HL Deb 24 June 1968 vol 293 cc1102-19

2.45 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move That the matter referred to on page 21 of The Tunes Business News of June 21, under the heading "Chairman goes in. Co-op Row," be referred to the Committee for Privileges. My Lords, acting on the instructions of his board, so he assured me, the General Manager and Secretary of the Co-operative Insurance Society Limited sent to Members of this House a letter accompanied by a memorandum dated June 14, 1968, relating to provisions in the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Bill now before this House. The letter expressed the view that the Bill contains provisions which are seriously adverse to the interests of the policy holders of the Co-operative Insurance Society and to the business of the Society. The letter also stated that there are over 15 million Co-operative Insurance Society policies in force, and the memorandum stated that the assets of the Society now amount to £450 million and its annual income to over £110 million.

The Times, on Friday, June 21, had in its "Business News" section, on page 21, an article by Mr. Maurice Corina which contained the following paragraph: Departure of the chairman and three colleagues—they are all full-time C.W.S. directors—follows the circulation to all members of the House of Lords of a memorandum setting out the insurance board's objections to part of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill now going through Parliament. This is the matter which the Motion proposes should be referred to the Committee for Privileges.

It seems to me that the plain implication of this paragraph is that the Chairman and three of the board of the Cooperative Insurance Society have been dismissed in consequence of, and as a punishment for, their having made representations to Members of this House on a matter which is clearly of public and not merely private interest. My purpose in moving to refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges is, first, for it to be established whether that implication is true, and, secondly, for it to he decided whether, if it is true, the action of the C.W.S. directors in dismissing the Co-operative Insurance Society directors constituted a breach of Privilege of this House.

Both Houses of Parliament have always been jealous to safeguard the course of legislation from any outside interference, and they have been jealous of the right of access to Members of either House without let or hindrance. I need hardly say that it is the matter referred to in the article, and not the article itself, that I am suggesting should be referred to the Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the matter referred to on page 21 of The Times Business News of June 21, under the heading "Chairman goes in Co-op Row," be referred to the Committee for Privileges.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

2.48 p.m.

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, at the Second Reading of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Bill I paid a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and indicated a viewpoint which I am sure is shared by every Member of this House, complimenting him upon his sense of judgment. I also believe that every Member of the House will share with him the desire to ensure that all the Privileges of this House are maintained. But I am quite certain that when the true facts are disclosed to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and to other Members of the House, they will realise that there is no justification at all for referring this matter to the Committee for Privileges. The whole of the case that has been submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, rests upon the article in The Times of June 21, written by Maurice Corina, in which he states: Departure of the chairman and three colleagues—they are all full-time C.W.S. directors—follows the circulation to all members of the House of Lords of a memorandum setting out the insurance board's objections to part of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill now going through Parliament". I can make it absolutely clear to this House that there was no relationship at all between the departure of these three directors from the board of the C.I.S. and the fact that the C.I.S. board circulated a memorandum to Members of this House. If I am able to make that clear, as I am sure I can, then obviously there will be no justification for the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and no case for submission to the Committee for Privileges.

I point out—and I have checked these facts with the C.W.S. board this morning—that the item on the agenda of the C.W.S. board meeting on June 19 read as follows: Representation of the C.W.S. board on the board of the C.I.S. The board papers relating to the determination of the new composition of the board of the C.I.S. went out on June 13. The date heading the memorandum which was sent to Members of this House was June 14. It was received by Members of this House on June 17. Therefore, seeing that the board papers went out on June 13 there was no relationship at all between the communication to the Lords and the decision of the C.W.S.

One reason for the board meeting of June 19 to deal with the question of the composition of the board of the C.I.S. was that there was a vacancy on the board of the C.I.S. due to a normal age retirement. Because of that the whole matter of the composition of the board of the C.I.S. was under consideration. The board of the C.I.S. consists of eight members nominated by the Co-operative Wholesale Society and two by the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, and it was decided that half of the eight should be part-time members of the C.W.S. board and half should be full-time members. The decision was made on June 19 in accordance with that, and such decision would have been made, quite apart from any circulation to this House. There was then a new election of the board of the C.I.S. on Wednesday, June 19. The decision to have a new election was occasioned, as I have just said, by the fact that there had been a retirement due to age. It was decided that three full-time members would make way for part-time members of the C.W.S.—there are 30 part-time members of the Co-operative Wholesale Society board. Therefore, four full-time directors out of the original eight still remain on the C.I.S. board. I would emphasise that this was a properly constituted meeting of the C.W.S. board, armed with the powers to vary the representation on the board of the C.I.S.

Another important point which has a considerable bearing upon this is the fact that the C.I.S. board itself—or at least the C.W.S. nominees on the C.I.S. board—could all have determined for themselves who was to withdraw from the C.I.S. board. It was agreed that half of the eight should he drawn from the part-time members. The eight members of the C.I.S. board could have decided for themselves which four—or three, because one had retired—should be withdrawn. They themselves decided that the C.W.S. board should make the decision and they preferred that all members of the C.I.S. board should go for determination. The decision was made; the three members whose names are known to this House did not secure the adequate vote and the remaining number remained on the C.I.S. board. Therefore, when teat vote was taken, three, including the chairman, were replaced and the others re-elected. Therefore the C.W.S. board—and again I would emphasise this—as such lid not specifically make the decision to withdraw the name of the chairman of the C.I.S. That is a very important point.

If the members of the Co-operative Insurance Society board had so decided he could have remained as a member of that board. Therefore I repeat, because this is the whole kernel of what we are discussing, that the change in the representation on the C.I.S. board was not occasioned by the action of the C.I.S. in communicating with the Members of the House of Lords, and the dates which I have given (and which I have confirmed to-day) indicate quite clearly that there could be no relationship between the two. I have also seen a copy of the Minute of the C.W.S. board meeting for June 19, and it states that: From the C.I.S. point of view the failure to acquaint the C.W.S. board with II e proposals "— that was, their proposals of opposition to this Bill— was an error of omission for which apologies were offered by the C1.S. board. I take this opportunity of pointing out that the report in The Times was grossly inaccurate where it states that the battle for control had led to the withdrawal of the chairman of the C.I.S., because. I repeat, if the directors of the C.I.S. I ad so desired he could have remained as a director and chairman of the C.I.S.

Those are the facts of the case, and once again I underline that in terns of dates it would have been impossible to indicate any relationship between the dispatch of a communication to this House and the decision of the C.W.S. board to change its representation on the board of the C.I.S. Therefore, seeing that that is the basis of the argument in support of the suggestion that it should go to the Committee for Privileges, I would suggest to your Lordships that there is no justification whatsoever for that step to be taken. This, unfortunately, stems from the prosecution of a quite innocuous but extremely valuable Bill. For three years there has been discussion among all sections of the Co-operative movement and the friendly society movement in support of this Bill. Representatives of all the bodies have been consulted and the Bill has come along, and it is indeed regrettable that at this stage, due entirely to Press comment that misrepresented the situation, this trouble should have been created. The board meeting upon which the decisions were to be made concerning the composition of the C.I.S. would have been held in any case, regardless of any Bill and regardless of any communication to your Lordships' House. In the light of the facts which I have indicated to your Lordships I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, conscious as I am of his sense of responsibility, will withdraw the Motion that he put before this House.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, the noble Lord has given the House an interesting part of the history, but there is one matter I wish he would clear up for me. I listened with the greatest attention to his history of the dates. He said that the decision to change the membership of the C.I.S. board was reached before the circular was sent out; he referred to the agenda of the board meeting as being one of the first things. Then the circular was sent out. It was only after that, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, that the decision was made to replace these three directors. I think that appears from what he has said. The one thing he did not say, while putting very much weight on the dates of these various meetings, was this. If it be the case, as I think emerges from his statement, that these three men were got rid of at the meeting which took place after the circular was sent out, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the sending out of the circular had in fact absolutely nothing to do with their being dismissed and that the sending out of the circular was not discussed at the meeting at which it was decided to get rid of these three directors?

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, I obviously cannot give an assurance that the dis- patch of the circular was not discussed at the board meeting on June 19, because I was not present at that board meeting. I was at one time a director of the C.W.S. and the C.I.S., but I am not now. Therefore, I cannot give an assurance that that matter was not discussed. It is more than likely that it would be mentioned, but that I do not know. All I am saying, and I repeat, is that in regard to the board meeting of June 19, which was a regular normal meeting of the board of the C.W.S., the papers for that board meeting went out on June 13, and on those papers there was reference to the fact that representation on the C.I.S. would be under consideration. The date of the circular sent to your Lordships was June 14, which was a Friday, and it is more than likely that it would not be in your hands until June 17. Therefore obviously there could be no possible connection between the circular dispatched to this House and the decision of the board made on June 19, because it was on June 13, long before your Lordships received the circular, that the decision was made to place this on the agenda of the C.W.S. board meeting.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, the noble Lord really is not dealing with the point I am putting. While accepting that a decision was made that there should be changes on the board of the C.I.S. before that circular was sent out, the question which I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn raised and which I think arises from what the noble Lord has said is this. Was the decision to remove these three directors made in consequence of the circular being sent out? One can accept that there was a decision to make some changes in the board from what the noble Lord has said, but what he has not said is whether the decision to remove these three directors was not in consequence of the circular being sent out.

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, I have no need to repeat what I have said, but I will repeat what I said originally: that is, that there was a normal vacancy on the board of the C.I.S. due to a retirement, which necessitated reconsideration of the representation of the C.W.S. on the board of the C.I.S. I repeat also that that representation from the C.W.S. board to the C.I.S. is not on any time basis; it can be varied at any time, and it is within the compass of the responsibility of the C.W.S. board to vary it at any time. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite clear that there was no relationship between the circular sent out and the decision of the C.W.S. board.

I repeat again the essential points. The first point is that the decision to consider the question of representation was occasioned by the fact that there was a vacancy on the C.I.S. board of the C.W.S. due to retirement. That brought the matter up. The second point the noble Viscount mentioned was as to whether there was an endeavour to remove the chairman. I would again repeat what I said in my opening statement, that is, that the decision to change the C.I.S. chairman was not occasioned by the C.W.S. board specifically. Because of the need to place four part-time members, the opportunity was given to the C.I.S. board to indicate the names of the four C.I.S. representatives to be removed to make places for part-time members. They preferred that it went to the C.W.S. board for decision, and in consequence of the voting on the C.W.S. the chairman was not elected. But there was no specific intention on the part of the C.W.S. board to remove the chairman. I hope that clears up the point.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but it does not.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble and learned Viscount. I served for a great many years on the Committee of Privileges in another place. I am really puzzled as to why whatever happened in this case is said to be a breach of privilege. What exactly is the case about it? Your Lordships are well aware that in another place the matter comes up in the first instance in the House, and Mr. Speaker is called upon to decide whether there is a prima facie case such as to give the matter priority in the Order of Business for the day, and Mr. Speaker does or does not so decide. If he does, the matter then goes to the Committee of Privileges after the appropriate Motion, which can be contested and sometimes is, and they decide. While I served on that Committee I think the tendency the whole time was to reduce the number of cases on which any action should be taken, and that tendency has now spread, I notice, to the preliminary discussions on questions of privilege in another place. The reason was because another place felt that it was making itself a little foolish in trying to deal with rather trivial matters as cases of privilege and that its essential business was to preserve the status and reputation of the House itself and the Members of the House.

I remember one particular case—perhaps "No names, no pack drill" is the better course—where there had been an exceedingly bitter and ungrounded attack upon a particular Member of the House. There was no doubt that there had been a technical breach of privilege. But it was also the case that if we had done anything about it it would not have had any effect whatever but to make another place look rather foolish. I forget the exact form in which we reported, but we certainly did not let the matter proceed any further than it had.

In all those cases, there was a question whether there had been some attack on the reputation and privileges in that sense of the House—whether there had been a "contempt" is the phrase used in Erskine May. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would suggest that the House was in any way attacked here, that it was a matter which on any view of this could lower the reputation of the House as such or of any Member of it. All I can say is that I read the article and it never even occurred to me that it was a breach of privilege; and I was really puzzled the other day when I heard the noble Lord give notice that he was going to raise this matter. If it is not a breach of privilege what is it exactly? If we cannot sit here and decide, nor can the Committee for Privileges. Nor should they, with respect, try to Decide whether three gentlemen on the board of a Co-operative organisation or any other board have been rightly or wrongly, dismissed. If we try to do that kind of thing, we shall indeed bring the reputation of the House into disrespect.

If it is a question of wrongful dismissal it may be a case for the courts I do not know; but there is nothing that concerns this House. Then it is said that in some way or another the practice of making representations, as they are often made nowadays to Members of the House, must be protected. I wonder why? I wonder whether that is really a good thing? Particularly during my service in another place, like every other Member of the House I had some remarkably silly representations made to me, and I do not see why they needed any special or particular protection. So if they find any breach of privilege here, or even the smell of it, if I may so put it, and also feel that some ingenious person can spell out of it privilege in this case, it is certainly not one which ought to receive the semi-penal treatment of being referred to the Committee for Privileges.

There was a period a long time ago when the Committee for Privileges in this House had greater powers than the Committee of Privileges in another place. Their powers of punishment were rather different, and they were stoutly maintained to be a court of record. It comes, I think, from the period when a certain confusion still prevailed between this House sitting as a part of the legislative machinery and sitting in its judicial capacity as the highest court of law. That confusion has by now, I should have thought, been eliminated, and quite rightly so. The matter is clearer than it used to be. But if this kind of thing is taken as seriously as this Motion would imply, I suggest that we run the risk of further confusion as to what the functions of the House are in a matter of this kind.

I hope I have not spoken offensively to anyone; I have tried hard not to. But I hope that in the interests of the House itself and every Member of it, this matter will not be pushed any further. I fully appreciate that Lord Drumalbyn raised this Motion feeling that it was a matter he ought to raise; but I wish he would consider, if he does not mind my putting it that way, whether it is a good thing to take it any further.

3.13 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replies to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, I wonder whether I could revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said a short time ago when, to my way of thinking, he was unable to give the positive assurances that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked for. I understand that he is no longer a director of either the C.W.S. or the C.I.S., but can he tell us in that case where he got his quite full information from? I further understand, of course, that this might be what he would consider privileged information and that he cannot reveal its source, but it would be interesting.

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, I indicated to the House where I got the information from. It was from the C.W.S. this morning. I thought I made that very clear. Obviously I needed from the C.W.S. positive information concerning dates, because dates are extremely important. Once again the point has been put to me how I reply to the question whether the circular had any connection with the dismissal. I have already indicated on three occasions that obviously it could have had no direct connection at all, because dates alone confirm that. They confirm the fact that the question of the representation on the board of the C.I.S. from the C.W.S. was a decision which was taken before the date of the dispatch of the circular to the Members of the House. I cannot give any more information than that; but I am quite sure that the information that I have given to the House, which is confirmed by the C.W.S. and, indeed, the C.I.S., makes quite clear that there is no justification at all for this reference to the Committee for Privileges; and the decisions that were taken, however distasteful they may be to certain persons, were quite in accord with the normal conduct of affairs between the C.I.S. and the C.W.S. They were no more than that. Therefore I would reiterate what I said before, that, quite frankly, there is no justification at all for reference to the Committee for Privileges.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm what he has told us today: that a Press release was made by the C.I.S. on the 6th of the month in much the same terms as the communications that were sent to Members?

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, I must point out that the noble Lord has sat down once. He has now sat down a second time. It may be for the convenience of the House if he answers that question, but it is a little irregular.

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, I do not know. I am not cognisant of any Press release. I believe that a number of Press releases are sent out by the C.I.S. I have no knowledge of the particular one to which the noble Lord is referring, so I can make no comment on it. I do not think that whatever was done on June 6 has any bearing on the matter that we are discussing now.

3.15 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I think in my capacity as Leader of the House I ought now to give such guidance as appears to be appropriate, and I must say that I do not find it easy to give this guidance. I am quite sure that in considering this matter your Lordships will not allow any question of partisanship to affect your views, and clearly it is not for me to give firm guidance. In another place the Speaker would give a ruling whether there is a prima facie case within certain limitations, but there ultimately the matter rests in the hands of the House, as it does here.

My first reaction when I heard of the proposal was instinctively to get the matter away from the Floor of the House and get it into a Committee, where they could make as much of a meal of it as they wanted without all of us having to partake of the same repast. None the less, a decision to send it to the Committee for Privileges is quite an important one. That Committee includes busy people, and there is no precedent for a matter of this kind going to the Committee for Privileges. That, however, is no bar to our deciding to send it there. Indeed, we are counselled in the Companion, at page 153, that the Committee for Privileges would hear and make recommendations upon any matter of privilege referred to it by the House; and to that extent the Committee would be the appropriate body.

In order to keep the record straight, may I say that I am rather conscious in these days that when we make speeches in your Lordships' House we may be making history and that others will turn to us for guidance as to why we did particular things—assuming that our successors are there to read them. Prior to 1956, when the Committee for Privileges was reconstituted, references were always about Peerage matters. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was interested in a reference in 1905. In the 19th century these matters were usually dealt with in debate, or were referred to an ad hoc committee. But I think we are agreed that if we proceed with this further, the Committee for Privileges would be appropriate.

In giving my views on this subject I am most conscious that I am doing so without much preparation, and I. shall not take it in any way amiss if noble Lords decide that the guidance I am giving, or the views I am expressing, are not correct. I can only say that they are delivered with the maximum amount of impartiality. The first question we have to decide is whether the approach which was made to your Lordships' House was an appropriate approach and that those concerned were not seeking to put some undue influence on your Lordships' House. That could in itself constitute a possible contempt or breach of privilege. But I am quite sum that in this sense it was, from the standpoint of your Lordships' House, in no way an improper approach.

Secondly, if the matter were now to be referred to the Committee for Privileges the issue would have to be not only whether the board of the C.W.S. were, by their action, prejudicing improperly the general right by members of the public of approaching your Lordships' House on public matters, the Committee would have to consider, first of all, whether the dismissals, or their resignation, were, in fact, occasioned by their approach to your Lordships' House. Here we have had evidence given, I am quite sure with full regard to the seriousness of what the noble Lord was saying and the importance of the accuracy of what he was saying, that there was no connection between the two. I know that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was not entirely happy about this matter and he pressed my noble friend rather hard on it.

I must say, I should be very reluctant not to accept the statement of a noble Lord, made, I am sure, with full seriousness on a matter of this kind; and here I think it would be proper to consider whether, if an approach had not been made, they might not have taken the same action. Here I think we have to consider the particular relationship between these individuals and the C.W.S., and on this point my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, was of course entirely right; if there was some element of improper dismissal there are certain rights in accordance with their contract of employment, if they have a contract of employment—if they do not have a written contract of employment they may have certain rights at law in the matter.

It is for consideration indeed whether the directors in question were debarred from making any representation to this House. If we look at the position of employees (if they are employees) in any firm—and it is rather an obscure position, because directors have statutory responsibilities as well as purely contractual responsibilities—we can all visualise circumstances in which the director of a subordinate company clearly could not be permitted to go on being a director of that company if he was pursuing a policy which was wholly at variance with the policy of the principal board, whether or not he made representations to the House of Lords. I offer these considerations because they are ones that have occurred to me. One always applies one's own experience in relation to one's own business activities.

My Lords, before I come to the final question of privilege, let me say that whatever happens, if we decide to send this matter to the Committee for Privileges I see no reason why the Bill should not, in fact, proceed. It could, indeed, complicate our consideration of the matter and influence our thinking in a way in which it should not, if we thought that the Bill might in some way be endangered by this; and my advice is that there is no reason why it should be influenced in this matter.

The point I want to make is that, however jealous either House may be of the rights of access to that House, I can find no precedent where an attempt by one individual to influence another individual as to the nature or content of his communication with a Member of Parliament has been treated as a breach of privilege or as a contempt of a House. Here again I think my noble friend Lord Mitchison was absolutely right about the danger of a confusion between what might be called "tampering with witnesses" coming before your Lordships' House and action in relation to an approach to your Lordships' House. I appreciate that this raises complicated issues, and it may be that some of your Lordships feel that this is a matter that should go to the Committee for Privileges. Indeed, that was my first thought. However, on further reflection and having studied the precedents, I cannot personally believe, although your Lordships no doubt will decide, that this is such a proper case.

My view is primarily based on common sense in this matter. Clearly it would be impossible for us to seek at all times to protect people from the consequences, wise or unwise, of approaching either House of Parliament. Another place has studiously avoided giving such a ruling on cases that have been brought before it. Therefore my general view is this. My noble friend Lord Peddie has first of all said, I think with all the seriousness that he can command—and no doubt if he has had any further thought he would express it—that the decision that was taken to cause the resignation of these directors was not associated with their approach to your Lordships' House; and he has sought to show that in relation to the dates. I do not think it is easy for us to go deeply into this question of dates, but he has given that assurance.

But I put the more serious point: that even if it had been in some ways connected, by virtue of their particular relationship with their colleagues and because of matters depending on their contract of agreement, it would, even so, not be a matter on which either House has previously ruled that a contempt had taken place. Therefore, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was entirely justified in bringing this matter forward—I thought he did this absolutely rightly—my view, and I am very open to have a contrary view put by any of your Lordships, is that we ought not to send this matter to the Committee for Privileges.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, may I just, with the leave of the House, say two things, as the noble Lord referred to my interruption of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie? I do not doubt the accuracy of the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, on information he has obtained. What I felt was that his dates and his facts did not warrant the conclusion that he sought to draw from them. If it be the fact that the dismissal of these men was in part due to, or influenced by, this circular, may I say I entirely agree with the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, that that really is not a matter which should be referred to the Committee for Privileges.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I, like the other Members of your Lordships' House, am grateful for the care which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has so clearly given to this difficult and complicated matter. I would thank him for that, and I should also wish to say that, like him, I have no desire to approach this matter in any way in a partisan spirit, nor have I any desire on this occasion to make history in any way. I think there is rather a difficult balance here. On the one hand we clearly must be jealous, but not over squeamish, about our privileges. On the other hand, the privilege of the right of free access by individuals and organisations to all Members of your Lordships' House is undoubtedly an extremely important privilege. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said, and I am sure we should all like to echo the respect which has already been paid him, and I fully accept his statement.

I am not clear whether I am entirely with him on the conclusions he drew from that statement, but it is extraordinarily difficult to decide on a question and answer basis across the Floor of your Lordships' House. My first feeling was that if there was any real doubt in your Lordships' mind whether there had been a breach of privilege here, the matter having been raised, and raised so impartially and ably by my noble friend, it would be better to get that doubt cleared away, and that the best way of doing that was by reference of this matter to the Committee for Privileges.

On the other hand, I feel that the matter to which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has drawn our attention, namely, that there is no precedent at all in this case, should weigh with your Lordships. Another matter which should weigh with your Lordships and with my noble friend is that one senses that some of your Lordships would not wish this reference to be made. My inclination on a matter of this sort is very much on the lines that, if reference is to be made, it should be dole virtually unanimously. I do not wish to prejudge my noble friend's decision, which is entirely his. I agree with what has been said about his justification for raising this matter in your Lordships' House. I should be very glad to hear his own view as to whether it should be proceeded with.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said. I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was right to raise this matter, and that the fact that it has been raised will constitute sufficient warning, should a warning be required. But one can get into great difficulties by trying too clearly to define a field of privilege as wide as this. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I should like to say a word or two about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, because I was perhaps in a little less agreement with what he said than with the other speeches. It seemed to me that when the question of contempt arises, it is not just a question of lowering reputation. Privilege, we are always told, attaches in order to enable us to perform our functions. I was concerned will h the interference with functions. It seemed to me that, even though there never had been a precedent for this kind of thing in this House, it might be as well for this matter to be studied. It is true that the precedents in the Commons are against a reference of a matter of this kind, but in each case the circumstances are slightly different. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that even if this matter were referred, the Bill should proceed; I do not think there would be any question about that.

I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Peddle, is fully convinced that what he said to us is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But he seemed to rely a little too much on dates alone and it may be that he himself is not yet aware of all the factors involved. But, having said that, and after weighing the matter carefully and balancing the factors on both sides, I readily assent to the advice which has been given to me by noble Lords generally. I agree that if privileges of the House are to be defended a matter of this kind should be referred to the Committee for Privileges by the virtually unanimous vote of the House; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said, it looks as if there are some noble Lords who would dissent from the suggestion that this particular matter should be referred to the Committee for Privileges.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD DRUMALBYN

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers has said. I am grateful to noble Lords for having said that I did right to raise this matter. I could see no other alternative at the time. I think the mere fact that it has been debated will prove a useful warning in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to