SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
J. W. M. THOMPSON
Parliament seldom seems to shine when dis- cussing questions of privilege. After the Speaker had ruled that a Select Committee's disorderly visit to Essex University constituted a prima facie case of breach of privilege there fol- lowed a debate eaaracterisecl by uneasy in- decisiveness. In the end it was decided to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, but many Members were clearly troubled by the decision. Yet any other course would surely have been feeble to a degree. Nowadays com- plaints of breach of privilege fall, broadly speaking, into two categories: there are those in which it is claimed that something offensive has been said about a Member, and those in which the actual workings of Parliament are alleged to have been interfered with. In modern circumstances the only sensible view is that the first category ought to be ignored but the second category ought to be taken seriously.
There has always seemed something prepos- terous about a Member claiming special pro- tection against criticism or attack; Harry Truman's maxim, 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,' is one which politicians should always remember. But when, as is alleged in the Essex case, the actual proceed- ings of the House or a part of the House are hindered and finally made impossible by dis- ruptive elements, the matter becomes very different. It is a fact of life today that there are extremist groups on the right and left who are willing to play politics in a violent way, and Parliament would be acting like a pack of ninnies if it failed to consider bow to pro- tect its ability to work in such a climate. All other kinds of privilege might well be safely buried, but the House's freedom to do its job unimpeded is not something to dither about.
Trouble brewing
If the Monopolies Commission is short of a job now that it has dealt with the brewers, it might consider taking a look at the Stationery Office. The commission's report on the supply of beer was 'sold out' only a few hours after publication on Monday. Inquirers were told it would be at least a week before fresh copies were available. If there are any good reasons
for this failure to meet a predictable demand they're not easy to think of; public documents of this nature are concerned with the livelihood of a great many people and are sure to be bought for months, or more probably years, to come. Perhaps HMSO, like the brewers, needs a touch of competition.
This wasn't the only unusual aspect of this report. Some of its points were extensively leaked in advance and many people gained the impression that 'tied houses' were somehow to be abolished. I gather that pubs up and down the country were in deep gloom on Sun- day evening at the prospect of their economic foundations being swept away. In fact, of course, although the commission disapproved of the 'tie' on beer sales, it decided that merely to prohibit the system would be disruptive and unworkable. The attack fell instead on a quite separate monopoly element in the pub world, namely the rigid restriction imposed by govern- ments on the right to sell drink.
This irreverent onslaught on a hallowed piece of state supervision of private pleasure has startled some quarters. When the commission was asked to take up the subject of beer nearly three years ago a lot of people foresaw a hard time for the big brewers. They now find it is the politicians who are embarrassed; they have to cope with a controversial recommen- dation for a 'substantial relaxation' of the law, and already there are pained suggestions that the Monopolies Commission ought not to meddle with social legislation. It will be amus- ing to see what happens as a result—if, indeed, anything happens. I expect the present govern- ment will be strongly tempted to play for time. And on this question the Tories, the tradi- tional party of 'Beer and the Bible,' are bound to find themselves decidedly schizophrenic.
Lexicography
I'm not at all sure that a taste for reference books is anything to be proud of; still, the possession of this Autolycus-like weakness gave me a pleasant hour with two brand-new specimens this week. One in fact is a refur- bished familiar, the fifth edition of the Pocket Oxford. Dictionary, whose 1,100 pages would strain most pockets in terms of bulk but which make a remarkably sound eighteen shillings' worth. The second is a newcomer called Payton's Proper Names (published by Warne at 45s). This clearly is a try for another classic handbook which will immortalise its creator's name, along with the Rev Ebenezer Brewer's splendid work. It isn't a bad try, at that, its object being 'to help the reader through the barrage of proper names with which we are daily bombarded,' and it will no doubt sort out for many readers such matters as the difference between Burnham Beeches and the Burnham Scale, or Billy Budd and Billy Liar. The difficulty is that the field is so large that one could easily put together several extra volumes from deserving candidates omitted by Mr Payton. But I can see that he enjoyed his work, especially as he favours rather dashing definitions. These don't always quite come off— I don't think the innocent reader will be alto- gether reliably guided when told (for example) that the Travellers' Club is 'politically active' but that White's 'has no political importance'—
but they usually do. This is the Wurlitzer Organ: '. . . an electronic contraption which produces a rich variety of sounds not unlike music, although its chief glory is when it sinks into the bowels of the auditorium, bathed in coloured light.'
Left hand, right hand
I'm relieved to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for all his prodigious batterings of the genus consumer in repeated budgets, evi- dently harbours no implacable hostility to the poor creature. The country's embattled con- sumers, at any rate, are meeting for a fortify- ing cocktail party on 20 May: and their meeting-place, by a happy stroke, will be No 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor's official resi- dence. Thanks, naturally, to Mrs Roy Jenkins. who is chairman of the council of the Con- sumers' Association. Later, perhaps, she mighi be persuaded to impart more generally her advice on consumer protection against the activities of Mr Jenkins?
Previous page
