HC Deb 01 March 1972 vol 832 cc425-7
Mr. William Hamilton

I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter which I think may constitute a breach of privilege. The matter to which I refer is based on an article in the current issue of the Spectator written by a Mr. Hugh Macpherson and entitled "Faith, hope and charity". It deals with the honours system and makes certain allegations or inferences about Members of this House including the Prime Minister himself. A few quotations will indicate the seriousness of the problem.

The article says: The demand for public honours is high. People are prepared to go to great lengths to obtain them. Just how far they will go was illustrated during the run up to the last election when Mr. Wilson was approached by a Tory MP with the offer of important information about the Conservative election plans in return for a peerage. The first approach was made at the time of the Labour party conference in the autumn of 1969 and it was refused. In the immediate run-up to the 1970 election the offer was renewed, and on this occasion, the demand was dropped to that of a knighthood in return for reports of election tactics of the Conservative party. This was also refused. The article goes on: There was considerable discussion in the corridors of Westminster about the following extraordinary passage in a political pamphlet published last year by David Rendel Limited obviously on behalf of the anti-Market campaigners, entitled 'Pride, prejudice and persuasion: A study in the manipulation of Public opinion in Britain'. It was written by someone with the pseudonym 'Cato':"—

Sir Gerald Nabarro

That is not me.

Mr. Hamilton

The hon. Member had better keep quiet.

It goes on: … by the time de Gaulle departed, the various European pressure groups had agreed to emerge under the banner of the relatively efficient European Movement, and were in a good position to appeal to their friends in business for real money to supplement the small amounts which they had been receiving from wellwishers, such as Mr. Harold Wilson's government (which provided £7,500 a year throughout its time in office). The article goes on: Jeoffrey … Archer, who is a noted fund-raiser (in several respects) was put in charge of the operation in 1969, and business was not slow to respond. An asterisk after that refers to the following footnote: e.g. £300,000 in April and another £300,000 when the Honours List was published both from the same individual source. The article goes on: An MP told me early last November that a prominent Jewish business man (with an even more prominent son-in-law) who was a very large donor to charity, who was now retired from business and lived in the country and did not figure in Who's Who, was about to receive a knighthood in the New Year's Honours List. He said the person in question had already given a very large sum of money to the European Movement. Naturally I"— that is, presumably, the writer of the article— perused the New Year's List with some care. The name of Michael Sobell appeared in the PM's List, the citation being 'for charitable services'. The MP subsequently said that Mr. Sobell was indeed the person to whom he had been referring. Mr. Sobell's son-in-law is Mr. Arnold Weinstock. Mr. Archer did, I understand, arrange a substantial donation of around £600,000 to the European Movement from Sir Michael Sobell last year. The honour, as I have noted was given for 'charitable services'". I apologise for the length of these quotations, Mr. Speaker, but I have nearly finished. The article goes on: Sir Michael was the second largest single donor to the European Movement. He gave the massive sum of around £600,000 early in 1971 but temporarily withdrew half of it some time later, apparently because of considerations to do with share prices. The final paragraph says: It is a matter of some public concern that a man so worthy of honour should be successfully commended to the Prime Minister in the year when he was so generous to the political cause (rather than the charitable purposes) so dear to Mr. Heath's heart. Apparently, when the 'Cato' pamphlet was printed there was some concern among Government ministers about the pamphlet's possible effect. It is also disturbing that it was apparently known in Westminster that a particular honour was to be bestowed well in advance of its award. Of course, the common courtesy of the House is to inform the hon. Member whose name is mentioned in the article. I so informed him and I know that he has got the letter because I have had a reply from him.

Whether you rule, Mr. Speaker, that the article constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege is, of course, a question for you and your advisers, but, in any event, it involves the honour of this House and its Members very intimately. Therefore, subject to your ruling, I would propose to pursue the matter in other ways open to me as a Member of the House.

Journal handed in.

Mr. Speaker

I will rule upon this matter tomorrow.