§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with you of which I have given you notice. Last December I criticised the senior Master in the Royal Courts of Justice, Master J. R. Bickford Smith, and a firm of solicitors, Elborne, Mitchell and Co., in a debate in this place. I wrote subsequently to the Lord Chancellor and asked him to set up an inquiry. There was considerable correspondence between us and since then I have heard nothing.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to raise three matters with you in relation to the incident to which I have referred. Although I have heard nothing, yesterday the Lord Chancellor replied to the inquiry by way of a planted written question, which was answered by the Attorney-General. The question was tabled by an hon. Member who is a little fellow from one of the Leicester seats. You will know him, Mr. Speaker, because he prattles on but cannot be seen because he is so small.
My first point, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is an important matter.
§ Mr. SedgemoreMy first point is this: is it not a gross abuse of both Houses for the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General to conspire in this way to answer a query put by an hon. Member in this fashion?
My second point—it is even more important—is this: the Attorney-General's answer impugns the integrity of a private solicitor as well as myself. I take no exception to the Attorney-General impugning my integrity, if he so wants, on the basis of an unreliable witness who told a whopping great lie and who can be seen most days wandering around the Royal Courts of Justice in his masonic pinny and severed trousers.
I question the use of the parliamentary question and answer procedure. I have always been under the impression that if an hon. Member wishes to criticise another, he either has to put down a substantive motion, something which I have often done, or he has to be prepared to give notice to the hon. Member and debate the matter in the House. I may be wrong about that. It may be perfectly legitimate for the Attorney-General to use the answer to a written question to impugn the integrity of hon. Members, but I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of importance both in principle and in practice. When I become a Minister, will I be allowed to do it?
My third point is this: in his answer, the Attorney-General impugned my integrity for attacking one of the judges and has said—I believe rightly—that one can attack a judge only by a substantive motion. The only person whom I attacked in that debate was Master Bickford Smith. Master Bickford Smith is not, never has been and never will be a judge. The Attorney-General sought to widen the interpretation by saying that that rule applies not only to judges but to senior judicial figures. I ask, Mr. Speaker, where one draws the line as to who is and who is not a senior judicial figure.
Let us consider the Lord Chancellor's son. He is a barrister and a Minister—a Member of this House. Is he a senior judicial figure? When I was in chambers with 956 him, we used to call him a weak-chinned, bespectacled swot. Be that as it may, I ask you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That expression may not be unparliamentary, but it is undignified.
§ Mr. SedgemoreI ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on these matters. I like the Lord Chancellor. Everything that I learnt at the Bar was learnt in his chambers, where I was a pupil to Mr. Justice Maurice Drake.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Member for having given prior notice of his point of order. He has raised a major matter. I should like a little time in which to consider it before I give a ruling.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)Further to the point of order—
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)Further to the point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. One at a time.
§ Mr. BruinvelsFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to put the record straight on this matter. Obviously, I am particularly envious that you had prior notice of this matter. I did not. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is concerned that a shorter Member than he actually got the right answer, but I refute the fact that I asked a flagrant planted question and that I had showed some interest in this case. I seek a withdrawal of the unfortunate allegation —[interruption]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Some years ago I heard the phrase "planted question", but I do not know what it means.
§ Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in this matter. So far as I am aware, during the lifetime of this Parliament, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has libelled numerous members of the public—professional men—using the cloak of parliamentary privilege. How much is it in order for that to be done? How far does it demean the traditions of the House that that is permitted? How should hon. Members conduct themselves in relation to the matter? The hon. Gentleman today again libelled professional men. If he did that outside the doors of the Chamber, he would face a libel writ that would bankrupt him.
§ Mr. SedgemoreFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) but, in fact, the private solicitor and I held a press conference this morning. The private solicitor not only bitterly criticised and challenged the lies of Master Bickford Smith but took on the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. It has been done outside. If these people — [HON. MEMBERS: "What about you?"] I have also released to the press my correspondence with the Lord Chancellor. If these people want to take out writs—I know that they will not—they can do so.
§ Mr. HickmetFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Master Bickford Smith is constrained by the rules of the Supreme Court from issuing a writ against that so-called hon. Member, as well he knows.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me clear up this matter in relation to what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) said. We have in this place, and we shall be claiming it after the State Opening next week, freedom of speech. Every hon. Member has freedom of speech. Of course, he has to exercise it with discretion as he sees it, but that is entirely a matter for the hon. Member concerned.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) as the "so-called hon. Member". I think that that statement demands that he withdraw it immediately.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not hear the hon. Member say "so-called hon. Member". We must keep to the rules of the House. We always refer to each other in this place not by our surnames but by our constituencies. If the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said those words, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw them.
§ Mr. HickmetWe are all hon. Members and we have to discharge that obligation which is upon us. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch knows the best description that fits him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. In the interests of good order, I ask the hon. Member to refer to the hon. Gentleman by his constituency and not as a so-called hon. Member.
§ Mr. HickmetI withdraw.