'don't send another letter to us asking us to send £600 to wage a campaign against us.We do not want to tell them what to do, say or think. We want them to come and tell us why they believe the workers' pennies should be put in the kitty if the political side of their activities is different from what we feel', said Mr. Cousins.Earlier Mr. Cousins had quelled a threatened revolt against the Government's incomes policy.I apologise for having read that, but I have done so quickly because I know that hon. Members have read it.As it should be, the House has always been jealous of the rights of individual Members. We are subject, it seems to me, and I think to most of us, only to those who elect us—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is submitting to the Chair whether an article of which he complaints constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege. We cannot debate the issue yet.
§ Mr. LewisI am in some difficulty about this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because there would appear to be variations in Rulings from the Chair on this matter. I have looked at Rulings on recent privilege cases. There was the case raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who submitted—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With respect to the hon. Member, he must address me on this case. He must not consider any others.
§ Mr. LewisI am addressing you on this one, Mr. Speaker, but a similar matter was submitted by the hon. Member for Orpington, and he made a considerable case. I do not want to try to prejudge the issue. I am simply trying to put the case as I see it, and I ask that I be allowed to submit certain matters which I think are germane to it.
In that regard, I propose now to submit what has already been considered in the past by the Committee of Privileges, and 1538 I should like to quote two cases. Both these cases seem to confirm that where bodies pay Members to look after their interests, there must be limits to which such bodies may go in order to get absolute conformity from the Members concerned. The Committee seemed to take the view that influence is one thing, but coercion is quite another. The first case—
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is not this submission out of order? I have read the report from which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) appeared to be quoting. I did so at about 2 o'clock on Thursday afternoon of last week. I understand that an hon. Member must take the first opportunity to raise a matter of this kind.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a serious point of order. The simple answer is that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford is taking the first opportunity that he has to raise it. It may have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that the sitting of the House on Thursday lasted through Friday.
§ Mr. LewisThe first case is that of Mr. W. J. Brown and the Civil Service Clerical Association on 25th March, 1947. This case dealt with an expression on the part of Mr. Brown which was said to be at variance with the views of the Civil Service Clerical Association. No question of the rights of voting seemed to arise in that case. However, I want to quote from the Report of the Committee of Privileges on this matter. The second sentence in paragraph 13 says:
It would certainly be improper for a Member to enter into any arrangement fettering his complete independence as a Member of Parliament by undertaking to press some particular point of view on behalf of an outside interest, whether for reward or not. Equally, it might be a breach of privilege for an outside body to use the fact that a Member had entered into an agreement with it or was receiving payment from it as a means of exerting pressure upon that Member to follow a particular course of conduct in his capacity as a Member.The last part of that quotation seems particularly important, to the extent that it relates to the question that J have put before the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With respect to the hon. Member—and I know how interested and troubled he is about this matter—[Interruption]. Order. The issue of privilege is always a very serious one. I had hoped that the hon. Member would remember that what he is doing at the moment is submitting a newspaper report which he suspects is a breach of privilege. On this the Chair will rule tomorrow whether it is a prima facie breach of privilege. I hope that the hon. Member will therefore make his submission briefly.
§ Mr. LewisI will cut out some of what I was going to say arising out of that case, Mr. Speaker, and will go on to the second case, which is that of Mr. Robinson, the then Member for St. Helens, and the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, which union had requested the resignation of the Member because his views were at variance with those of the union.
§ Mr. C. PannellWith the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is surely not helping his own case. The breach of privilege in respect of which he is asking for a prima facie Ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, arises from the quotation which he has made from a newspaper report. All the other matters are for the Committee of Privileges to adjudicate on, if the matter goes to it. I do not agree that the Robinson case is on all fours—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman must not attempt, under the guise of raising a point of order, to debate the issue.
§ Mr. PannellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point that I am making is that, the hon. Member having read out the newspaper report, there is nothing further to be done than to leave the matter to the Chair.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member must leave the conduct of the Chair to the Chair.
§ Mr. LewisIn fairness to myself, I must point out that I took some advice on how I could develop my case in connection with this matter and I was given certain advice. I was told that I would be allowed to quote from precedents, and, as I have already said, I 1540 have looked at past cases. I assumed that I would be given the attention of the House in making the case that I am trying to make—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have been busy defending the rights of the hon. Member to speak. All that I am asking him to do, in the interests of the House and its business, is to speak briefly.
§ Mr. LewisI will speak as briefly as I can within my ability to make my case, Mr. Speaker. I have referred to the case of the then hon. Member for St. Helens, which was brought before the Committee of Privileges on 23rd May, 1944. Paragraph 4 of the Report says:
While the payment to, or receipt by, a Member of money or the offer or acceptance of other advantage, for promoting or opposing a particular proceeding"—I emphasise that—or measure, constitutes an undoubted breach of privilege, it has long been recognised that there are Members who receive financial assistance from associations of their constituents or from other bodies.I will now cut out most of the other things that I wanted to say, in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Since the prices and incomes legislation is still before the House—a vote still has to take place on the recent Measure—and representations were made last Thursday, at the conference of the Union of Transport and General Workers, it seems that the action taken then was to influence Members of Parliament not just upon a general attitude but upon a vote. This, therefore, goes further than in either of the cases to which I have referred. Because of this, I ask you to rule that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege here. I ask you to look into the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerWill the hon. Member bring to me the newspaper of which he complains?
§ Copy of newspaper handed in.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member brings to my notice an article in the Evening News and Star of Thursday, 13th July, 1967, the contents of which he has read to the House. I will give my Ruling tomorrow, in accordance with the usual custom, as to whether the matters that he complains of constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.
§ Mr. EnglishFurther to that point—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No conceivable point can arise. An hon. Member has submitted a matter of privilege and I have indicated that I will rule on it tomorrow. I would add that privilege is a very serious issue to raise from any point of view, and I hope that the House will always take it very seriously.