HC Deb 18 November 1969 vol 791 cc1116-22
Mr. Speaker

The House will remember that yesterday afternoon, immediately after I had ruled on an application by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) raised the question of Announcements … and actions … taken by persons purporting to act with the authority of the Minister before the House has had an opportunity of debating this issue…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 868]

as constituting a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman was founding his complaint on a number of documents, and I therefore desired him to submit them to the Table to enable me to study them without taking the usual course of having them read to the House. There is a precedent for my action in the Journal for 23rd February, 1880

Subsequently, the hon. Member for West Ham, North submitted a copy of a letter from the Minister of Defence for Administration to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), a copy of a script of a television interview, which was referred to in yesterday's application for an S.O.9, and an advertisement referring to the Royal Irish Constabulary and defence forces in Northern Ireland issued by the Government of Northern Ireland and referring to the White Paper "Formation of the Ulster Defence Regiment", Cmnd. Paper No. 4188, which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier this month.

I will cause all these papers to be placed in the Library. Having studied them myself, it falls to me to rule whether, on the precedents, the hon. Member for West Ham, North in his complaint yesterday, supported by the documents to which I have referred, has established a prima facie case of breach of privilege which would entitle the matter to be given priority over the Orders of the Day. I do not have to comment on the merits of the matter, my duty being restricted to this one point.

Having carefully considered the precedents, I have to rule that no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. In saying that, I do not in any way prejudge the issue, which may be brought before the House by other means if the hon. Member decides to take such opportunities as may be open to him.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Mr. Speaker, may I thank you on my own behalf and that of the House for the way in which you have given this matter your attention? Perhaps I might refresh your memory by saying that you also asked me to submit in writing the basis upon which I was submitting the question yesterday. No doubt inadvertently, you did not mention that I also wrote and submitted to you three bases upon which I felt that those documents constituted a prima facie breach of privilege and formed the basis of my complaint, but that they related only to the particular case and that it was the general issue mentioned in my submission which concerned me. I was not able to refer to it yesterday, because you will recall that you asked me to put it in writing. However, you have made no reference to it in your Ruling.

What I am interested in is not so much the particular case as the general and dangerous precedent which is created if a Minister or one of his servants is allowed to go on the radio or television purporting to act with the authority of the House of Commons when this House has never debated the issue, let alone given him legal authority so to act. I was more concerned with that general issue than with this particular case.

Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when introducing his Budget, gets the approval of the House before he takes action on it. In this case, the Minister and the colonel in question made statements and took action without the legislative authority of Parliament. I submit that that is the general question which should be considered.

Finally, if not a breach of privilege, it is at least a grave discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the Minister or his Department caused an announcement to me made on the news bulletins at midnight and at seven and eight o'clock this morning—

Mr. Albu

On a point of order. What was the question before the House?

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Mr. Speaker, while you were considering the matter, there was an announcement that the Minister would make a statement on the very subject which was sub judice until you yourself ruled upon it.

Mr. Speaker

I will deal with the last point first. The Minister has not made a statement.

On the other issues, I allowed the hon. Member for West Ham, North to make his submission orally to the House today. I had considered all the points that he made in his submission.

The question of a prima facie case of privilege is one for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has his own parliamentary remedies if he still believes that the privilege of the House was involved.

Mr. Heath

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the House accepts your Ruling, but may I raise a point of procedure for the guidance of the House?

You have mentioned that the procedure followed today is covered by a precedent of 1880 which, by its nature, will be beyond the memory of most of us in the House, and I doubt whether many were acquainted with it.

The procedure which was followed yesterday was that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) raised the matter, as you said, on a statement made by the hon. Member for Mid. Ulster (Miss Devlin) which the hon Gentleman said was partly inaccurate. Then, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman wrote to you about it. The House does not know what it was that he conveyed to you in writing. You have now ruled upon it.

Does that mean that any hon. Member can raise a matter of privilege with you purely in writing, without first conveying it to the House? If it does, to most of us that is a complete change in our procedure. Ought we not to be prepared to submit ourselves to the discipline of raising accurately a point of privilege, presenting the evidence to the House, and handing it to you personally, as in my memory has always been done hitherto?

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right in calling attention to the other irregularities of this procedure.

The normal procedure is that, if any hon. Member wishes to raise with Mr. Speaker a prima facie question of privilege, he usually lets Mr. Speaker know before raising it in the House and sometimes takes advice from Mr. Speaker, or declines to take advice, as is the privilege of all hon. Members.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for West Ham, North raised suddenly a question of privilege. It was not quite clear to the Chair what the issue of privilege was, and the Chair had no documents before it. It was for that reason that I asked the hon Member for West Ham, North to submit to me some documents on which I could judge whether the question of privilege was involved.

It is a most irregular proceeding. It is only by diligence and by research back to the year 1880 that we have found a precedent for what happened yesterday. I doubt whether a similar occasion will happen again.

Mr. Orme

Further to that point of order. Prior to the privilege issue being raised yesterday, an assurance was sought from the Leader of the House that the Minister concerned would make a statement on the matter. This was raised by the Leader of the Opposition and supported in all quarters. May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House, following your Ruling, whether a statement will be made on the action which the Minister of Defence has taken?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

It is true that the Leader of the Opposition urged me to look into the matter and request the Secretary of State to make a statement today, or on Wednesday, when the Bill comes before the House This will be done tomorrow.

Mr. Roebuck

Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice on this matter? As I understand, the complaint raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to the effect that there was a possible breach of privilege also implied that there was a breach of the law, inasmuch as the Bill of Rights states clearly that people would be in breach of the law if they sought to raise or keep a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament.

Does the fact that the House is apparently to have a statement on this matter preclude any possible proceedings being initiated against those who have sought to raise an army in this way?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for defending the Bill of Rights. The hon. Gentleman, or anyone who is fortunate enough to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker in tomorrow's debate, will have an opportunity of putting the point that he has raised.

Mr. Michael Foot

Further to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Would he not consider and represent to the Minister of Defence that it would be much better if we had a statement before the debate so that we do not have this question intermingled with the general issues of the debate? In particular, if hon. Members feel that there has been an illegality or a breach of normal custom in this respect—after all, Parliament has supreme authority, because only this Parliament has the right to recruit armed forces in Northern Ireland—would it not be better to have a statement so that hon. Members can consider whether the debate should continue?

I urge my right hon. Friend to say that the proper way to deal with this matter is to have a statement to the House which we can consider and then proceed, if need be, to discuss the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Government will no doubt take notice of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. John Mendelson

On a point of order. There arises from the decision that you, Mr. Speaker, gave on privilege today, and reports in the Press this morning, a further serious question of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked for a statement to be made today. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House supported that request. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not commit himself. He said that a statement might he made today or before the debate or on the day of the debate. The House was certainly left with the impression that there would be a statement today [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is within the hearing and recollection of the House. Those hon. Members who were here were left with the clear impression that there would be a statement today.

We read in some of the morning papers that, because of the question of privilege being raised by another hon. Member who did not raise the original complaint —the original complaint, the House will remember, was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) —there had been consultations and that the Government have said that they prefer that a statement should not be made to- day. Is it not for you, Mr. Speaker, to safeguard the rights of the House and not to allow the question of privilege to interfere with the commitment given by the Leader of the House that a statement would be made today?

Mr. Peart

I think that I ought to correct the record. If my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), whose views I always respect —[Laughter.] I do—reads HANSARD he will see that I was asked whether I would look into this matter and ask the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House tomorrow or deal with it when the Bill comes before the House on Wednesday?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 867.] I have said that we will do this tomorrow. I hope that my hon. Friend will not continue the argument.

Mr. Mendelson

My submission was to you, Mr. Speaker, not to my right hon. Friend. I am asking whether it is not in your hands to protect the rights of the House? We understood that there would be a statement today. Was there any pressure on anybody? Have the Government expressed the view, as some newspapers report, that, because of the question of privilege having been raised, my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration should not make a statement today?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot build on hypotheses. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition said: The House accepts your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will look into this matter and ask the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House tomorrow or deal with it when the Bill comes before the House on Wednesday? To that, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons replied: Yes, I give that assurance." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 867.] That is the simple basis of fact. All that Mr. Speaker can do today is to rule on privilege, and privilege happens to be important, also.