HC Deb 07 July 1955 vol 543 cc1305-12
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Hon. Members may be aware that the candidates returned at the General Election for the constituencies of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and of Mid-Ulster are reported to be serving sentences of ten years' imprisonment for offences of treason-felony and, accordingly, to be disqualified from election.

In the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, a petition claiming the seat has been presented to the High Court of Northern Ireland, and as the matter is sub judice the House will not expect me to say more, except to point out that it is not the practice of the House to order a new writ to be issued while a petition claiming the seat is pending.

In the case of Mid-Ulster no such petition has been presented and the period for presenting one has expired. Where no petition claiming the seat is pending the House is bound to take notice of any legal disabilities affecting its Members and to see that a writ is issued in the room of a Member adjudged to be incapable of sitting. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary will, therefore, tomorrow move for a Return so that the House may be formally acquainted with the facts constituting the disqualification in respect of this seat, and I wish now to give notice that as soon as possible thereafter the Government will propose a Motion inviting the House to declare the seat vacant and ordering a new writ to be issued.

Mr. Ede

When the right hon. Gentleman said "thereafter," in the last phrase that he used, he means, I take it, after we have received the Return and have had an opportunity of studying it?

Mr. Crookshank

Yes, of course. The procedure is that while there is no real doubt about the facts about these two gentlemen, the facts have to be confirmed by the proper authorities. That is the purpose of the Return for which my right hon. and gallant Friend will be asking. It is only after the House has seen what the case is that we shall move.

Mr. Shinwell

Is the Motion to which the Lord Privy Seal has referred debatable?

Mr. Crookshank

I think so. May I confirm that later? I am almost sure that it is, but I did not expect to be asked that question.

Mr. E. Fletcher

What is the effect of the petition which is pending before the High Court of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Crookshank

A petition is before the court. I do not think I ought to say anything more about it.

Mr. Fletcher

What is the petition asking for?

Mr. Crookshank

It is to claim the seat, if possible. May I quote what I have already said: It is not the practice of the House to order a new writ to be issued while a petition claiming the seat is pending. That is the purpose of the petition.

Mr. Fletcher

Who is claiming the seat?

Mr. S. Silverman

Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm what many of us inferred from what he said, that the gentleman who is the petitioner in the proceedings, and who is claiming the seat, is the Tory opponent of the man who received the largest number of votes? Secondly, is it the Government's intention to table the Motion in the other case before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crookshank

I hope that we shall have the information before then because, as the House knows, it is rather a serious matter to leave a seat vacant indefinitely. I could not give any assurance yet about dates.

Mr. Silverman

The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that we should have the Return soon. One assumes that we shall have it tomorrow. In his original statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would table a Motion. How long an interval does he contemplate there will be between getting the Return and the Government tabling the Motion?

Mr. Crookshank

I said "As soon as possible." I imagine that that means a few days, in order that the House may be acquainted with the facts. Indeed, it might be only one day if it was a perfectly simple case.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order. Is it not customary in these cases for you, Mr. Speaker, to receive a communication about the position of hon. Members? Is it the normal practice that we should receive our information about hon. Members through the Leader of the House or a Minister, and not through yourself?

Mr. Speaker

I inform the House of any communication of that kind which I receive, but I have received no communication. It is quite a proper practice that there should be a Motion for a Return, so that the House shall have the facts officially before it prior to taking further proceedings. That is in accordance with the precedents.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Does not the Lord Privy Seal realise that he is completely in error in attempting to use the doctrine of sub judice in a case like this? The question which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked was one of fact. Surely the facts must be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman. Does he realise that this is his duty to obtain the facts and not to attempt to take refuge in a doctrine that does not apply at all?

Mr. Speaker

I am not sure that this question is in order. I understand that this particular case is before the court at the moment. If so, we surely cannot comment on it.

Mr. E. Fletcher

On a point of order. The Lord Privy Seal asked the House to suspend judgment, on the ground that a certain matter was sub judice. Is not the House entitled to know the effect of the judicial proceedings that it is asked to await? Surely I am entitled to ask the Leader of the House whether it is a fact that the defeated candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is asking to be declared the legitimate person to occupy this seat? Secondly, how long is it expected that the proceedings in Northern Ireland will take before this House is entitled to consider what steps should be taken to deal with a constituency which appears at the moment to be disfranchised?

Mr. Speaker

That depends upon the court. I do not see how the Lord Privy Seal can assist in the matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Surely it is not within the province of the Leader of the House to take refuge in the doctrine of sub judice when it does not apply. That would only apply to the issue raised, but it does not apply to the facts which he purported to lay before the House, and which, in fact, he incompletely laid before the House. My hon. Friend merely asked for a full disclosure of the facts, and that is not covered by doctrine of sub judice.

Mr. Speaker

I do not understand the hon. and learned Member at all. I heard the Lord Privy Seal say that in the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone a petition claiming the seat had been presented to the High Court of Northern Ireland, so the matter is sub judice. Surely that is plain.

Mr. E. Fletcher rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate this matter now.

Mr. Hector Hughes

You have been good enough to say, Mr. Speaker, that you did not understand my point. Let me put it to you in another way.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

The hon. and learned Member is boring everybody.

Mr. Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman purported to lay before the House certain facts. He laid them incompletely, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East asked for the full facts. In reply, the Lord Privy Seal attempted to take refuge in the doctrine of sub judice, which does not apply at all.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member is surely quite wrong about that. The only facts which the right hon. Gentleman laid before the House about this particular case was that a petition claiming the seat has been presented to the High Court of Northern Ireland. Surely that is quite enough to stop us proceeding further now.

Mr. A. Henderson

What my hon. and learned Friend is asking, Mr. Speaker, is whether we can be told who the petitioner is. That has nothing to do with the issues raised by the petition, but is merely asking a question of fact. Can the Leader of the House say who the petitioner is?

Mr. Crookshank

Of course, I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew what the law was in this connection. Under Section 108 (1, c), of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, the person who claims is the defeated candidate.

Mr. E. Fletcher rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. It really seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion the name of the petitioner is quite irrelevant. It is sufficient for me that the case is being tried before the High Court of Northern Ireland. That is the only matter with which I have to deal. It is quite improper for the House to canvass a case which is before the court.

Mr. Fletcher

On a point of order. Surely this is a matter of which the High Court of Parliament is entitled to be fully informed, whether or not the High Court of Northern Ireland is considering the case. With great respect, I am suggesting that I am entitled to ask the Lord Privy Seal how long he expects it to be before this petition is considered by the High Court of Northern Ireland, so that the House may know when it may be entitled to consider the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is now asking the Lord Privy Seal a question about a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman has no Ministerial responsibility whatsoever. The length of the case must depend on circumstances entirely outside his control.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he realises that there is also the point of view of the men in gaol? Could I ask whether these hon. Members, duly elected in free elections—to which the Government pay so much attention in other countries—will be allowed to come here, or whether any steps will be taken to help them explain their point of view to the House?

Mr. Crookshank

As I understand, the whole point at issue is that they were not qualified to be elected.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. It is being suggested that there is no point of which the House can take cognisance in the matter of these proceedings sub judice, but the House is concerned with other proceedings which the right hon. Gentleman has told us are not sub judice at all. I refer to those about which we are to have a Return tomorrow and a Motion on a subsequent occasion. What I understand my hon. Friend to be asking is whether, on that occasion, the gentleman who received the largest number of votes, who was declared elected, and against whom no petition has been lodged or now can be lodged, will be given the opportunity of coming here when the House debates the Government's Motion and telling us what he has to say about it.

Mr. Speaker

We must await the result of the petition in that one case, and await the debate in this House when we deal with the second case.

Mrs. Braddock

I do not know about anybody else, but, for my own information, can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that a person who is said to be ineligible, by law, to be nominated as a candidate ever reaches the position where he can stand as a candidate? Who accepted him as a candidate if he was ineligible to be a candidate in the first place? I may be stupid, but to me that seems to be a perfectly elementary question.

Mr. Crookshank

I am not learned in this section of the law—or, indeed in any part of the law in a technical sense—but the fact remains that these two gentlemen did stand as candidates, they were returned at the head of the poll, and it is now questionable whether they were, in fact, elected. I have to put it in that form, because it is for others to say whether or not they were ever elected at all—because it is alleged that, by virtue of previous acts which they had committed, they were disqualified. If the hon. Lady is trying to ask me, as I think she is, how it was that their nominations were ever accepted in the first place, I think it would be as well if she tabled a Question and got a reasoned reply from those who have to study these matters and details. I think that I could give her an off-the-cuff reply, but I do not think that that would be fair to the importance—because it is very important —of the question. I would, therefore, ask her to table a Question and receive a reasoned reply.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to the point of order which I raised just now and to the answer which you were good enough to give me, Mr. Speaker. Is there not, in quite recent experience, the precedent of a man who was elected here—or apparently elected here—in whose case a question was afterwards successfully raised as to whether he was ever really qualified at all? I refer to the case of Mr. MacManaway. In that case, in the discussion that took place—or in the earlier discussions—Mr. MacManaway had an opportunity of being present and of addressing the House. The question, therefore, that I was addressing to you was whether the gentleman who has been returned at the head of the poll and declared elected, and against whom no petition has been lodged, will not have the same opportunity as had Mr. MacManaway in precisely analogous circumstances.

Mr. Speaker

I think that there are distinctions between the two cases, but surely this is not the time to discuss this. All the Lord Privy Seal has done today is to say that the Home Secretary will tomorrow move for a Return giving us the facts about this case, and that thereafter there will be a Motion. This is not the time to debate it at all.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order. In the last few days the Leader of the House has moved Motions in the case of two other hon. Members whose election is possibly disqualified in the same way as is that of those whom we are now discussing. The question arises whether, in either case, those two hon. Members were eligible as candidates. In those cases the Leader of the House proposed that a Select Committee be set up to examine them. May I ask you to differentiate between the cases, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is wrong in saying that the cases are the same. In the cases that are being referred to a Select Committee there is some doubt about the definition of an office of profit under the Crown—a very obscure branch of the law—but the law does lay down certain definite disqualifications for membership of the House. The cases mentioned today come within the latter category.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can hear no more on that point of order. If the hon. and learned Member has a new point of order I shall listen to it, but I have dealt with the one which he raised before.

Mr. Hughes

The point of order which I wish to raise arises out of your Ruling on the last-mentioned point of order, Sir. You said that this was not the time to raise the points which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). May I ask for your guidance? Will tomorrow be the proper time to raise these points? You said, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the proper time because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to move a Motion tomorrow. Does that mean that tomorrow will be the correct time to raise these points of order, which you now rule out?

Mr. Speaker

Certainly not. As I understand, the Motion to be moved tomorrow is a Motion for a Return of information to which the House is entitled. There can be no discussion about that.

Mr. C. Pannell

May I raise a new point of order? Some time tomorrow, or at some other time, can you consider, Mr. Speaker, whether being in prison is an office of profit under the Crown?

Mr. Speaker

I think that that raises much wider issues.

Mr. Rankin

I wish to ask a question on the business statement—

Mr. Speaker

We have passed business.

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. Are we to have no opportunity whatsoever to put questions on the business statement that was made by the Leader of the House? He moved immediately after his statement, to consideration of the problem of the Irish hon. Members. There was no opportunity to ask questions on business.

Mr. Speaker

It is in order, of course, for an hon. Member to ask further questions on business, but he must be in time. When the Leader of the House had made his statement about business I waited to see whether there was any question to be put and, as there was none, we passed to the next business. The hon. Member is out of time now.