HC Deb 06 July 1955 vol 543 cc1261-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Elections that they do also consider whether the Election of Sir Roland Jennings as a Member of this House for Sheffield, Hallam, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was an Approved Auditor for Great Britain for the purposes of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893–1952, the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896–1948, and the Industrial Insurance Acts, 1923–1948, appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

We ought to have an explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown about this Motion. The Attorney-General ought to give us a clear statement of the law in this respect. Those of us who are largely ignorant of the procedure were not satisfied with the very laconic explanation given by the Attorney-General last week. It seems that the Attorney-General has tasted blood. Last week an hon. Member's conduct was referred to the Committee, and now another hon. Member's case is to be submitted to it; but the cases are by no means parallel. We should at least have some attempt to explain, for the benefit of other hon. Members, exactly why such a Motion as this is placed upon the Order Paper.

I understand that the action is necessary under Section 24 of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707. Exactly what does this mean? Ought there not to be some explanation of that Section for the benefit of hon. Members who are not acquainted with the Statute?

I should like the House to examine the case because it is by no means similar to that of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). That is the case of an unsuspecting, innocent Scottish businessman who came to London and fell among lawyers. The result is that his constituency has been deprived of his services and his whole conduct in respect of the transactions of the Scottish Slate Industries, Limited, is to be investigated by the Committee.

The present case is entirely different. It is no use the Law Officers saying that it is a similar case and shoving it on to the Select Committee to get rid of it. According to the Motion. we are asked to consider: That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Elections that they do also consider whether the Election of Sir Roland Jennings as a Member of this House for Sheffield, Hallam, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was an Approved Auditor for Great Britain for the purposes of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893–1952, the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896–1948, and the Industrial Insurance Acts, 1923–1948, appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. One can understand an innocent Scottish businessman not knowing the law. But here is a chartered accountant, presumably appointed by the Treasury, whose conduct has obviously been open to some kind of suspicion. I wish to know, where has the Attorney-General been? This is not only ignorance of the law. Here, apparently, is a chartered accountant, an expert on accounts, who has committed a breach of the law which has, apparently, received the support of the Attorney-General.

What has the Attorney-General been doing to earn his money for the last few years? Apparently, it is only because he suddenly realised that a Scottish businessman had committed a breach of the law that he proceeded to carry out further investigations. Evidently he decided to go through the Directory of Directors and got as far as "G," and now he has gone as far as "J"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wait until he gets to 'H.'"] Yes, I am glad he missed "H."

Apparently, we are not to get our information on this point from the Law Officers of the Crown. We are to be indebted to the Press, and also to the Lord Privy Seal. He made a statement yesterday which I think should be considered by the House. He said: I have to inform the House that it has come to notice that the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) has for some years held an appointment from the Treasury as an Approved Auditor… Both the Treasury and the Law Officers of the Crown appear to be involved in this matter. It is a far more serious affair than that of the innocent Scottish businessman, and I wish to know what the Treasury has been doing. The more the Lord Privy Seal speaks about this matter, the more mysterious it becomes. He said: This appointment I am now advised may be an office of profit under the Crown and the hon. Member may consequently have been incapable of election to this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 966.] I should like to know how this first came to light. How is it suddenly discovered that the hon. Member for Hallam has to be reported to this Committee? Is it the work of the C.I.D., or M.I.5—or has he confessed?

Apparently there is a background to this. Precedents were quoted referring to the "five Labour cases in 1945." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but I submit that it is bad law that because some Labour Members perhaps committed an offence back in 1945 the Attorney-General should now justify this conduct on the ground of something that happened ten years ago. We are tired of all these excuses, because we cannot blame the Labour Government for neglecting to draw the attention of the House to this case in the last few years.

Then another hon. Member for a Sheffield constituency said: I understand that some time ago this whole question of offices of profit under the Crown and the Act which covered it was being examined by the Government in order that the whole situation could be cleared up to meet special modern circumstances. Are the Government continuing that examination? If so, is there any prospect of this intolerable situation being brought to an end? Thereupon, the Lord Privy Seal said: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This matter is very complicated and has been studied by both the present Government and previous Administrations. He may be surprised how soon a Bill may come along on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 966–7.] What does that mean? We know how satisfactory are the answers of the Leader of the House to questions on business. If a Bill is necessary on this subject, then perhaps the best way to speed up the matter would be not to refer it to the Select Committee. If the House said that it would not appoint a Select Committee, that would encourage the Government to alter the law, which is apparently very complicated.

What is the position that the Government take up in these matters? So long as the Government are content to set up a Select Committee when an offence of this sort takes place and to wait for that Committee to come along with some recommendations, the whole question of the law will remain obscure. Hon. Members of this House had better look out when the letters "L, M, N, O, P" are reached, because then they will all be examined by the Attorney-General. Therefore, I suggest that hon. Members should take this opportunity of saying that this proposed procedure is not a satisfactory way of condoning this breach of the law, and that the Government should take some positive action.

In default of getting any explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown, we have to fall back on the Press. I am indebted to the "Glasgow Herald" for giving the background of the obscurity and the complication of this law. It says: The relevant Act which has apparently been broken is the Succession to the Throne Act of 1707 and is nearly 250 years old. Government influence has spread into so many spheres since then that no one can now advise an intending Member of Parliament with any certainty whether or not an appointment or a directorship which he owns will be regarded as an office of profit under the Crown. The whole situation is full of traps for the innocent and the unwary. Apparently two hon. Members have fallen into the trap.

The interesting thing is that the lawyers are apparently exempt from these provisions. How is it that the lawyers have managed to contract out, because, according to the "Glasgow Herald" a barrister can take a Government brief for a handsome fee without endangering his membership of the House. He may even be appointed a recorder.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would point out to the hon. Member that a Select Committee has already been appointed by this House and that he cannot go over that ground again. He can only, if he wishes, argue against the Instruction to the Committee which is contained in this Motion.

Mr. Hughes

My point is that I am not satisfied that this case should be sent to the Select Committee until I have an explanation from a Law Officer of the Crown. Without that explanation we are surely entitled to oppose the case going to this Committee. That is the position which I take up, and I suggest that if the House said tonight that it was not going to send this case to the Committee, which was set up for a different purpose, then the Government would receive an intimation that they would have to hurry up with the necessary legislation so as to make the position clear for other Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker

On the Motion relating to this Instruction, the hon. Member must confine himself to the case of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings).

Mr. Hughes

I now come to the case of the hon. Member for Hallam. This is a rather serious business for him. It is strange that a Member of the Opposition seems to be the only one to look after the hon. Member's interests in this House.

According to my information, the hon. Member for Hallam has incurred a penalty of £500 a day for sitting and voting whilst disqualified. It is not a question of the hon. Member being elected to the present Parliament; he has been here for years and years. I do not want to see him being made liable to penalties amounting to thousands and thousands of pounds.

I suggest that the "Glasgow Herald" is quite right in saying that the time has come for the Government to explain exactly what the position is, and, if necessary, to alter the law. According to the "Glasgow Herald" every Member of Parliament in this position is at the mercy of the common informer, and in 1913 a claim of £46,500 was lodged. Imagine the hon. Member for Hallam receiving a bill for £46,500. That would startle any chartered accountant.

I submit that this is a matter of public interest, and I can suggest ways in which the law should be altered. The hon. Member for Hallam would not be in this position today if, for example, he had had to put down a list of his directorships upon his nomination or ballot paper. I have said enough, however, to show that we should have an explanation from the Attorney-General, who is our guide upon these questions. I submit that we ought not to put these Motions upon the Order Paper time after time without having a clear indication from a Law Officer of the exact legal position. and why the Motion is necessary.

10.28 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

This is a procedural rather than a legal matter at this stage. It is not a laughing matter, although the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) seems to take it rather lightly. The position in this case, as in the previous one, is that it emerged that the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) might have been at risk of having sat improperly in this House, and once that position arises the time-honoured practice of the House is to set up a Committee, whereby our colleagues investigate the whole matter and report back to us.

A Select Committee was established in order to deal with the case of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) and, as the Committee was sitting when this other case emerged, the common sense procedure was to ask that Committee, as soon as it finished with the case of the hon. Member for Pollok, to proceed to consider that of the hon. Member for Hallam—for the reason, if for no other, that it is a matter of great urgency to clear hon. Members from a possible charge of improperly sitting in the House.

As the House knows, the procedure of setting up a Committee is bound to take a certain amount of time. We have to select the names, and a Motion has to be put upon the Order Paper and passed. A Committee has been sitting to deal with a parallel issue, and for that reason a Motion has been placed upon the Order Paper that it shall be an Instruction for the Committee to consider this case as well. It will then be for the House to consider the evidence and the conclusion of the Select Committee, when it reports. I am sure that when hon. Members realise which of our colleagues have accepted the burden of serving on the Committee the House as a whole will be satisfied with the fairness and justice of any decision to which it may come.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

This is a matter which comes before the House from time to time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on what should happen at this stage. It is within my knowledge that the Government of which I was a member devoted some time to preparing a Measure to bring before the House to deal with the question of eligibility for service in the House.

The Act under which this case is brought before us dates from a time when the composition of the House and the relationship of Members to the Crown and the Executive was very different from what it is today. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are giving attention to the need for legislation to bring this matter up to date so that we are acting in the second half of the twentieth century on lines applicable to today rather than to the first few years of the eighteenth century. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the late Lord Hemingford, when a Member of this House, presided over a committee which went very carefully into this matter and made a report on which, unfortunately, up to the present, no action has been taken.

Have the Government that matter in mind, so that hon. Members who may be at risk quite unwittingly can feel—and all of us can feel—that we are not in jeopardy? On the basis of most of the Rulings that I have heard the less that one can make out of the appointment the more likely is the appointment to be held to be an office of profit under the Crown. The anomalies are so astounding that we should do something, for the sake of the reputation of every Member, to try to bring the matter under an Act which deals with the circumstances of today and not with the circumstances of Queen Anne, who has been dead for a long time.

Mr. Crookshank

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman—if I may speak again with the leave of the House—who was perhaps not here when I made the original statement, when a supplementary question was put to me, and which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has just quoted from HANSARD, is this. I said then that this matter was complicated and had been under the consideration of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. It has since been considered by the Government during the last Parliament, and a Bill is very well advanced. I do not think it will be very long before it sees the light of day. Its object will be to state in very clear language what is and what is not an office of profit. It is on that that the whole problem turns. There are certain offices which are obviously offices of profit and there are others which only modern administration has brought within the ambit of risk. A great number of these have no salary attached to them and there is no profit in them in the sense of one having money in the pocket as a result of the appointment. They are only technically appointments. The right hon. Gentleman can look forward to seeing that Bill fairly soon.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

Many of the questions which have been raised are discussed in the "Glasgow Herald" today. This newspaper says that there are 145 Scottish Acts which can lead to disqualification of a Member of this House. Some of us have formed habits of life which make it certain that we hold no office under the Crown, for I understand that there is a Scottish Act in force which provides that no one can sit in the House if he is testing whisky. I do not know whether that Act has been repealed but that was a Scottish Act, and the "Glasgow Herald" said that under it an hon. Member could be disqualified.

Mr. Speaker

The House is not discussing disqualification from membership of the House, but whether the case of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) should be referred to the Select Committee which has already been appointed. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to that issue.

Mr. Bence

I was encouraged by the reference of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to the need for clearing up the old Acts. I read of another Act under which there was disqualification if one had gone to church on two occasions and had missed praying for the Royal family. I appreciate that we are dealing with the case of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings), but many of us, when we read of these things, are concerned about them. I hope that the Attorney-General will take into account the possible existence of other Acts which may affect many of us who, in our simple ways of living, may have done something which could lead to disqualification.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

When was the attention of the Leader of the House first drawn to the case under discussion?

Mr. Crookshank

That is all matter that will come before the Select Committee.

Resolved, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Elections that they do also consider whether the Election of Sir Roland Jennings as a Member of this House for Sheffield, Hallam, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was an Approved Auditor for Great Britain for the purposes of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. 1893–1952, the Friendly Societies Acts. 1896–1948, and the Industrial Insurance Acts, 1923–1948, appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Forward to