HC Deb 24 June 1955 vol 542 cc1734-9

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees)—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the jurisdiction of county courts and, in connection therewith, to make further provision for the despatch of business in county courts by increasing the number of judges, it is expedient to authorise the additional charge on public funds attributable to that Act for the salaries and travelling allowances of county court judges and for pensions and other benefits payable in respect of their service as such.—[The Attorney-General.]

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I was hoping that we might have an answer from the Solicitor-General to the question I put to him when he was concluding the debate on Second Reading. It is, of course, important that before the Committee passes this Financial Resolution it should know and should have an assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or from the Government spokesman in charge of this matter, that it is sufficiently widely drawn to enable us during the Committee stage to consider the question which has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House, namely, whether or not the Government's provision for an increased number of county court judges is adequate or not.

This is a matter of considerable importance which affects the whole consideration of the Bill. We intend to put down certain Amendments proposing that the Lord Chancellor should have the power to increase the number of county court judges if it should be necessary to do so. It would be very unfortunate if we were to find that the Financial Resolution debars us from so doing. The matter is of some significance. I notice that Clause 8 is the only one printed in italics directly involving a financial charge. I hope, therefore, that before we agree to this Financial Resolution we can have an assurance on the lines desired or, failing that, the Solicitor-General will see fit to withdraw it in order that it may be reconsidered.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster)

The hon. Gentleman is a little flattering as to my powers. First, I would not have the power to withdraw this Financial Resolution, and, secondly, I should certainly not have the impertinence to suggest what Amendments are permissible, which is a matter for the Chair. I would not be duly qualified to give any such opinion.

Mr. Fletcher

With great respect, the Solicitor-General is unduly modest. He is the Government spokesman in charge of this Financial Resolution, which is now the business before the Committee.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

It would be a pity, Sir Rhys, if the day ended in catastrophe after the happy way we have proceeded up to now. The Solicitor-General is in error. This is a matter for the Committee, and the Committee at this moment has two things it can do. It can debate this matter, having in mind the possibility of a future and more detailed consideration of the question. This, of course, would reserve to hon. Members time in which to table Amendments if Amendments were considered necessary. On the other hand, it can have the necessary assurances from the Government Front Bench and act upon those assurances.

I would be the last person to suggest that I understood either Parliamentary procedure or Parliamentary diction, or the words upon the Order Paper. Having read them, however—and it appears that I may be one of the very few hon. Members who have read those words—it seems to me that they indicate clearly that there is no limitation of any kind on the Money Resolution. As the only indication given in the words is to pass a Money Resolution "for the purposes of any Act" and for the appointment of additional county court judges, without any limitation being expressed in the terms of the Money Resolution, I should have thought it would be possible for the Solicitor-General to give my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) the assurance for which he asks.

The Committee is anxious to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) speak on the debate for the Adjournment of the House about the dismissal of a postal officer in Worcester. It would be a pity if that fascinating discussion were terminated by our ending in disagreement.

I would not have the impertinence or the self-confidence to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East to accept my own assurance, but I have sufficient respect for his ability to think that, if he reads the words himself, he will be able to derive more comfort from them than we have had from the answer of the Solicitor-General. At the same time, in the interests of the Committee and in view of what happened yesterday, I must be most careful not to assert any personal interest in the proceedings of the House other than that which belongs to every other hon. Member. I speak as a humble one of 630, and I am endeavouring to put only 1/630th of the interest taken in the affairs of this Committee. I should have thought that we had a right to have an answer from the Solicitor-General, and I will give way with pleasure if he wishes to reply.

The Solicitor-General

I do not desire to be discourteous to either of the two hon. Gentlemen. I was asked to give an assurance about what the ruling of the Chair would be, and it was that which I feared doing. I do not mind associating myself with the personal view expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I have reason to think that it is right, but that does not go any further than it appears to go. It is a personal view and the matter is one for the Chair.

Mr. Hale

I would like to thank the Solicitor-General for his reply and, with proper humility, may I say that I hope the House will take the view that what the Solicitor-General and I agree upon must be very near to the truth. It shows the advantage of taking a second opinion, even if it is from the same person.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

This is a most unsatisfactory position. The Government come here with a definite Financial Resolution relating to a Bill which they have put before the House. The Government are asked a perfectly simple and proper question by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) as to whether or not we can move Amendments within the terms of that Resolution to a Clause in the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

What we have now is, in the first place, a suggestion that the learned Solicitor-General will not give an interpretation, which is to be left to the Chairman of the Committee, who has nothing at all to do with this matter; and, secondly, an expression of his personal opinion that he is in agreement with the view expressed by my hon. Friend. We want the Government's view about this, because the Government are responsible for this Resolution and this Bill. They know, or ought to know, what they have in mind in drawing this Financial Resolution, and whether or not the Resolution permits, in their view and in their intention, an Amendment to Clause 19. That is all, and we are entitled to know before we proceed further in this matter. I ask that we shall be given that by a representative of the Government, as an indication of their intentions in drawing up this Financial Resolution.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

I do not think there is any need for the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) to get so worried about this. I should have thought he would have agreed that the language of the Resolution is clear in its terms and that there really can be no doubt upon this question at all. In my view, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, it amply provides for enabling amendments to be moved, for instance, to vary the number of county court judges. I should have thought that the words clearly expressed that view and that there was no doubt about it. My hon. and learned Friend was speaking from this Box as a member of the Government, as indeed I am. That is also my view, and it is our intention that there should not be any restrictions of the sort which the hon. Gentleman thought there might be.

Of course, one has to have regard to the proprieties. Although we have done our best to make this Money Resolution perfectly clear, it is not for us to rule what Amendments would be in order or not. What we can say is that the language in which the Money Resolution is drawn is wide enough, in our view—it is so intended, and I hope we have succeeded—not to restrict Amendments of the character suggested. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied. It is a point which I am a little surprised he should have made, because the fact that there is no reference in the Money Resolution to any particular number of judges must mean that it is in order—though, of course, it is for the Chair to rule—to move Amendments either to increase or to reduce the number proposed in the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation the learned Attorney-General has now given us, and, with great respect, I also have no doubt whatever that it will he quite permissible during the Committee stage to put down Amendments of the kind I have in mind to Clause 8.

The only reason I raised the question was that, when I intervened to ask the Solicitor-General the same question, the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed doubt about it, and said that he was not prepared to give me any undertaking of the kind I sought. He led me to have some doubts, and it was because during his Second Reading speech he shied off the question that it made me very nervous and suspicious, and, therefore, in the interests of the whole Committee, I felt it my duty to probe the matter on the Financial Resolution.

Since the proprieties have been referred to, may I say that all of us in this Committee wish to observe the proprieties, and I think you, Sir Rhys, will agree that we all recognise that, when it comes to calling any particular Amendment and deciding whether it is in order or not, it is for the Chair to decide. I think you will also agree that it is traditional that, on consideration of Financial Resolutions, any hon. Member may put a question to the Government in order to elucidate whether, in their view, the Financial Resolution is drawn sufficiently widely to permit certain Amendments being put down.

I have heard discussions of that kind over and over again on Financial Resolutions, and it is most important that Members in all parts of the House, on every Bill and every Financial Resolution to a Bill, should be zealous to make sure that such Financial Resolutions are, in the opinion of the Government, drawn sufficiently widely. The Government must take responsibility for them.

Therefore, I make no apology for having kept my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) from his Adjournment debate for a few moments in order to have this point elucidated. I am very glad to think that, notwithstanding the Solicitor-General's original hesitation, we now have almost a consensus of opinion about the point that I was anxious to raise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    c1739
  1. HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND 40 words
    2. c1739
  2. PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS 108 words