It might be convenient if I now made a statement about Privilege, which I was asked to make, and which I deferred. I apologise for the length of the statement.

On Thursday of last week, 3rd July, a Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn): That the report (17th June) of the Committee of Privileges be now considered to which a contingent Motion was appended. The Motion raised the question whether the report of the Committee on a matter of privilege is entitled to priority over the programme of Business in the same way as a matter of Privilege arising for the first time. I did not feel in a position to rule on the Motion on its first appearance and have deferred giving my decision until this afternoon. In the current edition of Erskine May, on page 134, it is stated: A motion that a report of a committee on a matter of privilege be now taken into consideration…will be accorded the priority assigned to a matter of privilege unless there has been undue delay in bringing it forward. The view in some earlier editions that such a Motion was not entitled to priority was based on a Ruling of one of my predecessors, Mr. Speaker Gully, in 1902. This Ruling cited certain precedents, but I am satisfied that it not only misinterpreted the precedents to which it appealed, but also showed a misunderstanding of the true relations between the House and a committee to which a matter of Privilege is referred. When the Committee of Privileges have been ordered to inquire into a complaint of breach of Privilege, in Erskine May's words, the House suspends its judgment until their Report has been presented. The House, by referring a complaint to the Committee, does not forgo its right to adjudicate upon the case; the Committee, indeed, can only recommend, and have no power to pronounce judgment. It is, moreover, the inherent right of every Member of this House first, to bring matters of Privilege to its attention, and consequently to secure its decision upon them. There are, however, several difficult questions of a practical nature involved in treating reports of the Committee of Privileges as matters of Privilege. Such a report, together with its minutes of evidence and appendices may be a long and complicated document. It would not be reasonable to discuss such a report until Members generally have had time to acquaint themselves fully with its contents. On the other hand, it would not be right that such a report should be left unconsidered for a considerable time and then brought forward with the priority of a matter of Privilege.

I think that in this matter the general practice of the House should be followed whereby the choice of a day for debate is settled by agreement among the various parties interested. In the event of failure to agree, any Member would have the right to put down a Motion for consideration of such a report at the time at which matters of Privilege are taken, namely, before entering on the programme of Public Business. In such a case, however, if an attempt were made to debate a report which in the view of the great Majority of the House did not call for discussion, it would be possible to avoid discussion by negativing the preliminary question for the consideration of the report—upon which the substance of the report is not open to debate. In cases where time for considering a report on a matter of Privilege was settled by a general agreement, I do not think it would be necessary to insist that the Motion must be taken immediately after Questions. Any time that was generally convenient should be admissible. I think this decision conforms with the traditions of the House in matters of Privilege, and that the practice which I have indicated would be fair both to individual Member? and the House as a whole.

May I thank you, respectfully, for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps express the fearful joy with which some of us heard such plain correction of a Speaker, even one so dead as Mr. Speaker Gully. May I ask you whether the Debate, if there is to be a Debate, will be upon the Motion which was down in my name and that of my hon. Friends, or on the Motion which has since appeared upon the Order Paper?

As I have already said, I am sorry, but I have not looked at the Motion on the Paper. I have not noticed it, but it is usual, if the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges puts down a Motion, to take the Motion standing in his name. Not having looked at the Motion, I cannot give a definite answer.

I am sure that the whole House is obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the trouble you have taken in this matter. I would mention that it has not been uncommon, in connection with many of the reports of the Committee of Privileges, when there has been general agreement on the Committee and when, perhaps, they have not raised issues of great importance, for the House to have been pleased to let the matter rest there, and to agree that no further action be taken upon it. I presume this Ruling would not in any way prejudice that course being taken. There are a fair number of reports upon which no further action is taken unless it is the wish of the House or any Member that action should be taken.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct there. I think that is said in Erskine May. I have forgotten the exact words, but it is not usual to demand discussion where a Committee has been in complete agreement, and has reported that no breach of Privilege has been made. There is a remedy, as I have indicated in my Ruling, that if anybody puts down a Motion, the House can refuse to consider the matter, and that would end it at once.