A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22443, 2 July 1938, Page 15

A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

HOUSE OF COMMONS DECISION

MEMBER SUMMONED TO MILITARY COURT

INQUIRY INTO APPLICATION

or SECRETS ACT

(BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.) (Received July 1, 11 a.m.) RUGBY, June 30. At the end of question time in the House of Commons the Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain) rose in a tense arid crowded House to make a statement on the decision of the Committee on Privileges, which had investigated the case of Mr D. Sandys, a Conservative member, who, in his capacity as an officer of the Territorial Army, had received orders to give evidence before a military court of inquiry. • The committee’s unanimous report was to the effect that there had been a breach of privilege, but no further action was recommended.

The report stated that the scope of privileges of members and of the House itself was hot laid down in any complete code to be found in the statute or elsewhere. It was largely a matter of law and custom, and the committee had been unable to find any precise precedent for the circumstances of the present case. After reviewing these circumstances the report stated that, without making any reflection upon the military court, it appeared to the committee that the summons to Mr Sandys might well appear to be an attempt to induce him to give certain information at a time when the House was proposing to set up a select committee to consider, among other things, the propriety of his being asked to give such information. „ . „ Limit to free Speech?

Immediately after presenting the report, Mr Chamberlain moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the substance of the statement made on June 27 in the House by Mr Sandys and the action of the Minister concerned, and generally into the applicability of the "Official Secrets Act to members of the House in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties. Mr Chamberlain emphasised the great importance of the latter part of the terms of reference, and said that the Government had reached the conclusion that the present was not a suitable opportunity for a statement of its views on the matter, which should be reserved until after the committee had reported. It was clear that the question of applicability covered a wide range. He could conceive cases where information obtained by a member of Parliament could be information of a secret character, the disclosure of which might be an offence under the Official Secrets Act, but which might nevertheless be used by such a member in such a way as to be of great benefit to the nation. On the other hand, he could also conceive cases where such information might be used so as seriously to affect the safety of the realm. There might be a conflict between the privileges of the House —the right of free speech —on one hand, and the safety of the country on the other.

Mr Chamberlain recalled a former occasion in the annals of the House, nearly 100 years ago, when it was laid down that the privileges of Parliament must be used in the service of the Commonwealth and not to its danger. Secret Plans The Secretary of State for War (Mr L. Hore-Belisha), in a personal statement, said that on Wednesday evening last week he had received a minute from the General Staff about a letter from Mr Sandys enclosing the draft of a question he proposed to put in the House. The minute said: “We are greatly concerned that Mr Sandys should have been in possession of such information. Not only does it appear that he is conversant with the details of a secret scheme, but that he was kept up to date in subsequent changes agreed to by the Air Officer Commanding in Chief, such as the diversion of guns.”

Mr Hore-Belisha mentioned that the document from which the information inust have been taken was an emergency plan of defence of the Air Officer Commanding in Chief. It was a document of the highest secrecy, and instructions were that subordinate officers should be informed only of details necessary to enable them • to take appropriate 'action. The document contained emergency directions showing the exact dispositions to be taken by guns and the exact number and sources from which they were td be provided. “Serious Breach of Law” Mr Sandys, in a brief intervention, said: “Mr Hore-Belisha,. no doubt, knows all about the document. I don’t. I know nothing about the disposition of guns. My question contained no reference to it. My question referred to the number and condition of the guns. If I had been asked not to put the question I would not have thought of putting it.” It was important to discover how the disclosure had come about, continued Mr Hore-Belisha. He saw Mr Chamberlain on Thursday morning, and Mr Chamberlain told him to lay the facts before the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Donald Somervell). His concern was not merely to ask Mr Sandys to withdraw the question, but to discover'how the information came to be divulged. Mr Hore-Belisha then explained why he had accepted the AttorneyGeneral’s advice to see Mr Sandys himself. Sir Donald Somervell had said that as the communication from the General Staff disclosed the commission by someone of a serious breach of law, he thought he ought to see Mr Sandys himself. He could put the position as disclosed in the General Staff’s communication before him, and ask whether he was prepared to assist in the investigation of this breach of.law. Mr Hore-Belisha also stated that on Monday, before the matter was

raised in the House of Commons at all, the General Staff had completed its own preliminary inquiries, and a court of inquiry had been ordered to be assembled according to normal procedure. After giving an assurance that all the relevant facts would be available to the Select Committee, Mr Hore-Belisha pointed out that the General Staff had a duty in safeguarding the country’s defence plans. . . ~, The Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. R. Attlee) seconded Mr Chamberlain’s motion, which was supported by the Liberal leader (Sir Archibald Sinclair), and Mr Winston Churchill. Mr Chamberlain’s motion was accepted without a division. The military court of inquiry did not sit to-day.