HC Deb 25 May 1950 vol 475 cc2241-5
Mr. Churchill

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take upon the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Election of a Member, a Clergyman of the Church of Ireland—the Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway).

Mr. H. Morrison

I have been asked to reply. The Government have only just received the Report from the Select Committee and we have not yet seen the memoranda and evidence. We shall now study the matter, and I hope it will be possible to make a statement shortly after Whitsun.

Mr. Churchill

But may I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that three months have passed since the General Election and that a constituency with 80,000 voters has been disfranchised during the whole of that period? How do the Government propose to abridge this period of delay? Are they not now presented with a unanimous Report by the Select Committee advising legislation to remove the evil? Are they not also in possession of the legal opinion of the Attorney-General, supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and other high legal authorities, that there is no case which would sustain a common informer? Are we to continue to keep 80,000 electors without any right to take part in this Parliament?

Mr. Morrison

My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that the interpretation of his opinion stated by the Leader of the Opposition is not accurate. Of course, the evidence was given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the Select Committee, not to the Government. Quite properly, he gave it to the Select Committee. Nor can we be blamed for the three months' delay. We can only deal with the matter once we get the Report from the Select Committee, and even now we have not received the memoranda and the evidence, which is no fault of the Select Committee and I am not complaining. If the hon. Member elected for the constituency had cared to take the risk of taking his seat he could have done so subject to such risks as he took. I cannot see that the Government can be blamed for the three months' delay.

Mr. Churchill

I certainly feel that no one would go out of his way to offer any tribute to the Government on account of any undue haste that they have shown in this matter. I had hoped to receive from the right hon. Gentleman today an assurance that the Government would legislate as rapidly as possible in the sense of the unanimous Report of the Committee. As that has not been forthcoming I wish to give notice that in my opinion, supported by a great mass of legal authority, it is the duty of the hon. Member to take the oath and take his seat at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the advice which I propose to tender to him. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how much the procedure of Select Committees, which we imagined could deal with the matter promptly, has been, as it were, clouded by the long delay and by all these devices of having it referred to the Privy Council and so on which, happily, the good sense of the Committee repudiated?

Mr. Morrison

If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is being very unreasonable. The Select Committee dealt with it when the Motion was referred to them; they have reported and we must consider their report. I am certainly not going to give any undertaking this afternoon. I do not want to prejudice the issue about legislation one way or the other. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to persuade his hon. Friend to take his seat, it is for his hon. Friend to take his seat if he wishes and take any risks or otherwise involved. If, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that all respectacle and reputable legal opinion thinks he is entitled to take his seat, I am bound to say I do not know why he has not taken his seat before. However, I must be clear about this, that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to take what course he likes. It is his responsibility; but if he takes it and if certain unfortunate legal consequences follow, it must be understood that I do not undertake in that case on behalf of the Government to bring in indemnifying or other legislation.

Mr. Churchill

Have we not reason to be obliged—I put it in its interrogative form—to the Lord President of the Council for so plainly showing us his plan?

Sir Hugh O'Neill

Are we to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that in his opinion, as Leader of the House, it would not be in any way improper or discourteous to the House for the hon. Member for Belfast, West, to take his seat at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Morrison

I understand that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, is being advised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—or that the Leader of the Opposition may give him certain advice. I presume that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, even so, can still do what he likes about it——

Mr. Churchill

Certainly.

Mr. Morrison

—and it is for him to decide; it is not for me to judge what is proper or improper. The hon. Gentleman presumably is a responsible public person who, at an election, was elected, and it is for him to decide. This is a free country and I do not want to interfere with his free judgment.

Mr. Mitchison

Is the Lord President aware, on the question of disenfranchising a constituency, that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, also represents a Londonderry constituency in the Northern Irish Parliament, and that if and when he takes his seat here he will either have to oscillate with quite remarkable rapidity between this country and Northern Ireland or one or other of the constituencies will be disenfranchised?

Mr. Morrison

It would be quite improper on my part in any way to pronounce upon the affairs of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I have my hands full with this one.

Mr. Hector Hughes

In the event of legislation being introduced to declare that the reverend Gentleman in question is entitled to take his seat in this House, would this House not be put in the unenviable position of being asked to consider that very undesirable thing, retrospective legislation, without adequate justification?

Mr. Driberg

Will my right hon. Friend take great care to see that nothing is done which might even seem to call in question the validity of the Orders of the Church of Ireland which are, of course, essentially identical with those of the Church of England, whose ministers may not sit in this House?

Mr. Morrison

I will take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I bad better not go too far into theological considerations.

Professor Savory

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by the Act of 1801, seeing that 12 months have already elapsed, no proceedings can be taken against the hon. Gentleman so far as the Parliament of Northern Ireland is concerned in which he has taken his seat?

Mr. Morrison

I will note that point too. There are some references to the Act of 1801 in the Report of the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, will be better briefed in these matters than I am, and I do not think I had better get too far on that either.

Wing-Commander Hulbert

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his replies mean that he is irrevocably opposed to retrospective legislation?

Mr. Morrison

I have not said anything of the kind. I have not even said there will not be any legislation. I have said that I cannot commit myself or the Government to legislation. It is for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been very eloquent about retrospective legislation in other respects, to find out why they are supporting it in this respect.