Complaint of Privilege

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 16 November 1960.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sir Harry Hylton-Foster Sir Harry Hylton-Foster , Cities of London and Westminster 12:00, 16 November 1960

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) raised with me a complaint of breach of Privilege. I have carefully considered the complaint he made to me. He asked me to consider the position in two ways. He asked me to consider the position that the allegations of the writer of the letter in The Times were untrue. Without in any way judging of the facts myself, I have not felt called upon to rule upon that position because, prima facie, there is nothing before me to suggest that they were untrue. On the contrary the hon. Member himself, in making his complaint, cited the relevant passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The hon. Member then asked me to consider the conduct of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in using the words which are recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The substance of the complaint is this: that the hon. Member for Kidderminster, under the protection of that privilege against action at law which attaches to words spoken in this House, spoke words which, in the context in which they were spoken, defamed a person who is not a Member of either House of Parliament.

It is not for me, but for the House, to say whether or no such was the effect of the words used, but, assuming for the purpose of my present Ruling that such was their effect, in my view the speaking of these words does not, prima facie, give rise to a case of breach of Privilege of this House. As stated in Ansen's Law and Custom of the Constitution, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, page 172, Speech and action in Parliament may thus be said to be unquestioned and free. But this freedom from external influence or interference does not involve any unrestrained licence of speech within the walls of the House. I end my quotation there, and would add that, because hon. Members are protected by Privilege, the House has always been jealous to see that that Privilege is not abused. But to abuse Privilege is not in itself to commit a breach of the Privilege of this House, and it has never been so regarded, although the House has, from time to time, punished Members for offensive words spoken before the House.

Accordingly, my conclusion is that the complaint is not one to which I am entitled to give precedence over the Orders of the Day.