Yesterday the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised a complaint of breach of privilege founded on words used by the Minister of Aviation in his reply to the debate on Monday, words which revealed that the Public Accounts Committee was considering the matter of the Ferranti contract and that the accounting officer of the Ministry had been summoned as a witness to the Committee.

I have considered the complaint with great care in the light of the precedents and of the advice available to me. In my view, it does not, prima facie, disclose a breach of privilege of the House. The House knows that my view of the prima facie position in no way bars the House from considering the matter if it wishes to do so on an appropriate proceeding. The sole effect is that we cannot consider the matter now because I cannot give the hon. Gentleman's complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In taking your decision did you, may I ask, take account of the proceedings in the House on 13th June, 1951, when an almost precisely similar situation arose, although there were much weaker circumstances, since a missing witness was involved? The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) raised the same point as I have done. He was backed up by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the then Father of the House, the late Lord Winterton. Your predecessor did not rule that the reference to the calling of a witness—

Order. If the Chair rules that, in the view of the Chair, right or wrong, there is no prima facie case, the result is that we cannot discuss it now. There are obvious reasons for which I must decline to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to give the reasons underlying my decision on the prima facie position. The first is that we cannot discuss it now and the second is the fact that the House may wish to consider the matter in some other way and, therefore, it would be highly undesirable and might embarrass future discussion by giving now the reason for my view.

Mr. H. Wilson:

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House is in some difficulty. Because the matter has been raised as a prima facie breach of privilege we are in the difficulty that many of us, I believe on both sides, would like to ask whether you could consider the Ruling that you gave the other evening on this matter. Perhaps you may be able to give us some guidance as to how this could he done.

It is my understanding, after reading some of the past cases, including the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned, that the whole House had the impression at one time that we could not discuss the transactions of a Select Committee until that Committee had reported to the House.

I understood that the argument in 1951 arose out of whether there was a transaction or not in the non-attendance of a witness before the Select Committee. Certainly, Erskine May suggested that it was a transaction. I do not ask you to answer me now, but could you give consideration to this matter with a view to giving guidance, at an appropriate time, on the exact interpretation of the question of the relationship between the House and Select Committees?

I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, in raising this matter as one of privilege, has, in a sense, narrowed the matter down so that it cannot be discussed now, but it would be helpful to know your considered view on the matter since there have been very widely different impressions about the relationship between the House and its Select Committees.

I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I would like to give thought to the best method. One method is to criticise me by Motion for my Ruling, but that may be rather cumbrous. Another method may be a question inviting a Ruling on the subject. I do not think that we can get back on any basis except one of criticism to my Ruling the other night. I do not give any encouragement, for I noticed that my predecessor, in 1947, said that he found it difficult to lay down any general rule. That is still certainly the case.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are so good as to make an expression of opinion and give a Ruling, would it be possible for hon. Members with views on the subject to give them to you privately so that these points could be considered?

I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that if views are to be conveyed to you they should be conveyed also to the House. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, judging by their voices and their murmurings, make it clear that they take a very different view of this matter from that which they took when they were trying to embarrass my right hon. Friends in 1951.

We cannot discuss this situation now. I should like to give thought to the best procedural method of meeting the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members as to what I think might be the best procedure.

rose—

Order. We must not prolong the discussion now. The House has other business.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you did almost invite a substantive Motion involving your own behaviour. I am happy to leave the matter in your hands now, but I must make it plain that I shall not shrink from the first alternative if I am forced to take it.

I am merely considering possible methods by which the hon. Member can test the matter.