HC Deb 14 July 1971 vol 821 cc516-8
Mr. David Steel

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention and that of the House to a matter which may constitute a breach of privilege. I refer to today's edition of the Sun and to a report in page 2 headed Market M.P.s get cash threat". The report is by Mr. Keith Mason, and the relevant passage reads : A union yesterday threatened to withdraw cash support from pro-Market Labour M.P.s if they divided the party. They were told to toe-the-line '… or join the Tories'. The warning came from Mr. Alex Kitson, executive officer of the transport union, at its conference at Scarborough. He said that any Labour M.P. backed financially by the union should seek support elsewhere at the next general election if they voted for entry. Eighteen Labour M.P.s get transport union grants of up to £500 a year towards their constituency expenses. But the union would not be allowed to cut off funds during the present Parliament. Mr. Kitson's warnings carry weight for he represents the trade unions on the Labour Party national executive. The rest of the report is not relevant to what I have to say.

I should like to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I know Mr. Kitson and have a high regard for him and that I am not in any way casting doubt on the normal arrangements for financial assistance made by many outside bodies to Members of Parliament and openly declared.

It is intolerable that Members of Parliament should be bullied or threatened by sanctions of this kind into voting one way or the other on the Common Market question, which should be a matter entirely between a Member of the House and his constituents.

I am fortified in that view by a precedent to which I now draw your attention. On 25th March, 1947, a complaint was made by the then Member for Dorset, North—Mr. Frank Byers—of certain actions by the Executive Committee of the Civil Service Clerical Association which, he submitted, were calculated improperly to influence Mr. William Brown, the Member for the County of Warwick, Rugby Division, in the exercise of his parliamentary duties and constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. The matter of the complaint was referred to the Committee of Privileges.

The Committee, whose Chairman at that time was, I believe, Mr. Herbert Morrison, reported to the House and the House accepted its recommendation on 15th July in the following Resolution : That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and in particular declares that it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, or any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, contrary or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament ; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 365.] I submit that the report which I have read to you is in complete contradiction of that Resolution.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that a prima facie case of breach of privilege must be presented to you and to the House as soon as possible after it has allegedly been committed? The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has said that this report appeared in the Sun this morning. This was in the Press yesterday and it was on the radio yesterday. There was ample time for this complaint to have been made yesterday.

There have been occasions when prima facie cases of breach of privilege have been declined because they have not been presented at the earliest possible moment. Will you bear this point in mind, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

From the point of view of the Chair, one of the more agreeable customs which have developed is that Mr. Speaker is allowed 24 hours in which to consider these matters before he rules. I will rule tomorrow on this matter.

In accordance with the custom, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) must hand in the newspaper.

Copy of newspaper handed in.