HC Deb 21 October 1954 vol 531 cc1351-3
1. Mr. Fenner Brockway

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government stands by the principles of the preamble to the Act setting up the Central African Federation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker)

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the preamble to the Federal Constitution. In that case, the answer is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Brockway

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new office, as I did his colleague yesterday? Would he agree that it is an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to see that those who signed the preamble should sincerely accept it? If so, has his attention been drawn to the remarks of the Prime Minister of the Federal Government on 29th July, in replying to a debate, where the preamble was quoted as having been forced—

Mr. Speaker

The Minister cannot be held responsible for statements by a Minister of another Parliament.

Mr. Brockway

On a point of order. The preamble was signed by other Governments as well as our own, Sir, and those Governments have a responsibility to our Government in signing it. Surely, if anything is done on the part of a responsible member of that Government which does not accept the preamble, it would be the duty of our Government to raise the matter with them.

Mr. Speaker

I think that is all rather hypothetical. A Minister can only be questioned on matters for which he is administratively responsible. I do not see how he can be responsible for something said by a Minister of another Parliament.

Mr. Brockway

Further to my point of order—because the rights of this House and of the Government are involved—may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any action has been taken by the Government in this matter?

Mr. Dodds-Parker

The United Kingdom Government have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister and the Government of the Federation stand by the principles of the preamble. I might also say that the hon. Gentleman has picked out a part of one sentence, and that if he had read the whole speech he would have seen that Sir Godfrey Huggins showed no sign of wishing to depart from the principles of the preamble.

Mr. Hale

During a debate in this House when the Bill was before it, Viscount Chandos gave the clearest undertaking that it was within the competence of this House to revoke the Constitution if circumstances ever arose which demanded that step. What has happened now is that my hon. Friend has sought to bring before the House information relevant to that statement. The Minister has been allowed to reply to it, to refer to the speech and to say that my hon. Friend sought to misrepresent it without my hon. Friend being permitted to say what he wanted to say. Is that not an intolerable position?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member should not use that adjective. The position is that if it were a question before the House of revoking the Constitution, then it would he in order. But it is the rule of the House—and the hon. Member will see how wise is that rule—that Ministers cannot be asked to comment on statements made by a member of another Government which is, at the moment, constitutionally set up.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I appreciate the point you have made, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask whether your Ruling means that no Questions about the Federation can be tabled in this House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker

It does not mean that at all. It is only to try to confine Questions to their primary purpose of cross-examining Ministers on matters for which they are responsible.

Mr. Braine

On a point of order. Is it not permissible, Mr. Speaker, for someone on this side of the House to ask a supplementary on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker

That is another matter.