§ Mr. SpeakerThe House will recall that yesterday evening points of order were raised in relation to a communication to the Press from the Director of Public Prosecutions. According to this communication, it was not accepted that, despite the naming of a certain person on the Floor of the House of Commons, the publication of his name would none the less not be a contempt of court even if it were part of a report of proceedings in the House.
During the course of the raising of these points of order, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) sought my consent that the matter should be given immediate precedence over the existing business as a matter of privilege. I did not then feel able to give such consent, but undertook to rule on the matter this morning. The right hon. Gentleman has since confirmed his request in writing.
I have given the most careful thought to the right hon. Gentleman's request and to the terms of the message of which the complaint was made. It is quite clear that no attempt of any kind has been made to obstruct the due publication of the Official Report. The warning was addressed solely to the media.
Were this warning to be followed by legal action, it would not be the first time that the reports of parliamentary debates in the Press had been the subject of proceedings in the courts. As it is stated on page 81 of "Erskine May":
There is a distinction between the absolute privilege of Members speaking in the House…and the qualified privilege of a publisher reporting words spoken; in the latter case publication of parliamentary proceedings is protected, not specifically by privilege of Parliament, but on the analogy of the publication of proceedings in courts of justice.This principle was followed in the case of Wason v. Walter in 1868, and no claim has been made by Parliament, either at the time or since, that its privileges were 866 infringed by this or any other similar action.Our privilege is something that was dearly obtained by our predecessors, but if it is abused it will be endangered. In view of the order of the court prohibiting the disclosure of the colonel's name, I am really being asked to rule that in future any hon. Member may use the privilege of this House to remove the matter from the jurisdiction of the courts and then to claim that the courts have no further power. I am not prepared to give such a ruling. It is, of course, open to any right hon. or hon. Member to table his or her own motion asking for the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and then to seek time to have the matter debated. However, my ruling is that the Director of Public Prosecutions has in no way done anything which would justify my giving a complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.
For these reasons, I have to rule that I cannot allow this matter to have precedence over the normal course of business.
The House will recall that under the new procedure agreed by the House on 6th February it is necessary for an hon. Member to make his complaint in writing and that thereafter it is for me, if I decide against giving precedence, to inform the hon. Member by letter. It is not then in order for him to pursue the matter of precedence in the Chamber. I have written in reply to the right hon. Member for Crosby informing him of my decision. At the same time, in certain circumstances I am specifically permitted to make a statement in the House and I am following that practice in giving this ruling.
There can be no point of order on my ruling, in accordance with the decision of the House on 6th February this year. I have indicated to the House the course that any right hon. or hon. Member should now take if he wishes to pursue the matter.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)I should like to express my humble gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for considering this matter so fully and carefully and for the statement that you have made to the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am much obliged to the right hon. Member.