3.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to bring to your notice a speech which is reported in the "Sutton Coldfield News" on Saturday last, 16th June, as having been made at Streetly, Staffordshire, by a Lady Mellor who is, I believe, the wife of the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). I raise it only because I regard it as my duty to this House to do so. During her speech she is reported as having said this, amongst other things: The other day Major Milner (Deputy Speaker) made a ruling and though he was within his rights, Lady Mellor thought that in the present circumstances, it was a very deplorable one. He refused to permit certain amendments to the proposals to increase certain taxes to be discussed which normally would have been discussed. It seemed a particularly bad thing when a government with such a small Majority was in power refused to admit full and free discussion. I suggest that these words do three things. First, they criticise the Rulings of the Chairman of Ways and Means and characterise one of them as "very deplorable." Secondly, they allege that he refused to permit discussion of certain Amendments which would normally have been discussed, presumably, if someone else had been in the Chair. Thirdly—and this, Sir, is the most serious of them all—these words suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means had been subjected to Government pressure in these matters and that, through him, the Government had been able to prevent full and free discussion.

Mr. Speaker, in this House we are all believers in the impartiality of the Chair. In fact, our continued existence as a Parliamentary democracy is conditioned by it; but I believe that it is equally important that people outside this House and beyond these shores shall believe in this also. Because this statement casts doubt on that belief, and suggests that the Chairman of Ways and Means was the creature of the Government on this occasion, I raise this matter with you, Sir, believing that these words constitute a breach of Privilege, and ask you if you will give your Ruling on the matter.

Will the hon. Member bring the paper to the Table? The complaint of the hon. Member is of the type to which priority is given over the business of the day. Therefore, I must ask him to conclude with a Motion.

In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, "That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

Mr. Speaker proceeded to collect the voices—

Do we understand, Sir, that you have ruled that this is a fit and proper matter for the Committee of Privileges?

We have had some discussion about this. It is not necessary now to say there is a prima facie case. I implied that in my statement by asking the hon. Member to move a Motion, and therefore that is all my duty. Supposing I had been satisfied there was no prima facie case, then I should have interrupted the hon. Member. I think it would have been happier if this procedure had been used in a certain case some time ago. I think that is the right way of dealing with these matters now.

With great respect, Sir. when you got up we thought you were going to give a Ruling upon this matter. We listened with great attention. We were not clear what actually happened. You proposed the Question that the matter should be remitted to the Committee of Privileges and asked for "Ayes or "Noes" on that subject. Before it is committed to the Committee of Privileges, has the House no opportunity of discussing the matter, particularly in view of the fact that you have not given a Ruling that there is a prima facie case? Surely the House has a right to discuss it, and not merely a right to vote without discussion on a matter on which you have not given a Ruling?

It is not necessary, and I do not have to rule that there is a prima facie case. That is implied by the fact that I asked the hon. Member to move his Motion. The Motion is debateable, and when I put the Question I looked to see whether any hon. Member was going to get up.

Would you enlighten us, Sir? I am sorry that I had no idea of this new procedure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the whole House was aware of it, except my right hon. Friend and myself, I apologise. I had understood the procedure was that your first pronouncement was to rule whether there was a prima facie case. You have told us this afternoon that that procedure is no longer necessary. Would you be good enough to tell us when the new arrangement came about, what it has arisen from, and why we are now to enjoy it, if "enjoy" is the right word?

The arrangement came about this morning, when I discussed it with the Clerks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] After all, they are my advisers and their opinion is something I have to consider. This was discussed carefully and I am convinced and assured that merely uttering the words "prima facie case" might have a harmful effect. It might seem as if I had already judged the thing in advance, and therefore it is safer to leave it to the House, who can decide whether or not it goes to the Committee of Privileges to be judged. This avoids the appearance that the case is tried twice over and that I may have prejudiced it by saying that there is a prima facie case.

It would not be for me to challenge the reasons for that decision, but would it not have been possible, in view of the fact that there was a case of this kind, for some information to have been given to us that what has been the procedure of the House, certainly ever since I have sat in it, was to be changed without our having any notification of the fact?

I might have considered that, I admit, but I did not have very much time. After all, this case came to my notice only this morning.

Do I understand that we are at liberty, Sir, to debate the Question which you put to us?

The Motion is before the House and we are at liberty to debate it.

Several Hon. Members:

Several Hon. Members rose—

I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. Member in the House not only heard you ask my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) to move his Motion and heard him say it, but heard you then put the Question. It is about time that hon. Members listened when you, Sir, are on your feet. The Question was then put by you. Many hon. Members said "Aye." Then the Question was put for the "Noes." No hon. Member said "No." [Interruption.] The Motion was carried and, therefore, surely it cannot be debated.

Actually, I never declared "The Ayes have it." To be frank, I did hear a murmur on my left, from which I thought that although Members were not saying anything loudly, there was some objection on my left.

I understand we now have the right to debate the Motion that has been moved. With very great respect, I am sure that any misunderstanding—

Further to that point of order—

I am sure that any misunderstanding—

Has the hon. Member a point of order?

I think, Sir, that we all heard you say that you had not declared that the Ayes had it. Whether or not you had declared that the Ayes or the Noes had it, you had, I think, quite clearly collected the voices—[Interruption]—or were going to do so. That being so, is it in order to continue the discussion beyond that point?

I can quite understand that there was some confusion. It was a new procedure, and Members did not understand it. It is only fair—it is a debatable Motion; that was not understood at the moment—to let it go on, and we can debate it.

I will address myself to the Motion which has been moved from the opposite side of the House by the hon. Member who raised this issue. It seems to me that we should be very careful in not adopting and remitting to the Committee of Privileges any Motion that may be moved by any Member, irrespective of whether the Speaker has, after much careful consideration, decided that there is a prima facie case. If the prima facie case—security—is swept aside, there is not any single day in the week when a dozen cases of Privilege may not be raised and unfolded and when they will be automatically remitted to the unfortunate Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Poole indicated dissent.

The hon. Member shakes his head. He really had a great opportunity of putting his case, and I do not know why he should be disturbed because the answer has been made to him.

There ought not to be undue and ill-considered burdens thrown upon the Committee of Privileges. Hitherto, a kind of strainer has been employed by the fact that the Speaker of the House, with all the advice of the Clerks at the Table, has had an opportunity of saying whether there is a prima facie case or not. Now, we have got to a new procedure when any Member can get up and read out anything; it may be utterly untrue—I do not say that the present instance is untrue—it may be distorted or misreported; whatever it may be, any Member can read it out and make his Motion that it be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Then all that happens is that it goes there, unless we debate it.

If that is so, a very great impediment to Government business might be introduced by this method and all kinds of questions might be raised to entrench upon debates and so forth, which would be injurious. Therefore, we ought to be very careful indeed in not accepting Motions—I am debating how we shall vote on this, because we shall have to vote on it—to refer matters to the Committee of Privileges which have not received the imprimatur and which have not been brought forward in the ordinary process through the chances of Business and of Ballot for Motions. That is the kind of procedure which seems to me of great importance before we decide how we are to vote in this matter, because that is what has to be settled.

There is one other aspect that we ought to consider. In this country free speech has long been privileged outside the special responsibilities of Members of Parliament and so forth, and there has been for many generations very free talk about all sorts of topics. One cannot say that the man or the woman in the street can be brought up violently and called to account because of expressing some opinion on something or other which is sub judice. [Interruption.] They are perfectly entitled to do that. They may say things that are deplorable—many deplorable things are said under free speech—but to say that these matters should immediately be cast upon our overburdened Committee of Privileges is, I think, most imprudent on the part of the House.

The question of the impartiality of the Chair is a very high and sacred one, and I am sure that if an attack or a series of attacks of an irresponsible character were made in the country, it would be a matter in which the House would feel it its duty to sustain and protect the Chair; but casual comment made by a person not in a representative position, and not a Member of this House—

On a point of order—

Let me finish. I will not sit down unless I am ordered to do so. The right hon. Member uses the point of order as an abuse of the means of expressing—

Does the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn), rise to a point of order?

I understood you to say that although it was not necessary for you to say those words, in the event of there not having been a prima facie case you would have ruled that there was not a prima facie case, and that protection exists. Am I to understand that before the Committee of Privileges can approach this matter in an impartial way, the whole business has to be debated in this House in a heated atmosphere and taken out of the judicial atmosphere?

That is perfectly true. I said I could stop any frivolous Motion which was brought to my notice as a matter of Privilege, but this, of course, I do not regard as a frivolous one at all and I deliberately said that the complaint of the hon. Member is of the type to which priority is given over the business of the day and that, of course, puts it into a high priority.

Are we to understand that the fact that you now propose to call on an hon. Member to move a Motion is in effect a statement by you that there is a prima facie case?

Yes; "yes" is the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I understood you to rule that you had collected the voices. Is there any precedent that, when a Motion is before the House, after the voices have been collected, the debate is continued?

With great respect, I think the House should be a little careful before it remits to the Committee of Privileges—we have a Motion before us now and we are going to debate it and vote on it—matters of what might be unfortunate or irregular comment, but which are not committed by persons with any special Parliamentary responsibility. A lot of things have been said in my time, not only about the Chair and the behaviour of the Chairman of Committees and so forth, but I have heard full-blooded attacks on the whole Parliamentary system itself. If I thought that was a matter of breach of Privilege, would it not be a matter of breach of Privilege for a man to get up in Trafalgar Square and say, "The whole rotten business of Parliament and the House of Commons should be swept away and business conducted from Transport House"? There is no limit, and the House is really going to put itself in a position of extreme embarrassment and difficulty if it goes running all over the place trying to pick up chance utterances of persons who do not hold official or Parliamentary positions of any kind and saying they imply a reflection on the Chair.

What can we do by that? We are only attempting to muzzle—a thing we cannot do—the whole vast uncontrollable waves of expression of public opinion throughout the country, which is one of the great disadvantages and also the foundation of its strength and life. I hope that the House, will, by the vote it will give after the discussion is over, make it quite clear that it keeps a cool head in these matters and does not attempt to burden itself and its Committee of Privileges with running round all the street corners and villages of the country to see whether somebody has been overheard making some reflection upon some Ruling given by the Chairman of Committees. I trust we shall give a decided vote on that matter and that there will be a very full and decisive debate in this House.

I hope that such debate as takes place on this Motion may take place in an atmosphere of reasonable calm, because I think that we are likely, unless we are very careful, to do damage not merely to our procedure but to the efficacy of the use of the Committee of Privileges. As I understand the position, Mr. Speaker, it is that by giving priority to this Motion over the business of the day you have given the indication which hitherto, at any rate for a considerable number of years, has been given by saying there is a prima facie case.

During the current Session, we had a debate in which you did not give that Ruling and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) then put a Motion on the Order Paper that a certain matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Time was found for it, a discussion took place and the Motion was defeated, but no priority was accorded to the Motion on that particular occasion. Now, on this occasion, you have given priority before the business of the day to this Motion.

May I say, before we go any further, that of course the ordinary business of the House today is being conducted under some difficulties and some feeling of urgency, at any rate in some quarters, and a long discussion on this Motion today might involve us in very serious difficulties which I understood the great Majority of Members of this House were anxious to avoid with regard to the regular business.

May I, therefore, make this suggestion to the House. I think the whole position has been rather sprung on us, but that is inevitable in a matter of this kind—and may I say I had no communication with you and I was as much taken by surprise by the actual course which was adopted as any other hon. Member, and quite clearly it would be wrong of me to attempt to influence the Chair in any way. I have no prior consultation with the Chair about matters of this kind and would never expect to have. Therefore, I suggest that it might be a good thing and in the best interests of the House if this Motion now before us were adjourned until, say, Thursday, when we could take it as the first business and the matter could then be discussed. It is quite possible that we might then be better able to find a way out of the difficulties which present themselves to us than if we proceeded now.

Privilege has been raised and as I understand, it having been once raised, the question of priority does not again arise. The suggestion I have made would, I hope, meet with the general convenience of the House, but at this stage I would not propose to move a Motion, unless there were an indication that there was fairly general agreement on those lines.

May I ask whether the procedure which is being followed today means any change from the time-honoured Parliamentary practice under which it is for the Chair, and the Chair alone, to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case and that that is a condition precedent to any Motion to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges?

I did not quite hear what the right hon. Gentleman said.

I asked you, Sir, whether the procedure which has taken place today implied any change in the time-honoured practice of this House under which it is for the Chair and the Chair alone to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case of Privilege, and that that decision by the Chair is a condition precedent to any Motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Of course, I have ruled that there is a prima facie case because in asking the hon. Member to move a Motion I clearly indicated what I thought. As I said, I did not want to use those words; I thought it was better not to do so.

On a point of order. Does it follow that if you did not think there was a prima faciecase, you would refuse the hon. Member leave to move his Motion?

Certainly; that is my remedy.

I should like to say two things before we consider the proposal made by my right hon. Friend, to which I should have no objection at all and for which I should be prepared to vote. One is that it seems to me, with great respect, that the form which you, Sir, used in calling on my hon. Friend to move his Motion implied no change from what has been the practice of the House ever since this Standing Order was adopted. As I have always understood it, the only function of Mr. Speaker in these matters of Privilege is to decide whether or not the matter raised is of so important a character as to justify its being taken in priority to the other Business of the House.

The reason for that, as I have always understood, was the very reason which the Leader of the Opposition himself gave—because it is the only way in which the House of Commons can be protected in the conduct of its ordinary business from a wide variety of frivolous nonsense. It is quite true that there grew up the use of a form of words when the Chair gave its Ruling in that matter—the use of the phrase "a prima facie case." But the words "prima facie case" have a judicial connotation which does to some extent seem to prejudice the investigation of the matter that is being raised. I have always thought that the matter which I raised a few weeks ago was a little prejudiced and a little embarrassed by the variety of forms in which the Ruling of the Chair was then given.

I should have thought that the form you used today, Mr. Speaker, which exercises the function placed upon you by the Standing Order of deciding whether there shall be precedence or no precedence, as a very much better form than the old form of using these quasi-judicial phrases which only embarrass the issue.

The other thing I should like to say, with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Member of the House for so long, is that it seems to me that nothing could do greater harm to the House of Commons and to these questions of Privilege and the investigation of Privilege than if there grew up a habit of mind under which people decided whether or not to accept your Ruling on such a matter according to the way the particular point raised seemed to favour or tend to favour one side of the House rather than the other. I should have thought that the House would be well advised, even today, once you have said that this is a matter the character of which entitles it to precedence over the business of the day, to proceed to refer it to the Committee of Privileges without further debate, without a vote and without postponing it to any other occasion.

I think some of the difficulty in which we all find ourselves is due—I naturally say so without any wish to challenge what you, Sir, said at the beginning—to the novelty, so far as most of us are concerned, of the procedure which has been enunciated. I have been familiar for a great number of years, as have all older Members of this House, with the term "prima facie case" in connection with breach of Privilege. It may be, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) argues, that from a legal point of view that is not a very good phrase; that may be so; there may be other phrases we use which are not very good phrases but they become hallowed with time and custom. Had you, Mr. Speaker, got up and said, "This is a case in which I rule there is a prima facie case" we should all have understood where we were, and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend would have felt it necessary to challenge it—

The Leader of the House should himself have moved.

I was coming to that. If you, Mr. Speaker, had done that—had got up and said "This is a prima facie case" the next step, as I well remember from the days when I had the responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman now discharges, would have been for the Leader of the House to get up—[Interruption.]—yes, certainly—and move that—

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it may be remembered that, again during this Session, it was ruled on a previous occasion that the custom is for the Member who brings the matter to the notice of the House to move the Motion. I understand that has been the custom.

I am sorry. I have done it many times, no doubt always wrongly. It appears that what we have done in the past has been consistently wrong.

I suggest, with all respect, that if we are to plunge into a new procedure, even if only of nomenclature, it would have helped us a little if we could have had guidance that that was to happen. The right hon. Gentleman said that he knew nothing until you, Sir, took the course you did this afternoon. We too had no knowledge. I can only ask you what your judgment is, and whether you would rule that this is a prima facie case, in which case we have then to decide what our action shall be. I would suggest, with respect, that while of course we cannot discuss your Ruling, it would be possible for the House to receive a little guidance before we are asked to adopt what seems to be a new procedure in name and which seems to us to be nearly a new procedure in practice also.

I am informed that the use of "prima facie" began in 1936; before then it was not stated.

I should like to say only a few words on this matter. My first point is that I raised this matter because I believed it to be a House of Commons issue which was of importance to the House, and for no other reason. I was not aware of the new procedure, otherwise I should not have sat down at the end of my statement and have had to be called by you, Mr. Speaker. I was expecting that a prima facie case would be ruled. or otherwise.

The Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have a great personal affection arising out of other days and times, did me less than justice in two respects today. First, he did not do me the courtesy of listening to anything I said. Secondly, he made reference to people running round, snooping and trying to ferret out things people said. I wish only to have it put on record that this speech was made in the Constituency in which I live as a constituent of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor); it was made within a half-mile of my house; and it was published in the local paper which finds its way into my home. For that reason, and that reason alone, it came to my notice. I have too many other concerns at the moment than to worry about going around snooping on what people say; but I do feel that when the impartiality of the Chair is challenged it is a matter of sufficient importance, and it is the duty of any good House of Commons man to bring it to the notice of the House.

For convenience, may I state the course which we on this side of the House propose to follow? You, Sir, have ruled that this is a prima facia case of a breach of Privilege which should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. If that decision on your part is the subject of a definite proposal from the Leader of the House, we shall not oppose it; but if there is any question about whether you have given a Ruling that it is a prima facia case or not, if it is left all vague and just to the judgment—no doubt the quite honest judgment—of the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole), and if there is no presentation by the Leader of the House, then we shall vote against it.

It is only by leave of the House that I may speak, since I have already spoken once on this Motion. I feel that the intimation which you, Sir, have given is an intimation that, had this occurred at any time prior to the advice tendered to you today, you would have ruled that there was a prima facia case in this instance. My suggestion to the House, in view of what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, is that we should accept the procedure today as an intimation of that view on your part, and that therefore we should allow this case to go to the Committee of Privileges for consideration.

I think I must say, to safeguard the rights of the House, that even where Mr. Speaker rules that a prima facia case has been made, it is still within the competence of the House—I do not suggest it is in this case, but it may be in some future case—to say that the matter is so trivial that we dismiss it straight away by defeating the Motion; or that it is so serious that we do not think it ought to go to the Committee of Privileges, but that the whole House should immediately take it into consideration. That would be an unusual course, but it is still within the competence of the House.

In accepting this Ruling today that there is a prima facia case, I suggest that this is one of the instances which should be investigated by the Committee of Privileges and a report thereon made to the House. I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that we should agree to that course without a Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "Move it."] It has already been moved that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges, in accordance with what has at any rate been the practice during this present House of Commons.

If it would help the House, I am quite prepared to say definitely that I consider there is a prima facie case. But I would also suggest that this new Ruling of mine would not apply today, though I think it might be well worth discussing on some future occasion, because I believe that there are advantages in it rather than saying the two mysterious words "prima facie."

With great respect, Sir, you have now definitely ruled that a prima facie case exists, and the Leader of the House has proposed that we should adjourn the debate upon this—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—until Thursday—

May I help the right hon. Gentleman—

I beg your pardon; it is clear that unless the House by vote disagrees with the view you have given, the matter must now go to the Committee of Privileges; and it should go to the Committee of Privileges now and not be put off for another debate in this House. That is quite clear, and it would have been equally clear before if the former procedure on which we had worked had been made plain.

Quite apart from this particular case, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider rather carefully the suggestion you have just made that this House should discuss whether or not it is wise to stick to forms of procedure. Surely if that is to be done, the Committee of Privileges should be asked its opinion. No inconvenience has come to the Committee or, so far as I am aware, to this House from the former procedure which, though it has been in existence only since 1936, has—as is shown by what has been said by the Leaders on both sides of the House—hitherto met with the approval of the House.

I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the Committee of Privileges—in fact its proceedings are secret—but as a member of it I should feel slightly wounded if the whole procedure we have followed hitherto were to be altered without at least some discussion. I hope that if we do take any further action, a Motion will be put down so that we may discuss it.

I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said. I hope that the House will discuss the matter in the present case.

Question put. and agreed to.

Resolved: That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.