BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 20 December 1954)

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make about the business of the House?

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)
Yes, Sir. The granting of an interim injunction by a judge of the High Court in the matter of the vires of the Reports issued by the Boundary Commission has undoubtedly raised an issue of constitutional importance. It must not be assumed that Her Majesty's Government accept the view that this is a justiciable matter and not one for Parliament itself. Nevertheless, so far as today's business is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it will be preferable not to proceed this afternoon with the consideration of the remaining draft Parliamentary Constituencies Orders.
It is proposed therefore, in agreement with the Opposition, to take the debate on the National Assistance draft Regulations, which will be concluded at about seven o'clock tomorrow. Thereafter, tomorrow, we propose to consider the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland, and the draft Industrial Orders.

§ Mr. Attlee
It would, of course, be entirely improper to proceed with the discussion of these Orders this afternoon, but there are certain questions which must be raised on this matter. The particular point which has now been brought to court was put very forcefully in the debate by my hon. and right hon. Friends, and particularly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). The Minister made no attempt to answer it and the learned Attorney-General did not seem to grasp the point, but merely gave his opinion without arguing it. A very grave constitutional position has now arisen.
2442 Is it not better for the Government now to withdraw the whole of these Orders? What is to be done about the Resolutions that have already passed both Houses? They certainly ought not to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council because, if the court is right, they are based upon a fundamental fallacy and upon a wrong interpretation by the Boundary Commission of its orders. They are just as bad as the Manchester case. What is the intention of the Government? Are those Orders going forward or not? Clearly, they ought not to go forward. What is the intention of the Government with regard to the whole of this matter which, in our view, should be referred back to the Commission so that it might carry out its job under the instructions which it was given?

§ Mr. Crookshank
The right hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out some of the difficulties which are involved, but I have made a very careful statement about today's business, and I cannot go further into the matter.

§ Mr. Attlee
Here we have Orders affecting certain constituencies which were brought forward and pushed through this House after practically no consideration. Some have already passed another place, I understand, and may be submitted at any time to Her Majesty in Council. If the court is right and it is ultra vires to have made the Orders now being held over, that is equally true about the Reading, Plymouth and other Orders. We ought to have a statement from the Government that it is not their intention to submit those Orders to Her Majesty in Council.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I can meet the right hon. Gentleman to this extent. The Government will make a statement on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It is impossible for me to be definite at this moment. I will make a statement as soon as possible. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, pending that statement, no further action will be taken in the way of submitting these Orders to Her Majesty.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order. In the new situation which has arisen, Mr. Speaker, might I respectfully repeat to you the point of order which I ventured to put, I think, a day or two ago? You, Sir, are the Chairman of the Boundary 2443 Commission. The Boundary Commission has made certain recommendations. The Government have been asking, and, presumably, may some day again ask, the House of Commons to pass Orders based upon those recommendations. In the course of debate—and now in other places outside—questions have been raised as to whether those recommendations were or were not, in fact, made in accordance with the Statute.
As you, Sir, are the Chairman of the Commission, may I suggest to you, as I suggested before, that the proper course might well be for these matters to be taken back by the Boundary Commission itself in order that you, as Chairman, may consult it to see whether or not the recommendations were made within the statutory powers which the House gave to the Commission?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that that is a point of order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is right in saying that he has previously raised this point of order on this legal point about the Orders being ultra vires. I then said, as I still believe, that this point about powers was one for the House to take into consideration in passing or rejecting the Orders. I said then that it did not debar the House from going on with the discussions. That is all I said, and I think that that is right.
As regards the Boundary Commission, I have said nothing in the meantime about my own part in it, because I do not wish to influence the debate in any way. The House will realise that, as Chairman of the Commission, I cannot myself take part in all the individual decisions to which the Boundary Commissioners come. I am the only Member of Parliament on the Commission, and it would, I think, be improper for me to intervene so as to influence a decision by those independent gentlemen which might affect the constituency of another hon. Member of this House.
The Boundary Commission having delivered its Report to the Home Secretary, I think that it is now, by the Act, functus officio until the House orders it to do something else. I therefore do not think that the course which the hon. Member suggests is a practicable one.

§ Mr. Silverman
But is not the Boundary Commission, under the Act, in continuous function? If it had been appointed to do this particular job, and had done the job and made its Report, one could readily follow, if I may say so with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the argument that it was functus officio, could not be recalled, and had no opportunity of doing anything else in the matter at all. But since the Statute laid upon it a continuous obligation to review, without any fixed periods of any kind, does it not follow that it could review now the Report which it has already made? In view of the doubts which have arisen, ought not it to do so?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think so. I do not take the hon. Member's view.

§ Mr. Attlee
The Lord Privy Seal said that the Government would make a statement. He obviously could not indicate the time, but, as the House will shortly be rising for the Christmas Adjournment, may I take it that that statement will be made in time for a full discussion by this House? If, at any moment, it were suggested that the Government intended to go on, or even intended to submit the Orders, quite clearly the House must have ample time to discuss the matter. Otherwise, the whole matter might be held over until the House resumes in January. As very important issues are involved here, both constitutional and on the composition of the House, could the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that he will make the statement?

§ Mr. Crookshank
No one realises more than do the Government how serious are the matters in issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Hon. Gentlemen must not take it that I am talking in any political sense at all. Very serious issues are raised, and I will make a statement on behalf of the Government as soon as possible. Whether or not it will be desirable to debate it must depend, I should think, upon the nature of the statement, which I cannot foreshadow.

§ Mr. Attlee
We really should have an assurance that, on such a matter, we shall not get a statement very shortly before the House is due to adjourn. That would not give an opportunity for action to be taken until the House meets again. This is a matter which should be kept in the 2445 hands of the House, with full opportunity for debate before the thing is done—in view both of the issues raised and the fact that the Government seem to have been extraordinarily ill-advised by their Law Officers.

§ Mr. Bevan
Surely the Government realise that the Opposition has already made a very considerable concession in allowing this day's business to be completely changed, and for something to be brought forward which was not intended to be discussed today. Is it not a fact that last week not only was doubt cast upon the legal validity of the procedure which had been adopted by the Commission, but, on both sides of the House, there was quite considerable feeling that the outcome of the Orders themselves was politically unfair? Even if it now transpires that, on a narrow legal interpretation, the Boundary Commissioners have not misread the rules and that, technically, they are correct, has not such grave suspicion been cast upon the equity of their recommendations that the Government ought not now to proceed to validate any of the Orders at all?

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Wigg
May I raise with you, Sir, a matter which concerns back-bench Members? The Government, with the agreement of the Opposition, have moved forward to today the business which was to have been done tomorrow. That seems to be an outrage. Many back-bench Members who might want to speak on the business now coming forward may not be aware of the change. It certainly seems to be a very grave step indeed—if this is to be regarded as a precedent— that the business can be altered on the day that the House meets. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give some guidance for the protection of back-bench Members.

§ Mr. Bevan
May I, with all respect to the House, press the Government for an answer to my question? I submit respectfully that it is now not merely a question of what the courts will do. It might quite easily happen that the courts—and that may be what the Government are waiting for—will decide that the Commission did not mislead itself in its interpretation of the rules. With all respect to hon. Members in all parts of the House, I submit 2446 that a very much more substantial consideration is that it would be a very grave matter indeed—and might cast doubt upon the outcome of any subsequent election—if the Government proceeded on the basis of these Orders.
May I submit, with all respect, that Mr. Speaker presides over the Commission for one very important constitutional reason, which is to try to give the recommendations of the Commission a non-party, constitutional panoply. If, now, it is held, as it was held the other night on the other side of the House as well as on this, that many of the Orders are entirely inequitable, and unfairly weight the votes of one party against the other, is it desirable, in the light of constitutional history, to proceed with the Orders in that way? If that be the case, it will seriously undermine the authority of the House.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I was not, of course, intending any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I had said that I did not feel it right to go beyond the statement which I had already made and to go into those other issues. I hope, therefore, that he, and the House, will excuse me doing so.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should take such a view of the proposed business. It was put down for the earlier part of tomorrow, and it will still be taken in the earlier part of tomorrow. I had hoped that bringing it forward to today would give an opportunity for far more hon. Members to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, as I happen to know that a great number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate on National Assistance scales.

§ Mr. Wigg
I see the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making, but would he be good enough to give an assurance that what he has done will not be regarded as a precedent?

§ Mr. Crookshank
It has been done with the agreement of the Opposition and it does not prejudice hon. Members who were not expecting to catch Mr. Speaker's eye until tomorrow. There will be time tomorrow in which, no doubt, they might be called. The extension will give an opportunity for many more hon. Members to speak on a matter of great public importance.

§ Mr. Ede
When did the Government know that application had been made for this writ? Did they know when the discussion on the Manchester Order was going on in the House that the matter would be raised in the courts within a very few hours?

§ Mr. Crookshank
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Hale
Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two points? Whatever the position which arises as the result of the making of the interim injunction, unless this matter goes to the highest court in the land and unless all the contested issues, by agreement, are decided by the highest court in the land, it will still remain open for any citizen to challenge the validity of any of these Orders even after the election has been held. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Undoubtedly, yes. The whole point which is raised is whether the Orders can validly be made at all under the provisions of the Statute, and if they cannot, they remain invalid whether the Royal Assent is given or not. Secondly, we have to bear in mind that this is perhaps the most serious constitutional crisis which has occurred since the reign of Queen Anne. [Laughter.] I cannot understand why hon. Members are treating this matter so frivolously.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Hale
I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this is a much graver constitutional crisis, because for the first time in our Parliamentary history the courts have provisionally—and for the moment it is only provisionally—asserted the right to interfere at the point when both Houses of Parliament have passed a Measure, when although the formal consent of the Privy Council has technically to be obtained, we are in the position in which the Royal Assent has to be given. We are, therefore, bringing the matter of the veto of the Crown into question in the courts, 2448 challenging a decision made by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that those matters will be borne in mind.

§ Mr. Silverman
I wondered whether I might have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House another question on business.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think so. This statement on business concerns only today's business. We have heard the statement. We have the assurance that the Government will do nothing further until a further statement is made. I think that that should content the House. I do not think we can carry the matter any further.

§ Mr. Snow
On a point of order. I address you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as a member of the Commission in question. Is it not right that the Leader of the House should be kept informed that up to the moment at least one county council and, I believe, two—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I should like to make it clear that as Chairman of the Boundary Commission, a duty which the House imposed on me by Statute, I am not in a position to answer any points of order.