HL Deb 16 December 1953 vol 185 cc125-30

2.37 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

had given notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government:—

  1. 1. What is their attitude on the subject of an article which has recently appeared in an Egyptian paper by a British ex-Cabinet Minister;
  2. 2. Whether such articles are calculated to assist in the discussions to be held with the Egyptian Government;
  3. 3. Whether it is true that the editor of the Egyptian paper in question was interned as a pro-Nazi during the war.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, on a point of Order with reference to this Question. Whilst I am not exactly suggesting that the Question is out or order, I would draw attention to the passage in Erskine May which deprecates references by one House to proceedings in another House and. speeches by Members in the other House. This Question is not concerned with a speech but it is, of course, directed at a distinguished Member of the other House. Erskine May says that the reason for the Standing Order is "to prevent undue violent interchanges between the Members of the two Houses." We have not a Standing Order concerning it, but Erskine May contains that passage. Could the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House say any thing. I do not say to answer this question but to deprecate the growing habit of wrangling between Members of the two Houses?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)

My Lords, I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to pronounce upon it, but it does not seem to me that the question has any relation to the Standing Order. As I understand it, the Standing Order relates to criticism by one House of proceedings in the other. That practice is currently observed: that, apart from Ministerial statements on points of policy, you do not refer in one House to what has taken place in another. I am not going to anticipate what my noble friend will say in answer to this Question, but the Question is directed not to what a particular person, who happens to be a Member of another House, has said in that House, but, as I understand it, to what he has written in some foreign newspaper. It seems to me that we should be stretching Rules of Order. and, indeed, any convention, very far to make it impossible for a Member to ask a Question on any matter of public interest if it happened to affect Members of one or other House of Parliament. Indeed, it is generally a Member of one or other House of Parliament who is connected with matters of public interest.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The noble Viscount, the Acting Leader of the House, is mistaken, I think, in saying there is a Standing Order: there is not. All I thought it well to do was to draw attention to the fact that this sort of thing will invite reprisals from elsewhere and does not make for good and decent relations between the two Houses.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I hope the subject matter of the Question on the Order Paper (I do not mean the Question, but the incident) is not likely to be a common precedent.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, I now beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

In answer to the three points in the noble Lords' Question, as regards the first point, Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the journalistic activities of members of the Opposition. As regards the second, such articles are not helpful. As regards the third, the director-general of the newspaper, who is, I understand, responsible for its policy, was interned for security reasons in 1942. The editor was not.

LORD VANSITTART

Will the noble Marquess, or any other noble Lord, kindly examine the solemn undertaking which we all give on becoming Privy Counsellors, and will he not there find that we vow to assist Her Majesty's authorities "against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, States and potentates"? What I want to know is how, in view of that pledge, when Her Majesty's authorities are engaged in vital negotiations, it can be lawful for a member of the Privy Council to incite the adversary to intransigence—and, moreover, to receive remuneration for so doing.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

That is rather a long way from the first of the three questions included in the noble Lord's Question, and I am not prepared to deal with it at any length at this stage.

EARL JOWITT

I very much hope that the Government will adhere to that attitude, and not lay down that any Privy Counsellor, or any Member of this House, is not entitled to state what he thinks on any public issue. Is there anything which is unhelpful in asserting at the present time that the retention of our troops in Egypt must be based on agreement and not on force?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

As regards the last question, I think the whole tone of this particular article is regarded as unhelpful to the negotiations which are going on.

EARL JOWITT

That was the substance of the article. There is nothing unhelpful in that, is there?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Has the noble Marquess read it?

LORD VANSITTART

The whole point is that the article was published in a paper of the country with which we are engaged in delicate negotiations. Is that consonant with the undertaking given by Privy Counsellors?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

This is becoming a serious question, because the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, under Privilege of Parliament, is now charging a Privy Counsellor with having broken his Oath. If that is true, I think we should have this article laid before Parliament so that we may know. I have read the article and there is nothing more in it than a free expression of opinions shared by many people. The Government must take action. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, cannot come here and accuse a fellow Privy Counsellor of breaking his Oath unless he can produce evidence.

LORD VANSITTART

I have not come here to accuse anybody of breaking his Oath. I asked a perfectly plain Question. Perhaps the noble Viscount himself can answer. Has he read our undertaking as Privy Counsellors?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Who?

LORD VANSITTART

You.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I am a Privy Counsellor—

LORD VANSITTART

Have you recently read the undertaking which you gave?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Then not only has Mr. Bevan broken his Oath as a Privy Counsellor, but I have broken my Oath as a Privy Counsellor. How can I argue about the Privy Council here? I am not aware that anything should be done by Parliament to prevent the free expression of opinion in this country and in the world. I believe that that is helpful to the interests of this country and the interests of peace.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Obviously there is nothing on which it is alleged that this Government could appropriately take action.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, with great hesitation, I should like to take up a point raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, whose knowledge of the law is, of course, far greater than mine. Surely it is not true to say that anyone, any Privy Counsellor in and out of Parliament has the right to say what he likes on anything. He is subject to the law of treason like anyone else.

EARL JOWITT

He is subject to the law, but it is not part of our law that people are precluded from stating their honest opinions, and I hope they never will be.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

There is nothing in the oath of a Privy Counsellor which prevents him from exercising the common right of free speech.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I want to put a supplementary question, arising from the reply of the Government on this Question. Are Her Majesty's Government not aware that this article was written not for an Egyptian paper but for an Indian paper, and syndicated, and therefore the writer clearly had no responsibility for what paper it was eventually published in?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I do not know for what paper this article was primarily written, but obviously I could not accept the noble Lord's argument that because it was written for one paper the author has no responsibility for its appearing in another. With a syndicated article, it is generally possible to limit the countries in which that particular article appears.

LORD FARINGDON

I think the noble Marquess has misunderstood me. I was suggesting that the somewhat dubious background of the director of the, paper in which the article was published in Egypt has no relevance to the publication of the article itself.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

All I can do is to answer the Question which I was asked: what was the particular item of the back history of the director?—not the editor but the director—and those particulars I have given.

LORD HENDERSON

In view of the fact that we are discussing Mr. Bevan's article, and Members are forming opinions without having any knowledge of what the article contains, may I ask whether the Government will publish the article so that Members may know exactly what was said?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

No. It is really no part of Her Majesty's Government's duty to abuse, if I may so put it, the recognised procedure of the publication by a Government of important papers by giving further circulation to this particular article.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

If the Government do not know what the article was, how do they come to answer and say that it was very unhelpful?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Because the Question was asked, and I presume that my noble friend and his associates in the Foreign Office, for the purposes of answering that Question, read the article, formed an opinion, and, quite properly, as the Question is on the Order Paper, expressed that opinion to the House.

LORD VANSITTART

May I, by leave of the House, explain that the fundamental reason why I asked this Question is that a procedure of this kind seems to me to cut at the very root of diplomacy?