HC Deb 23 June 1980 vol 987 cc27-31
Mr. Rost

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday evening the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) accused Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. of industrial espionage and charged one of its managers with accepting bribes. The person so accused, one of my constituents, is unable to defend himself because the allegations were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege. The hon. Member for Perry Barr, whom I have, of course, advised of my intention to raise this matter with you but who, I regret, is not in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—apparently made these accusations without first informing the Minister responsible at the Department of Industry, without giving Rolls-Royce notice and without even informing my constituent in advance. These grave charges have since been strenuously denied by Rolls-Royce and by my accused constituent.

I seek from you, Mr. Speaker, guidance on how I may obtain justice and protect the rights of my constituents, whose best interests I believe I was sent here to defend. I refer not only to the individual accused of corruption but to the charges against Rolls-Royce management as a whole, many of the members of which are also my constituents. Are you not satisfied, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the reputation and absolute privileges of Parliament will stand abused unless you request the hon. Member for Perry Barr to make an immediate personal statement substantiating in detail and laying before the House the evidence upon which he has based his defamatory allegations?

Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, as the guardian of our good name and of our duty to represent our constituents in this House, whether, failing such a revelation of detailed evidence, you would regard it as appropriate for the hon. Member unconditionally to withdraw his damaging charges. Finally, I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, particularly one who has pleaded publicly for common justice. Does it not reflect unfavourably upon the honour of the House if we do not allow those whom we are elected to represent the opportunity to obtain justice? Has not that basic right so far been denied my constituents, against the best traditions of the House?

Mr. Winnick

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is extremely unfortunate that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) raised this matter in the way that he did. It is interesting to note that controversial remarks have been made by a Conservative Member—remarks that have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in the press generally but have not been the subject of any such remarks to you or the subject of an application by Labour Members for a personal statement to be made. I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wrong to inhibit hon. Members from making remarks that they appear to consider justified on the basis that they may harm certain people. If an hon. Member makes a remark in the House which subsequently is not proved justified, it is obviously up to that hon. Member to take whatever steps he considers appropriate, on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, to make a statement accordingly.

Finally, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to accept that in the past controversial remarks have been made which it was quite likely could not be justified outside this House. I am referring to remarks made years ago by Marcus Lipton and Ben Parkin. Those remarks were much criticised at the time, but events proved them right. I am not certain—no one can be—whether the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will prove justified. It is, however, quite wrong for an hon. Member to try to gag us and to take away our privilege, because basically that is what he is trying to do.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I hear any other points of order on this matter, let me say that I have written a letter to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who raised the point of order. I have made it clear that it is not for me, as Speaker, to intervene to ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to make a personal statement. Every hon. Member must take full personal responsibility for any statement that he makes in the House. It is not for me, as Speaker, to express a view or pur port to enforce any action upon the substance of any such statement that is made. It is not for me to take away the privilege of hon. Members.

Sir Derek Walter-Smith

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have referred to the privilege of hon. Members. You will be aware that there is considerable misgiving in the country that the high historic purposes of parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech are in danger of abuse in this House. There is the clear prospect that they will not be allowed to survive to perform their useful function if they are abused.

May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reaffirm to the House, with your high authority, the principle enunciated in "Erskine May" that it is only as a means of the effective discharge of the functions of the House that individual privileges are enjoyed by its Members. Will you also reaffirm the wise words of Anson in his classic work on "The Law and the Constitution": This freedom from external influence or interference does not involve any unrestrained licence of speech within its walls. Is it not clear, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the limitation on your jurisdiction as Speaker there is an inherent jurisdiction in this House to punish its Members for contempt? As the longest-serving Member on the Committee of Privileges on the Conservative side, may I respectfully ask you whether this whole question should not be considered and reported on by the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let me say at once that the House has decided that applications related to privilege must be made in writing to me and not discussed on the Floor of the House. The House decided that only last year. I hope that the House will be prepared to leave this matter to rest. I shall call the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) if he is seeking to catch my eye, but I hope that the House will realise that we will not proceed further on this issue with points of order.

Mr. Foot

May I express our gratitude for your ruling, Mr. Speaker? I hope that I am not using improper language in saying that I believe that the House would be absolutely right to accept it. Conservative Members would have been much wiser to accept your ruling instead of calling upon you—I think that we heard a most astonishing utterance by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—to punish an hon. Member and to institute the Committee of Privileges to look at this matter. That would be a violation of our procedure such as has not been suggested from any quarter of the House.

Of course, we understand that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has an interest and a right and duty to protect his constituents. In a similar situation, all of us would seek to do the same. Other hon. Members also have rights according to the traditions of this House, however, and they have to be protected, too.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling is correct and that the House should accept it.

Mr. English

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) a personal favour? It is unlikely that we shall gain any further advantage by pursuing the matter. The spokesman for the hon. Gentleman's party has given his point of view. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree to my request?

Mr. English

In accordance with your words, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to refer to the individual case. The issue of privilege is of concern to both Houses. A Joint Committee of both Houses issued a report that has not been debated in either House. The report pointed out that the privilege enjoyed by the two Houses also covered the Government of the day and that their otherwise defamatory publications were protected by the procedures of the two Houses. None of those aspects has been mentioned recently. It would be appalling if a report that had been made by several eminent lawyers and by other hon. Members of both Houses was never discussed, but that the issue was mentioned solely in relation to a particular case. It is true that hard cases make bad law. It would be a good idea to debate the report of the Joint Committee. Meanwhile, we should all consider the issues involved, not the particular case.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has submitted a point that is for the Leader of the House and for the usual channels to consider. It is not for me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)

May I express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling on this extremely important matter? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on the manner in which he put the point.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the Leader of the House.