HC Deb 24 April 1967 vol 745 cc1067-80

10.16 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, to leave out paragraph (a).

The purpose of the Amendment is to remove from the Bill the occasions on which we meet together with the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent to a Bill. I agree with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce to the minimum the number of occasions on which Black Rod is accustomed to come here to ask the House of Commons to go to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent. I congratulate the Government on having introduced the Bill and this innovation in our procedure, which is of course very acceptable to hon. Members, but I should like to remove from the Bill the provision by which this House goes to the House of Lords at all.

I do not want this ceremony to take place even at the end of a Session, or on very rare occasions. The only time I want to go to the House of Lords is for its burial service or cremation. I do not agree that even on the rare occasions provided for in the Bill we should go to the other place. There is nothing very dignified in hon. Members of this House trailing off to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given in the way that it has been on innumerable occasions. Under this new procedure the Lord Chancellor will read the Royal Assent in another place, and Mr. Speaker will read it in this House. I think that it should be left at that.

I have watched the ceremony of a Royal Assent from a seat in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. I have seen Mr. Speaker, accompanied by hon. Members of this House, arrive in the other place. They do not seem to be given a cordial welcome. Nobody asks them to sit down. Nobody says "Good morning, comrades", or "Good afternoon, comrades". Hon. Members are treated as though they are very common canaille who have come here to do as they are told. This might have been true during the time of Henry VIII, when the Act which is to be repealed spelt the Commons with a small "c". That used to be the rule of the House of Commons. I remember a speech made by Lord Shawcross when he was on the Front Bench in the House of Commons, in which he said, "We are the masters now." When he said that he was referring not to the House of Commons but to the Labour Government. Now that he is in another place I hope that he does not think that that dictum still applies.

The time has come when the Procedure of the Royal Assent should be simple, as provided by the Bill. The last Royal Assent Bill was 400 years ago. We might as well now make the procedure rational and reasonable. It is not a dignified ceremony. It shows that the House of Commons is looked upon by the House of Lords as a collection of servile people. The ceremony gives the impression that the lord of the manor has called in his cooks and butlers. We do not agree with that. When we say, "We are the masters now," we mean the House of Commons. Now that the Government have taken this step towards terminating the ceremony we might as well make a good job of it.

I should have been much more optimistic about the Amendment being accepted if my hon and learned Friend's brother had been in his position. I am not his brother's keeper. Nevertheless, I suggest that having had an opportunity to reflect upon this reasonable Amendment, my hon. and learned Friend will feel able to announce its acceptance by the Government.

Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)

Hon. Members on this side of the Committee would regard it as a great pity if the Amendment were accepted. It is surprising that so colourful a Member as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should want to deprive us of what is generally regarded as a significant, colourful and traditional ceremony. We doubt the constitutional propriety of the Amendment. It is obviously in order, or it would not have been called, but it should be remembered that on an occasion when a similar Amendment was moved in another place a certain view was expressed by the Lord Chancellor.

I understand that the Bill does not limit the Royal Prerogative; in fact, so far as it does anything it extends it somewhat, by providing an additional way in which it may be signified to the House, but if the Amendment were accepted it would place a minor fetter on the Prerogative, by providing that the Queen would not be able to exercise it in a certain way.

The Government view of this type of Amendment was put on record in another place. There an Amendment was designed to provide that the ceremony should take place each Session, and the Lord Chancellor expressed doubts as to the constitutional propriety of the matter and asked whether the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment had sought Her Majesty's leave, and whether she had any objection to the Amendment. I imagine that if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had sought Her Majesty's permission for his Amendment he would have told us. In the absence of any such assurance, the Lord Chancellor's words seem appropriate. He said that it would be somewhat irregular for an Amendment of this type to be passed without the Royal Assent having been obtained as a necessary prerequisite.

Apart from the point of constitutional proprietry, my hon. Friends and I take the view that it is not a bad thing to be reminded from time to time, in a somewhat graphic way, of some of the fundamentals of our constitutional position. I do not see the situation as does the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. In my view, our Parliamentary independence was hard-won, and it is not a bad thing that in these days we should continue from time to time to have a ceremony which illustrates this theme, by the way in which we treat with a certain degree of rudeness the emissary from the House of Lords in order to indicate that no one shall enter our Chamber without our leave and consent. A little ceremony to illustrate this is not a bad thing, and in my view it would be a pity if the old symbolism of the ceremony were done away with.

This ceremony indicates to the House of Lords that we are supreme, especially in the case of money Bills, where they have to send their emissary to the Clerk of the House and only when we see fit does our Clerk hand over money Bills to the House of Lords.

We think that it is a good thing to retain ceremonies of this type. It should not be allowed to interfere with our business, and that is the purpose of the Bill, but it would be a great pity if what was described by the Government spokesman in another place as being an old and dignified ceremony should disappear. We hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot)

On many occasions I have found myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I remember when he and I moved together for an inquiry into the Suez affair—a suggestion that has always been resisted by hon. Members opposite. On another occasion, with my full support, he moved the nationalisation of The Times newspaper. I am sure that there will be many occasions in the future when he and I will be together, but this is an exception.

If the Amendment were passed in its present form —I appreciate that my hon. Friend has another Amendment on the Order Paper—only two methods would remain of signifying the Royal Assent—one by notification, as proposed in the Bill, and the other by the Sovereign in person. We could bring about that result, but it would mean that the ceremony which we have known for the last 400 years would disappear. I do not think that that is the wish of hon. Members on either side of the House.

I do not know how far my hon. Friend would go. Would he abolish all our ancient ceremonies? I shudder to think what the result would be. In Scotland there would be no Hogmanay and no Burns Night. Nobody again would propose "the immortal memory". No longer would anybody in Wales celebrate St. David's Day, with daffodils; in Cornwall we would no longer have the floral dance; in England there would be no pancakes on Shrove Tuesday, no Cup Final in May, no Derby in June, no fireworks on 5th November, no pantomime at Christmas, and no Aldermaston march at Easter.

We should miss these ancient ceremonies. We want to keep them—including the ceremony of the Royal Assent. I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) on this point. We do not want the time of the House to be interrupted—that is the purpose of the Bill—but we want to retain the ceremony on two or three occasions in each Parliamentary Session.

I hope that we shall keep this ceremony. I always feel a certain sense of excitement when we slam the door in the face of the Queen's Messenger. I hope that we shall go on doing so and be reminded that the roots of the present lie deep in the past. Therefore, I resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

10.30 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, to leave out lines 12 and 13 and to insert: 'in the following manner; in the House of Lords by the Speaker or in the case of his absence by the person acting as such Speaker, and in the House of Commons by a member of Her Majesty's Household '. The Amendment is intended to secure clarification. The debate on Second Reading left one or two points unclear. I accept the need for a Measure to amend our procedure, although hon. Members whose speeches are interrupted may fall into the trap of imagining that that speech or any speech is more important than it is. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General read out a list of ancient British rituals, and it seems that debate on the Floor of the House is in danger of degenerating into a similar ritualised process with no effect on the nation's affairs but merely reflecting the way things once were a long time ago. Perhaps power will be restored to this House, in which case that criticism would no longer apply.

My first point arises from the Attorney-General's reply on Second Reading to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson): The Clerk of the Crown is at once an officer of the Crown and an officer of both Houses of Parliament. In communicating the Royal Assent, he will be acting as Clerk of the Crown and not as Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, so that his constitutional position in this exercise will be as Clerk of the Crown. But, as I have said, he is at once not only an officer of the Crown but an officer of both Houses of Parliament, so that there is no derogation in any way of the authority of this House of the proposed machinery. I hope that the Solicitor-General can reinforce that statement. Although two separate offices happen to be held by the same man, it is not necessarily any consolation that that man, wearing one hat, would be exercising a function which would not be a derogation of the functions of this House if he were wearing the other. He is acting as an officer of the Crown in communicating a message to Mr. Speaker and it is possible that this reform will make Mr. Speaker a mouthpiece of the Crown, because he will be acting on the instructions of a gentleman who is acting directly as a servant of the Crown.

Earlier in the Second Reading debate, the Attorney-General said: This procedure is analogous to the certification by the Clerk of the Crown to the Speaker of returns of by-election writs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1967; Vol 745, c. 24, 10.] I am uncertain of the validity of that analogy and would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.

Erskine May says, on page 176, under the heading "Issue of Writs": … writs are issued out of Chancery by a warrant from the Speaker, which he issues, when the House is sitting, upon the order of the House of Commons. On page 181, it says: For any place in Great Britain, the Speaker's warrant is directed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery: and for any place in Northern Ireland, to the Clerk of the Crown in Northern Ireland. This suggests that the certification of writs originates with Mr. Speaker, that the actions taken in that process are on his authority, and that there can, therefore, be no question of his acting at any stage of that procedure on behalf of anyone but the House of Commons.

It is not a strictly analogous situation to what the Bill proposes. I hope that nothing in this new procedure will accidentally invalidate legislation affecting Northern Ireland. The second quotation from Erskine May that I gave shows that the Clerk of the Crown in Northern Ireland occupies a distinct position in the process of the issue of writs; he is not the same man as the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Recent reforms or attempts at reform of our procedure have led to the suggestion that the most unlikely consequences inevitably flow from the actions of the mysterious "demon bungler" who appears to order the proposed reforms.

If my fears are well based and it is possible that the Bill will make Mr. Speaker technically merely a mouthpiece of the Crown in this context, my Amendment has merit as an alternative procedure. It is possible that a member of Her Majesty's Household, elegantly turned out and armed with a smart white wand, as he always is, could perform a similar procedure to read out the fact that Royal Assent has been given. If my alternative were adopted, it would not delay our proceedings. Perhaps some desirable reform could be achieved if we could substitute White Wand for Black Rod.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I have not followed all the intricacies of the constitutional argument, but the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) summarised it by saying that the duties of Black Rod are in some way to be carried out by White Wand. This makes me wonder whether this will complicate our procedure still further. I would abolish White Wand as well as Black Rod, neither of which produces much of a colour scheme. White Wand serves little useful purpose except to come in on ceremonial occasions dressed up in the Victorian or early Queen Anne fashion, Thus certain duties are imposed on a Member of the House which could be abolished.

There is the custom of White Wand coming with his billiard cue and then walking backwards. I have never understood why an official of the House or the Crown in the twentieth century should be asked to walk backwards. That should be allowed to lapse. When Officers of the Household bring petitions to the House, they dump them in front of the Table and then turn their backs on the Chair and walk out.

I know that there is general sympathy with the gentleman who carries the White Wand, who has to march up slowly for seven paces—he suffers agonies of embarrassment counting whether he has taken seven, eight or nine—and then has to walk backwards. I do not want to see people walking backwards in this House. I gather that the Amendment would mean more duties for this gentleman, who might perhaps have to walk backwards more often. We should not impose these duties upon the hon. Member who, according to our present practice, undertakes them.

The Solicitor-General

I can set the mind of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) at rest. There is no question of Mr. Speaker becoming a servant of the Crown. He has always been a servant of the House. That has been recognised ever since the day when Charles I came to this House with soldiers at his back, demanding to know where the five Members had gone. Mr. Speaker leaned forward and replied: I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, except as the House should command me. That is still the position.

What will happen under this Bill is that Her Majesty, unless she gives her consent in person in the other place, will give her consent to Bills by Letters Patent. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery will then send his certificate to Mr. Speaker. He merely acts as a messenger, and nothing more. He does not authorise Mr. Speaker to do anything. Mr. Speaker will then notify this House that the Royal Assent has been given and there will be a similar notification given in the other place. The Clerk of the Parliaments will then write on the Bill "La Reine le veult" and fix the date—and it is from that date that the Statute becomes part of the law of the land.

There is nothing sinister and nothing which in any way interferes with the rights of this House or which alters the position of Mr. Speaker in what is proposed in the Bill. Nor is there anything which affects Northern Ireland. We are, of course, entitled to legislate for Northern Ireland if we think fit. Here again the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is merely acting as a messenger to convey the news of the Royal Assent, and nothing more.

Nevertheless, we must consider the Amendment as it stands. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that instead of having a visit from Black Rod we might have one from White Rod. As the Amendment stands, it provides that the Royal Assent may be notified … by a member of Her Majesty's Household". Presumably that includes any member of the Household. This opens up the most interesting possibilities for there is a wide category of those who might convey the Royal Assent. It might be conveyed to us by the Master of the Horse, the Extra Woman to the Bedchamber, the Hereditary Grand Almoner, the Poet Laureate or even the Keeper of Swans. Any of them might arrive here to convey the Royal Assent. I find that a most attractive proposition, but I must inform the hon. Gentleman that it goes so wide that I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Onslow

Fascinated though I am with the possibilities of the Amendment as outlined by the Solicitor General—and he has shown me that it would go far further than I had imagined in my wildest dreams—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in line 14, to leave out subsection 2.

The subsection states: Nothing in this section affects the power of Her Majesty to declare Her Royal Assent in person in Parliament, or the manner in which an Act of Parliament is required to be endorsed in Her Majesty's name. I cannot understand why this provision is in the Bill, particularly since it is a long time since the Sovereign arrived in Parliament to refuse to give the Royal Assent to a Bill. The authorities inform me that the last occasion was in 1709, when Queen Anne arrived here to refuse to give her assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General is thoroughly acquainted with that Measure—better acquainted with it than he appears to be with the ceremonial at Burns suppers. However, it is about 250 years since the Soverign came to Parliament to say "No" to a Bill.

The last occasion on which the Monarch arrived in Parliament to go through this ceremony in person was some years ago—when Queen Victoria was aged 35. She came here in person to give her assent to certain Measures passed by Parliament. She came, she saw—and she decided that she had had enough. She never came again. Neither did Edward VIII, George V, or George VI. No Monarch has bothered to come since.

This being so, I fail to see why, since this ceremony is not performed by Monarchs, we should arrange in this subsection to perpetuate something which is not a reality. Surely my right hon. and learned Friend would not argue that the Queen should come here to say "No" in person. After all, it is accepted now as a sound constitutional doctrine that the Monarch has absolutely no right to say "No", contrary to the advice of Her Ministers, to any Measure passed by Parliament. Indeed, it is stated in Erskine May: The necessity of refusing the Royal Assent is removed by the strict observance of the constitutional principle, that the Crown has no will but that of its Ministers, who only continue to serve in that capacity so long as they retain the confidence of Parliament. In the Parliamentary Dictionary, that classical work, Abraham and Hawtrey, states: Although the royal assent is a part of the Queen's prerogative, it has not been refused to a bill since Queen Anne withheld her assent from the Scottish Militia Bill in 1707; and it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could be refused today. This is, therefore, an empty ceremony, and I want to know what it is doing in the Bill. Does the Solicitor-General think that the Queen can say "No"? If so, he should make that clear. I understand that she can normally only say "Yes".

If the Queen decided to come here in person there would be even further complications, because I understand that the Queen is not allowed in this House, even in the Royal Gallery. To include subsection (2) in the Bill would appear, therefore, not to be good law, not to be good constitutional law and not to be commonsense. It has probably been inserted by some constitutional fusspot who does not know what the exact position is. Since Queen Anne was the last Monarch to refuse the Royal Assent to a Bill—and that was 250 years ago—and since Queen Victoria was the last Monarch to think it worth while coming here in person to give her assent, how does my right hon. and learned Friend consider this provision to be worth while and that it is possible that a Monarch will want to come here to give the Royal Assent to Bills?

I cannot think that the Queen would be so anxious to see this House that she would want to come here in person to announce her assent to Bills. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain the exact position and will confirm that the Monarch was no constitutional right to say "No" to the giving of the Royal Assent. After all, we must consider what happened to Charles I—and we know what happened to him. It is a good thing that certain things happened to him, but we do not want any unfortunate incidents like that to occur again. Indeed, we know what happened to the Duke of Windsor.

I therefore ask the Solicitor-General to tell us what this subsection is doing in the Bill; and for an assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to insist on the rights, principles and privileges that this House has succeeded in maintaining.

Mr. Buck

We on this side oppose the Amendment. First, there is the constitutional point which I raised in connection with the hon. Member's earlier Amendment, and with which I should like the Solicitor General to deal. A point like this was regarded in another place as being of some seriousness and consequence. The Lord Chancellor's observations on this point on 18th March are set out in col. 453 of the OFFICIAL REPORT but I shall not go into them now, having already adumbrated them once.

As has been pointed out, the position is that the Sovereign has not come here to signify the Assent since 1854, but we on this side see no reason why the power should not be retained for Her Majesty to come here if she so wished. I should have thought that Her Majesty would be entirely welcome if she did come to give the Royal Assent in person, but I believe this to be entirely a matter for her Prerogative.

As has been said, the constitutional position is set out with complete accuracy, as one would expect, in Erskine May where it is stated: The necessity of refusing the Royal Assent is removed by the strict observance of the con- stitutional principle, that the Crown has no will but that of its Ministers, who only continue to serve in that capacity so long as they retain the confidence of Parliament. That seems to be an accurate exposition of the constitutional position, but I should have thought that there was great significance in the words at the conclusion of that short passage: … Ministers, who only continue to serve in that capacity so long as they retain the confidence of Parliament.' I should think that the only circumstance in which the Monarch might be justified in refusing the assent would be if there had been some chicanery relative to Parliament, but if there had been some chicanery relative to Parliament, I should have thought that the position was open. If someone had imprisoned a large number of Members of Parliament and had then tried to get a Bill through, that might open up the position—

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The hon. Member has enunciated an important principle. Is it the policy of the Opposition that the Queen has the right to refuse her Assent to a Bill on the ground that it is chicanery?

Mr. Buck

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not my view. I have personally endorsed the proposition which has been laid down in Erskine May. I would say in my personal capacity that the question could only arise if there had been mass arrests or any such remote or absurd possibility—absurd as long as we are vigilant in these matters. I myself entirely endorse the proposition in Erskine May. It seems to me that this is a power which should be retained for Her Majesty.

As I understand that the hon. Gentleman may not have consulted Her Majesty as to whether this truncation of the Royal Prerogative is acceptable to her, I am doubtful about the propriety of the Amendment. The provision does not, I think, do any harm being on the Statute Book, and could, in some circumstances, be of value.

The Solicitor-General

I can at once give my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) the assurance for which he asks: it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to uphold in every respect both the constitution and the rights of the House. But no one really envisages a situation in which the Royal Assent would be withheld from a Bill that has passed both Houses.

There remains the fact that the Royal Assent is an essential part of our legislative process. Until it is given, no Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. At the present time, the ceremony to which we are accustomed is the ceremony under which the Assent is given on behalf of Her Majesty. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that not since 1854 has the Sovereign come in person to give the Assent in the other place, but there is no reason why Her Majesty should not. On this occasion, I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) that if Her Majesty did decide to give her Royal Assent in person and we were summoned to the Bar of the other place, we would all be delighted.

I know, or at least I am fairly certain, that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, who is, like myself, something of a connoisseur of Parliamentary occasions, would be present to witness the event.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Buck

In welcoming the Bill on behalf of the Opposition, I would make only one small comment. The signifying of the Royal Assent up to now has caused inconvenience in that there have been frequent interruptions of our business here. On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said that in the last 12 months the House had been interrupted ten times, and this has been commented on in some articles. There have, in fact, been eleven such occasions in the last 12 months, but the average period of the interruption has not been about half an hour, as was indicated by the Attorney-General, but 13 minutes. It is right to have that correction on the record.

The main point is the inconvenience caused rather than the actual amount of time taken up. The interruptions all seem to come at an inconvenient time—particularly on one occasion in the last 12 months when I was anxious to catch the Speaker's eye and was not able to do so. The figures I have given show that only about two and a half hours of Parliamentary business time have been lost. We are however, very glad that the ceremony is to be retained.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.