§ Q3. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to establish a head of the judiciary divorced from Government responsibilities.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HamiltonCan the right hon. Gentleman explain in what capacity the Lord Chancellor appeared on the platform at the Tory Party conference in October? Will he say in what capacity the noble Lord addressed the German judges a few months ago, a speech in which he made a violent attack on the Leader of the Opposition in this House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the way to teach German judges the impartiality of the judiciary?
§ Mr. SpeakerTs the hon. Gentleman making an attack on the conduct of a Member of another House? If so, it would be a matter requiring a substantive Motion.
§ Mr. HamiltonI am asking a question of the Prime Minister, Sir, and I should very much like an answer to it.
§ The Prime Minister rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is a serious point of order here. I was asking the hon. 1175 Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) to explain whether or no he was making an attack upon the conduct of a Member of the other House. If he is, it would require another form of procedure.
§ Mr. HamiltonI am simply making a comment, Mr. Speaker. I am asking for information. [Hon. Members: "No."] I am making a comment and, if need be, an attack on a member of Her Majesty's Government. Surely that is in order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that on that answer I would have to say that what the hon. Member is seeking to urge does require a substantive Motion.
§ Mr. C. PannellOn a point of order. Surely, once a Question has been admitted to the Order Paper in this form it cannot be an attack to comment on what took place and on what the Lord Chancellor said? This surely would be an unwarranted defence of a functionary of the Government?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not defend anybody at all. I simply defend the rules of the House. The Question as tabled is in order. What I think does require a substantive Motion and is not in order as a question is the supplemental question.
§ Mr. HamiltonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should very much like some clarity on this issue. In the course of my supplementary question I made what I thought was an attack or a Minister of the Crown. Surely I am entitled to do that. I should like guidance as to which rule of order indicates that such a question, made as an attack on z member of Her Majesty's Government, is out of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe difficulty about it is that I do not know in which capacity the noble Lord was engaged in these activities, whether he was acting as a member of the Government or not acting as i member of the Government—[Interruption] No, this is quite complicated. 1 do not know whether he was acting a; Lord Chancellor, whether as a Member of the other place, or where the attack is directed. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain. I have the difficulty that I have a duty to protect Members of the other House. 1176 whether they are Ministers or no, from attacks on their personal conduct. That is why I was asking the hon. Member for Fife, West what form the attack took. On the answer that the hon. Gentleman gave me I thought it was one that required under our rules a substantive Motion.
§ Mr. HamiltonFurther to that point of order. I thought that I had made it clear in my supplementary question that I was asking the Prime Minister, first in what capacity the Lord Chancellor appeared on the platform at the Tory Party conference, and, secondly, in what capacity he addressed the German judges.
§ Mr. SpeakerI would not back myself at the moment to remember whether the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question did not go on in some form of comment, because it was the comment that attracted my attention. Having heard what the hon. Gentleman now says and in great hope that we may not consume Question Time with points of order, I would allow that part of the supplementary question which consisted of asking the Prime Minister in what capacity the noble Lord did these things.
§ The Prime MinisterI think in the usual way; the Lord Chancellor attends party conferences, as I understand it, as a member of the Government, but he does not take part in the discussions.
§ Mr. HamiltonWill the Prime Minister now answer the second part of my supplementary question? In what capacity did the Lord Chancellor address the German judges?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Lord Chancellor was on a tour on behalf of the British Council, meeting various people under the auspices of the British Council, which I think is a perfectly proper thing to do, talking about matters which are his proper concern in this country. As I understand it, a speech had been made by the Leader of the Opposition which seemed to suggest that a Conservative Government—[Interruption.] I know that he has tried to explain the speech, but it seemed to suggest that a Conservative Government might be tempted to tamper with the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor thought it right to answer that.
Mr. H. WilsonFirst, if the Prime Minister seeks to bring me into it, will he read my speech first and quote it properly in the House? Secondly, since this matter has been raised, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why a Lord Chancellor going abroad in his judicial capacity under the aegis of the British Council, speaking in his judicial capacity to German judges and lawyers, should make a party political speech? Will he also explain why right hon. Members opposite cannot do as we do and keep party politics for this country and not for other countries?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, I have done the right hon. Gentleman the honour of reading his speech. Perhaps I might quote what he said:
There is widespread public concern, not least in responsible organs of the Conservative Press, that Mr. Macmillan does not have the regard which his office demands for that rigid distinction between the Executive and the independent judiciary which is the foundation of British liberties.Either that is blatant party politics, of which the right hon. Gentleman complains, or by implication the Prime Minister of Britain is interfering with the judiciary.
§ Mr. Bellengerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does not observe that another right hon. Gentleman behind him is rising to a point of order.
§ Mr. BellengerMr. Speaker, as you have just ruled that it is inappropriate or out of order for hon. Members to criticise members of the other House, might we not have reciprocal treatment from members of the other House in regard to the Leader of the Opposition or members of the Opposition?
§ Mr. SpeakerLet us not get involved in all these points of order. The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet seeking to ask some question, I believe.
Mr. H. WilsonYes, Sir. Since the Prime Minister wants to pursue this, is he aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not bring my name into this. The Prime Minister did. Is the Prime Minister aware that, though he regards this 1178 as a party political speech on my part—and it was made at a political meeting—it was at any rate done in this country, and it was not done under any false pretences of being a judicial or non-political speech?
§ The Prime MinisterIf I may say so with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, when he makes a speech in this country he ought to consider its repercussions abroad.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am sure that the House would like to make better progress with Questions.