HC Deb 01 May 1961 vol 639 cc907-10
Mr. Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite your attention to Question No. 45? The point that I want to submit for your consideration is this. The Question was originally accepted by the Table Office and appeared on the Order Paper as a Question to the Attorney-General, who normally answers for his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in matters relating to the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction. This Question has been transferred from the Attorney-General to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

I recognise, of course, that you have ruled on more than one occasion that it is within the discretion of the Departments or the Ministers concerned to transfer Questions as they think fit and that you have no locus standi in the matter. Nevertheless, I want to submit that this particular instance represents a novel and undesirable extension of that convention; that in connection with the gravel chalk pit in Essex the conduct of the Minister of Housing and Local Government was called into question, and, as a consequence, was referred to the Lord Chancellor by the Council on Tribunals, that the Lord Chancellor, in his quasi-judicial capacity, made a statement on the subject and, as a matter of fact, is still considering the matter at the request of the Council on Tribunals.

In those circumstances, I feel that it is quite reprehensible that a Minister whose conduct has been called into question by the Lord Chancellor, acting in his quasi-judicial capacity, should have this very matter transferred to him for answer by him, as one of the parties implicated in the case. I want strongly to urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of practice ought not to be tolerated, that where Questions addressed to the Attorney-General about the activities of the Lord Chancellor are accepted by the Table, those Questions should not be transferred to a Minister who is directly implicated in the matter so referred.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has so accurately stated the position of the Chair in the matter that I need not add to what he has pointed out—the fact that it is all nothing to do with me.

Mr. M, Stewart

May I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it is a question of transferring Questions for administrative convenience, or because the Question appears to relate more properly to one Department than another, we all agree that it is a matter for Ministers and not at all for the Chair; but when a Question which has a judicial nature is transferred from a Law Officer to a Minister who, with respect to him, is in the position of the accused, as in this matter, does not that make it something in the nature of an abuse of the procedure of the House and, therefore, a matter for the Chair?

Mr. Speaker

No, I do not accept that it is a matter for the Chair, and I do not intend to involve the Chair in judging about the propriety or impropriety of transfers. That is a matter for those who procure the transfer. I wish to adhere to that view, because there are circumstances when the Chair would not have enough information or knowledge to be able to judge of a matter of that kind. That is why I want to adhere to the rule without deviation of any sort or kind.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a slightly different aspect of the same point? As I understand from the Question on the Order Paper, this was a Question about something that the Lord Chancellor had done and the original Question was addressed to the Attorney-General for that reason. If the Question had originally been put down to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, it would, presumbably, have been refused by the Table as being addressed to a Minister who had no responsibility for what the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General had done. Is it not a little outside the custom of the House, or even the right of Ministers, to refer a Question to a Minister who has so little responsibility in the matter that if the Question had been originally put down to him it would not have been allowed?

Mr. Speaker

I am so sorry to be firmly insistent, I hope without discourtesy. I do not propose to rule at all on a hypothetical situation whether or no the Question would have been accepted had it been put down to some other Minister in some other circumstances. What I am saying is that I will not accept—I do not think that I ought to—any responsibility for transfer which does not rest with me.

Mr. G. Brown

I think that we all understand the position that you are seeking to uphold here, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, may I submit to you, further to the point of order, that there is an issue of considerable importance to the House, especially to those on this side of the House. This is not the normal sort of case of transfer. This is is a special case, a case which is exciting great interest and a great deal of concern in the country. A Question is put down to a Law Officer and it has become a matter for the Law Officer. That is transferred by Government mechanism to the Minister who, as my hon. Friend has said, is in the position of being the accused.

You may—I understand why—want to preserve the rights of the Chair. Therefore, would it not be a good thing if the Leader of the House were to take note of these exchanges and undertake to look into this absurd situation in which one cannot ask a Law Officer of the Crown about the actions of a Minister whose conduct is under examination not only in the House, but in the country at large?

Mr. Speaker

Here, really, is the difficulty. I have tried to be indulgent, but I cannot allow hon. Members to make speeches about the merits as they conceive them to be in this matter on the basis of getting me to reject what is the position of the Chair to which I must adhere firmly. I dare say that everything they have said has been noted by those present, but what the Leader of the House should or should not take notice of in this field is also not a matter for me, for the same reason.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I had no notice of this objection by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), or the point raised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). The best thing I can say, in the circumstances, is that I ought to look into it, and I will certainly do so.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Gresham Cooke.

Mr. Lipton

On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether your permission has been sought by the Minister of Housing and Local Government now to answer Question No. 45?

Mr. Speaker

It has not been so sought.