HC Deb 21 May 1935 vol 302 cc982-4

4.53 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move in page 114, line 37, to leave out "and," and to insert: orders varying or discharging a direction or order of the Authority. It was always intended that the Railway Tribunal should have power to make an Order varying or discharging a previous direction or Order. It was felt that it might not be clear in the Bill because we have referred to interim orders and particularised to some extent the kind of orders that should be made. It was thought better therefore to be on the sale side and to include these words.

Amendment agreed to.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES

I beg to move in page 116, line 3, to leave out from "law" to the end of the sub-section.

Sub-section (4) in its present form is somewhat unsatisfactory. It is as follows: An appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any decision of the Railway Tribunal on a question of law, but no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Federal Court on any such appeal.? The Amendment proposes to strike out the words after "law," because we feel that it is unsatisfactory that the Privy Council should be debarred from hearing appeals from decisions of the Railway Tribunal. I should hate to suggest to the Front Bench that there is anything sinister underlying the sub-section because there are no fewer than four Ministers present, and I feel nervous. Never the less, any weakening of the powers of the Privy Council in regard to appeals from India, unless there is a satisfactory explanation, must be looked at with grave apprehension. For years past case after case has come to the Privy Council, which has been regarded as the supreme court to which Indians can take their appeals and get a hearing without the slightest idea of bias, or of any favouritism; and it has been regarded by India as the supreme fount of justice. It seems a little hard and strange that there can only be an appeal to the Federal Court from decisions of the Railway Tribunal, and that an aggrieved party will not be able to move up a step higher. There may be a satisfactory explanation to be given by the Government, but we feel that it is our duty to raise this matter.

Mr. EMMOTT

I beg to second the Amendment.

4.56 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

It is very difficult for a practising lawyer to resist an appeal to prolong litigation, but I am afraid that it is my duty to do so. This Railway Tribunal will have to consider questions of purely local interest. They will be matters connected with the workings of the railways, and will not involve questions of great or far-reaching principle. It would be likely to lead to very great difficulty in administration if questions relating to railway working facilities and matters of that kind were to be held up until a decision could be obtained from the Privy Council. My hon. Friend properly spoke of the desirability of maintaining the unique position of the Privy Council in relation to litigation from the Empire. I commend my hon. Friend's enthusiasm, but it must be instructed. If he will pursue his studies, he will no doubt find that it is by no means unknown; in fact, it is a fairly familiar feature, in giving constitutions in different parts of the Empire to establish special tribunals for the purpose of dealing with certain matters having some special characteristics. It is a very familiar provision that the decision of such a tribunal should not be subject to appeal to the Privy Council. Cases have been heard in the Privy Council where special leave to appeal has been applied for, and my hon. Friend will be aware that generally there must be a right to grant special leave to appeal where there is nothing to indicate waiver on the part of the Crown of that right; but in the cases to which I refer, where Parliament in establishing a tribunal thought fit to provide that the decision of the tribunal should be final, that prevents the Judicial Committee giving special leave. That illustrates my point that this position is not an exceptional or unusual one. But I need not enlarge upon that point. The important point is that it is desirable to maintain the finality of the decision of the Federal court, for it would lead to numerous and administrative difficulties if there were prolonged litigation.

Amendment negatived.