HC Deb 20 January 1977 vol 924 cc645-6
Mr. Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you will reconsider the implication of your ruling that it is sub judice to discuss the question of the relationship between the Attorney-General and the judiciary?

I think that the House would concede that there would be a delicacy in raising directly the question of an application before the courts, but I put it to you that there is a world of difference between that situation and the implications of your own ruling or comments today, when you suggest that it is also sub judice for the House to discuss the relationship between the Attorney-General and the judges, because it may well be that in time we shall wish to raise this matter and to debate it in the House.

The point I make is one that I raised on a number of occasions with your predecessor. What you are saying may be correct in relation to this case, which concerns the Post Office, but it is possible that in industrial disputes—for example, in the electricity or gas industries—where points of law are concerned in almost identical situations, in which the Attorney-General or the courts could become involved, it may be necessary for some of us to raise the matter in the House.

I hope, therefore, that what you have said this afternoon about the Post Office situation does not apply to the question of the Attorney-General's relationship with the judges nor, indeed, to the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, which many of us believe has recently been brought into disrepute as a result of some of the comments which have been made by judges.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Lord President's comments were directed to a case which is still proceeding, as far as I know. That was why I intervened. We shall look at each case on its merits.

Those who have the honour to belong to this House at this time are the trustees of the unwritten constitution of the land. For centuries this House has adopted the attitude that, when a case is being considered before the court, it will withhold its comments. When the matter has been concluded before the court, this House then expresses its opinion. I hope that I shall have the support of the whole House in maintaining that long-established tradition.

Mr. Atkinson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take it that you are making it clear that in no way did your remarks refer to the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary and that, if we wish to raise issues of that kind, we are free to do so.

Mr. Speaker

My remarks related to the case which is now under way.