HC Deb 21 December 1954 vol 535 cc2597-603
Mr. Attlee

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on the Government's intentions with regard to the Parliamentary Constituencies Orders?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Yes, Sir.

Since I replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question yesterday, the Court of Appeal has ordered the discharge of the injunction granted by Mr. Justice Roxburgh on the question of the Boundary Commission's Report. The court held that there was no ground for saying that there was any departure by the Commission from the rules it had to observe. For the reasons given in court by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that the matter was not justiciable, and in this they hope they carry with them the House as a whole, as these are grave matters involving its rights.

The Government are, however, anxious not to inconvenience hon. Members by asking them to continue to sit this week in order to complete the discussion of the remaining Orders. We propose, therefore, to put them down during the week in which the House resumes after the forthcoming Recess. In the meanwhile, the Orders already approved in draft by both Houses will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval.

Mr. Attlee

While I am glad that it is not intended to try to rush through these Orders before the Christmas Recess, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, as a holiday task, he would read the Report of the debates which have taken place, because the House is very much under the impression that it has been a waste of time to discuss these Orders? Although very cogent reasons were put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House on some of these proposals, no adequate replies were given by the Ministers, who seemed to depend all the time on saying, "This has been decided by the Commission." It is quite clear from the reports of the case in the courts that the view taken there was that a considerable flexibility was allowed to the Commission. If that is so, should not there be some flexibility on the part of the Government? Could not this matter be looked at again?

We have the impression that the replies of Ministers have been directed not to the arguments but simply to stating, "This has been decided by the Commission. We are accepting the Commission and we will not accept any arguments whatever." That has been said particularly in the Manchester case, to cite only one. There was a general opinion by Members of all parties in this matter, yet no notice whatever was taken of it by the Government. Further, on the legal points, the replies of the Attorney-General which were given in court might very well have been given in this House. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in those circumstances, it might not be well to hold back the submission of these Orders until he has had an opportunity of applying his mind to the issues raised and the arguments that have been put forward.

The Prime Minister

I will certainly read the reports in HANSARD at the request of the Leader of the Opposition. But I will not myself attempt to answer the detailed part of his question, because my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the House will deal with that.

Mr. Elliotrose—

Mr. Crookshankrose—

Mr. Speaker

There is a contest of priorities here. I will call the Leader of the House first, as he is answering a question.

Mr. Crookshank

I was only going to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is really impossible to re-debate matters which the House has already settled, and that when he animadverts on my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General it may be that he himself was not in the House at the time. Indeed, everybody could not be here all the time, throughout the whole of Thursday night. Some hon. Members were not here any of the time. My right hon. and learned Friend did not say, in general, anything on these matters in the court which had not been said by him here.

Mr. Elliot

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the utmost satisfaction will be felt in Scotland about the Orders which were submitted and received the general approval of this House, and that, therefore, no time should be wasted but they should be put into effect forthwith?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

If the correct view is that which has been held by the Court of Appeal—although it is not necessarily final in the Court of Appeal; I understand that there are other cases pending and that matters may be taken further—and assuming that these matters are not justiciable, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is, therefore, all the more important that the House of Commons should deal with this matter judicially, as we pressed on Wednesday when we debated the Orders? Would he not agree that the proper course would be not to submit to Her Majesty in Council the Orders that have already been through the House, but to take no further steps until all the English Orders have been considered by the House? I am confining myself to the English Orders; I am saying nothing about Scotland or Wales, because only the English Orders are involved. Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering this matter, in view of all its very grave constitutional implications, before proceeding further with these Orders?

Mr. Crookshank

First of all, I understand that there are no cases pending. Those of which notice has been given have been dismissed by consent. That disposes of that point. As for the Orders which have now been approved by both Houses, there can be no other action than to submit them to Her Majesty.

Mr. Bing

Will the Leader of the House answer this point? Suppose that the House were to come to the conclusion that one of the Orders which it was debating was unsatisfactory, how could any changes possibly be made if the Royal Assent had already been given to Orders which would prejudice those changes? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is possible to debate some of the Orders if the other Orders upon which they depend are not alterable?

Mr. Crookshank

All I can say in reply to that is that the House has already decided a great number of these matters. As a result, if one takes into account the Orders already approved and adds the number of constituencies which are not affected by the Boundary Commission's Report, about five-sixths of the country has already been disposed of.

Sir P. Spens

Is there any authority or precedent whatsoever whereby, when any Order or Bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, any Government has any right to refrain from presenting it for Royal Assent?

Mr. Crookshank

I can only say that I have no knowledge of any such precedent.

Mr. S. Silverman

The right hon. Gentleman said in his first statement that the questions which had been raised in this matter were not justiciable, and I have no doubt that he meant that that was the view of the House, but will he bear in mind that the Court of Appeal's judgment conceded no such thing? The Court of Appeal's judgment proceeded on an examination of the merits and the injunction was set aside on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence that anybody's rights had, in fact, been illegally infringed. The court made it perfectly clear, did it not, that if it had thought that there had been such an infringement, it would have regarded it as within its power to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, it was stated that the courts had already claimed such a right.

What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: if I am right so far—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, you are not."]—and I say "if"—then we have here the seeds of a most undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts. In those circumstances, does he not think it desirable, as with some force on some grounds these objections have been taken, that the Boundary Commission might now be authorised to take back its Report and reconsider it in the light of the objections which have been made?

Mr. Crookshank

Perhaps the hon. Member has not had time to study what was said in detail in the Court of Appeal; and, if so, I cannot blame him. I have had the opportunity to do so and also had advice on this matter. I certainly would not express any opinion on it, but the Attorney-General will perhaps be very happy to put the documents in the Library, or somewhere else where they can be made available to hon. and right hon. Members, showing exactly what occurred in the Court of Appeal.

I think the hon. Member also misheard—possibly it was my fault—or misunderstood what I said. It was not that Parliament necessarily thought this was not justiciable. In my statement I expressed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and the hope that we carried the House with us, because these are grave matters. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), called attention to them yesterday.

Mr. Attlee

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether there has been a Cabinet decision that under no circumstances should changes be allowed in these Orders? If there has, it is not much good the House debating them.

Mr. Crookshank

It is not much good an ex-Prime Minister asking what Cabinet decisions were.

Mr. Doughty

If it has now been decided that these Orders are made in conformity with the Rules under the 1949 Act passed by the late Government, is it not very undesirable that any political party should seek to disturb the findings of an impartial body, namely, the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Paget

Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that the constitutional issue which has arisen here can be left standing where it is? As I understand it, the proposition amounts to this: that the courts claim—and it has not been decided one way or the other whether this is a valid claim—that they have a right to deny to a Minister of the Crown access to the Crown. That seems to me to be an entirely novel claim by the courts and one of enormous constitutional importance, because under it anybody can hold up most important matters in this way until this question is decided. Either by legislation or by some other means, ought not something to be done to clear up this very grave situation?

Mr. Crookshank

Not for the first time, the hon. and learned Member has put his finger on the point at issue. This is why, both yesterday and today, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I purposely used the word "grave." We are not prepared to go further today.

Mr. Bevan

It appears perfectly clear that the courts could not interfere with the access of a Minister to the Crown after the House of Commons had approved the draft Orders. That position does not apply, however, to the draft Orders which have not yet been discussed by the House, and apparently the courts would be free to grant injunctions against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Denial of access to the Crown for the Minister does not arise until the House has, first of all, carried the draft Orders.

Is it not a most serious matter that the Government have behaved, are behaving, and apparently propose to behave as though Parliament has passed its constitution into the hands of the Commission? This is a most grave matter. It was never the intention of the Statute at all. It was always held that the House of Commons should consider each of these draft Orders on its merits. Now, however, when we come to consider the draft Orders after Christmas, obviously, if the same arguments are to be used against the validation of some of them as have already been rejected in respect of others, it becomes an automatic process to present them to the House of Commons; in which case what the Government have done is to put the constitution of the House virtually outside the powers of the Houses of Parliament. That is what has happened in practice.

In my respectful submission, if, every time an argument is put forward, the only answer is a three-line Whip and the Minister saying that the Commission's finding must be carried out, what we have in effect, and in practice, whatever the theory of it may be, is a procedure of driving through the House of Commons the reconstitution of the constituencies by party majority.

Mr. Callaghan

Are we not to have a reply from the Lord Privy Seal? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's evasiveness in answer to my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister mean that when we resume the discussion of these Orders we shall have the farce of another three-line Whip and an obedient majority?

Mr. Crookshank

The hon. Member asks me to reply to his right hon. Friend. I did not rise to reply immediately, because I was not quite sure what the question was. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was expressing his opinion on the general action which has been taken.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Is the same electoral register to apply in respect of the Orders which have already been passed as in respect of those which it is expected that we shall pass when we meet again? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in this connection, that some London Orders have been passed and some have not?

Mr. Crookshank

The answer to that is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. H. Nicholls

Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said: … the Government seem to have been extraordinarily ill-advised by their Law Officers"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2451.] Since the right hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, in his observations today, continued his attack on individual Members of the Government, and since those words came not only from the Leader of the Opposition but from a barrister, in view of the Court of Appeal's decision ought not the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them?

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker

I do not think we can carry this matter further at this stage.