HC Deb 06 November 1945 vol 415 cc1092-4
Earl Winterton

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are now in a position to give a Ruling on the point of Order which I raised last week on the subject of the admissibility under Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure of a question criticising the president of an Allied court in Germany?

Mr. Speaker

Yes. I was asked by the Noble Lord on Tuesday of last week for a Ruling on the question whether the president of a military government court is protected against criticism of his official conduct in the same way as are judges and other persons of high authority, whose conduct cannot be challenged by question in the House or in any other way than by a substantive Motion.

I have been into the matter, and I have delayed giving my Ruling until now, in order to get authoritative information as to the precise status of the president of a military government court. I find that these courts derive their authority from the military commander of the Forces occupying the territory concerned, and are administered by subordinate military commanders. Thus, they are not to be considered as courts in the sense in which we apply the term to a judicial body sitting as a court in this country. All the members of the court, including the president—I apologise for giving a rather long answer—are answerable to the convening officer, namely, the militarycommander of the Forces occupying the territory concerned, for the conduct of the proceedings of the court, and so ultimately to the Secretary of State for War. Their sentences are subject to review by officers of senior rank, appointed for the purpose by the military government, and in certain cases are subject to confirmation by the Supreme Commander.

It does not seem to me, therefore, that either in respect of their status or their responsibility, they can be held to be analogous to judges of courts in this country who are not responsible to any administrative officer, and whose sentences are only subject to review by superior courts of law. While making no comment upon the subject matter, which elicited the request for this Ruling, I must hold that it is a matter which cannot be excluded from Questions on the grounds submitted by the Noble Lord.

Earl Winterton

May we then gather, Sir, that if any of us wish to put down a Question criticising the composition or the obiter dicta of anything that may occur in connection with the Allied military courts who will try war criminals, we shall be entitled to do so?

Mr. Speaker

That is quite a different question. Allied military courts, I gather, would be somewhat analagous to the Supreme Court. I should require notice of that question, because I have been dealing only with a military court appointed by the military commander of the occupied territory.

Earl Winterton

Then may I formally ask you, Sir, to give a considered Ruling on the point I have put, as to whether this Allied court would or would not come within Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure?

Mr. Pritt

The noble Lord has referred to Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure, which says that a Member "while speaking on a question" must not castaspersions and so forth. Your reply, Mr. Speaker, covered the matter in a general fashion, but did not specifically refer to that Section. May we take It that you are not ruling that a Member putting down a Question is "speaking on a question," as it may make a difference with regard to other questions that might arise?

Mr. Speaker

I should have thought myself that it included everything, and that if a Member puts down a Question he is speaking on it.