HC Deb 01 December 1955 vol 546 cc2515-20
Mr. Crookshank

I have to inform the House that yesterday it came to notice that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. C. Beattie) was at the time of the by-election in Mid-Ulster a member of appeal tribunals constituted under the following Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament—the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, the National Insurance Act, 1946, and the National Assistance Act, 1948. I am advised that these appointments may be offices of profit under the Crown and, consequently, that the hon. Member may have been disqualified from being elected.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is, in accordance with the precedents, reporting the matter to the Select Committee which has been appointed to consider such matters.

The hon. Member is not, of course, taking any part in the proceedings of the House. Beyond that I do not think there is anything I can usefully or properly add at this stage.

Mr. Mitchison

Has this extraordinary occurrence been discovered since the review of the lists which, we were told yesterday, showed that there were no such cases? When do the Government propose to proceed with the general Bill dealing with this sort of question, the need for which becomes increasingly obvious?

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. Before the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is answered, may I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? I understand that the gentleman whose membership of the House is now in some doubt is the gentleman who was declared elected by a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland.

According to what we are now told, it would look as if the applicant in that case, who was urging and moving the Court to declare that his opponent who had a majority of the votes was not qualified to be elected, and who succeeded in that plea and was declared elected although he had a minority of the votes, now turns out not to have been qualified himself. My point of order is this: in view of the fact that this gentleman has only been admitted to the House as a Member on that judgment of the Divisional Court, and not by an Election, is not the proper procedure now to refer the whole matter back to the Divisional Court in Northern Ireland to consider who has really been elected?

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order. When this matter arose as to the previously, apparently, elected Member for this Division, it was said that the Government could not take any action until time had elapsed for the Court of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland to take action. Can we be told now why the Government can take action and why the Queen's Bench Division Court in Northern Ireland cannot be applied to again to change its mind and declare the other candidate elected?

Mr. Speaker

It is a feature of what is proposed that the matter is to go before the Select Committee. For that feature I am profoundly grateful. I shall await the Committee's Report in the hope of being able to answer these points after the Committee has been deliberating upon them.

Mr. Bevan

Will the Select Committee also consider the status of the Resolution which the House itself carried automatically on the decision of the High Court, because, obviously, that Resolution itself must now be in doubt, since we have declared a person to be a Member who is disqualified?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that it will be within the purview of the Select Committee to reflect upon a Resolution passed by the whole House. The Committee might report on all the circumstances, but the House itself is quite at liberty to consider all these matters when the Report of the Committee is before it.

Mr. Bevan

Are you in a position, Mr. Speaker, to guide the House as to whether its decision on that occasion was irregular or not, because we decided to admit to our membership a person who ought not to be so admitted?

Mr. Speaker

I am satisfied that the proceedings in this matter hitherto, on the facts as they were known to the House, have been perfectly regular.

Mr. Shinwell

Can the Leader of the House tell the House on what date the Government discovered this alleged disqualification of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. C. Beattie)? If the date was before the High Court heard the application, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the learned judges were not informed?

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. Before we proceed further into these very interesting facts which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) wants elucidated, may I pursue my original point of order for one moment longer, Sir? You will remember that this gentleman was admitted a Member of the House on a Motion from the Government Front Bench and that I asked you at that time whether the Motion was debatable. You ruled that, although it was technically debatable, you could think of no ground on which the House might reject the Motion which was before it. May I submit that the Government have discovered a ground and that before the House now permits itself to refer this matter to a Select Committee the House itself might well consider its own procedure in the matter?

Mr. Speaker

I am quite satisfied that what was done on the occasion when the matter was before us was perfectly regular and in order. As to the hon. Member's last point, truth sometimes turns out to be stranger than fiction.

Mr. Crookshank

May I answer a question which has been twice put to me and interrupted on points of order? The first sentence of the statement which I read started, "I have to inform the House that yesterday it came to notice…"

Mr. Shinwell

Who informed the right hon. Gentleman about this matter? Will he make inquiries to ascertain whether the information was in the possession before yesterday of those who informed him only yesterday and, if so, why he was not previously informed?

Mr. Crookshank

This was brought to the attention of the Minister who has normally to deal with these matters—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I cannot go further than that.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Surely all these matters will be discussed by the Select Committee. The House has set up a Select Committee for the very purpose of examining these things and I suggest that it might be left to do its work.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order, Sir. I think you will agree that this is a most unusual incident and in the circumstances, and in view of the fact that on a previous occasion you ruled that a debate was impossible in the circumstances because the matter was to be referred to a Select Committee, is it not desirable that hon. Members should be enlightened on some of the facts in order to be able to come to a conclusion? After all, the proposal to refer this matter to a Select Committee is, I understand, debatable. If so, are we entitled to debate it now?

Mr. Crookshank

May I explain the position as I understand it to be? When a matter of this kind comes to the notice of the Attorney-General, and there is a Select Committee in being which is competent to deal with these matters, the precedents are that the Attorney-General should communicate direct with the Chairman of that Select Committee and not bring the matter before the House. On this occasion, however, owing to the rather unusual circumstances, I thought that as a matter of courtesy to the House I would today inform hon. Members of it. According to the precedents, there was no necessity to do anything of the kind.

Mr. Shinwell

Further to my point of order. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said—and we are grateful to him for the information with which he has furnished us—and as he regards it as a most unusual incident, surely we are entitled to press him on the point I have raised. Who provided the information, when was it provided, and why was it not made available sooner? Can that be explained?

Mr. Speaker

The practice of the House is that, when a matter is referred to a Select Committee, these are things for the Select Committee to deal with. I do not think we can prejudge the examination of the Select Committee by asking questions now. The whole purpose of a Select Committee is to conduct these inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now moving that this matter be referred to a Select Committee?

Mr. Crookshank indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman dissents. Then why did he make the statement at all if he is not presenting a Motion to the House?

Mr. Crookshank

It is sometimes possible to try to be courteous and that is what I have tried to do in informing the House. The matter stands automatically referred to the Select Committee under the previous ruling of the House and in accordance with the precedents. I thought, however, that rather than hear possibly through a leakage or through misinformation from other sources—because while it is being considered Members who are on the Select Committee cannot refer to the matter in the House —the House should be seized of the fact that there was this problem before its own Select Committee. After all, this is not a party matter, because the last case was that of an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order, Sir. Could we have your Ruling on this point? The Committee of Privileges, is, as I understand, a Select Committee of this House, which is appointed every Session. When a question arises such as this, as to whether a Member who has duly taken his seat was disqualified, and has by his vote since incurred certain penalties in the law, is not that a question which must be referred to the Committee by a Motion, both as to the penalties and as to the eligibility?

Mr. Speaker

On that, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must be confusing two matters. I do not think that this is anything to do with the Committee of Privileges. As I have followed the debate, the Select Committee, which has so far been referred to, is a Select Committee which was set up under an Order of this House of 27th October, as follows: A Select Committee appointed to consider whether the Election of Mr. Charles Alfred Howell as a Member of this House for the Birmingham, Perry Bar Division is invalid on the ground that …he was a member of panels …and to examine any other cases which may be brought to their notice of Members of this House who may have been incapable of election to this House by reason of the fact that at the time of their election they held offices or places of profit under the Crown within the meaning of Section 24 of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707… So the position is that the House, by this Order, set up a Select Committee to deal not only with the case that was then referred to it, but the case of any other Member which subsequently came to light; and that is the procedure which has been followed here.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said only this week that there were no further cases—

The Prime Minister

I was careful in my supplementary answer. I was asked whether I was quite sure that there would be no further cases. My reply was, "I hope so." It proves to have been wise.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is there a Motion before the House that this may be referred to a Select Committee? If so, can it be opposed?

Mr. Speaker

There can be no such Motion. The House has already decided the matter. I think the House should proceed with its business. We have given a great deal of consideration to this matter.