§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, by the order and tradition of Parliament, it is not possible to amend or omit any of the enacting words which have for so many centuries been included in every Act of Parliament; whether, as a consequence of the passing of the Parliament Bill, there may in future be Acts of the greatest constitutional importance which will contain these enacting words, although it will be an accepted fact that they have not had the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal; whether he has considered the legal effect of the inclusion of such a mis-statement of fact upon the interpretation of such Acts judicially; and whether he proposes to take legislative action so as to secure that, when Acts are passed under the provisions of the Parliament Bill, the enacting words shall clearly indicate that such Acts are the legislative product of a Single Chamber?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is clearly possible to amend or omit enacting words with the sanction of Parliament. The only question is in what manner that sanction should be expressed. Whether the sanction should be expressed by means of legislative enactment or not can be and is raised by Amendments to the Parliament Bill.
§ Mr. L. HARDYDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that it is possible to alter the enacting words of any particular Act without general legislation?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo. I said with the sanction of Parliament.
§ Mr. CASSELasked whether the sanction of the Crown was obtained for the introduction of the Parliament Bill, having regard to the fact that it contains in the Preamble a statement that it is the intention of Parliament to curtail the Prerogatives of the Crown; if so, when was such sanction obtained; and, if not, whether it will be in accordance with constitutional precedents and principles to proceed further with the Bill without such sanction?
§ Mr. MacNEILLBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask him whether he is aware that there is no precedent for the adoption of his suggestion embodied in the question, or whether it is not the fact that the Preamble of a Bill cannot restrict or extend the granting part when the language in such other Act are not open to doubt, and that when the Preamble is more extensive than the granting part it cannot curtail the effect of that part when otherwise free from doubt.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the law. The assent of the Crown to the discussion in Parliament of measures which would affect its Prerogative can, in the case of a Government Bill, be given at any stage in its progress by the Minister in charge. The practice, so far as I know, only applies where the operative Clauses of the Bill would, if carried, affect the Prerogative. It has, therefore, no application to the Parliament Bill.
§ Mr. CASSELIs it not the fact that the Preamble of the Parliament Bill commits Parliament to an expression of intention, and whether, apart from the Preamble, it is not the fact that the operative part of the Bill limits the Royal Prerogative by limiting the rights attached to a writ of summons to the House of Lords which is part of the Royal Prerogative?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer himself, must be familiar with the distinction between the recitals and the operative clauses of a Bill.
§ Mr. CASSELI think the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the supplementary question, whether the operative part of the Bill apart from the Preamble does limit the Royal Prerogative by limiting the rights attached to a whit of summons to the House of Lords which is part of the Royal Prerogative?
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy answer is in the negative.