HC Deb 19 March 1951 vol 485 cc2103-6

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

82. Sir W. SMITHERS

TO ask the Attorney-General when, in view of the fact that £40,000 was spent in excess of licences in fitting up Scarcroft Lodge for headquarters of the Yorkshire Electricity Board, he proposes to institute legal proceedings against those concerned.

84. Mr. KABERRY

To ask the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the admitted contravention of building regulations, Defence Regulation 56A, by the Yorkshire Electricity Board to an amount of at least £42,000; and what action he intends to take.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

May I have your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, to answer Questions Nos. 82 and 84?

These allegations, which concern matters involving authorisation by the Minister of Fuel and Power and not licensing by the Minister of Works, were brought to my notice by the reports of the debate on the Adjournment on 6th March and I immediately directed that inquiries should be conducted into the matter by the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings being taken.

The inquiries which I have set afoot are now proceeding and their result will be reported to me in due course.

Mr. Kaberry

Do I understand that no Law Officers of the Crown were consulted before the Government gave their previous decision, in the middle of February, that proceedings should not be taken in this case? Do I also understand that all the books of the Board and all the files containing relevant data will be thoroughly examined, so that there will be no possibility of certain items, which, may amount to many tens of thousands of pounds, being put on one side on the excuse of repair and maintenance which the Minister of Fuel and Power refused to consider?

The Attorney-General

I have indicated, in my answer, when the matter was brought to my notice. For the rest, the matter will proceed as an ordinary police investigation with such investigation of books as may be appropriate.

Colonel Ropner

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman estimate how long his inquiries will take?

The Attorney-General

No, Sir, I cannot say, They may take some little time, I should imagine, in view of the nature of the case and the nature of the books to which the hon. Member for Leeds, Northwest (Mr. Kaberry) referred.

Mr. Bowles

Will not this make some difference in the business for the week? Will not the debate on this matter announced for tomorrow be sub judice?

Mr. Eden

May I ask for guidance on this? It is quite clear, as I understand it, that the Attorney-General is making these inquiries. I suppose therefore, that, technically, this can be regarded as now sub judice. Would that be so, or do these preliminary inquiries not constitute a matter which is sub judice? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise the significance of this in view of the debate tomorrow.

The Attorney-General

I suppose that, technically, they are not sub judice because they are not yet before the courts, but in a practical way the House may consider the position as much the same since investigations are now being made with a view to prosecution before the courts, and in the light of those investigations it might be difficult to discuss the matter with complete freedom in this House.

Mr. Eden

I am much obliged. I have consulted my hon. Friends as quickly as possible about this, and, in view of that, we should not wish to discuss the matter tomorrow. There have been exchanges through the usual channels in case that should be the position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Gunter.

Sir W. Smithers

I believe that you indicated that you might call me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I put down one of the Questions which have just been answered by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I thought that that matter had really been concluded by what has been said. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member had a Question down, he may ask a supplementary.

Sir W. Smithers

To avoid any possible criticism, will the Attorney-General give an assurance—I am sure he will be able to do so—that there will be no difference whatever in the proceedings in the case of the Yorkshire Electricity Board because it is part of a nationalised industry?