Clause 3. — [General Duty of the Corporation.)

Part of Orders of the Day — Iron and Steel Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 25 July 1949.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Nigel Birch Mr Nigel Birch , Flintshire 12:00, 25 July 1949

I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply gave most extraordinary reasons for taking away the inalienable right of a British subject who, if he is aggrieved according to law can go to the courts. Where is this right left now? The first point is that the "public interest" under the Bill is to be interpreted by the Corporation and the Corporation may well interpret that in this way. They may say that the "public interest" requires that we shall succeed at all costs. That is probably how they will interpret the term "public interest." We then have an appeal to the Minister who is also admittedly an interested party. That had been admitted by the Minister to be so.

I would say that this is a very sinister proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman says it is "unsuitable" that they should have any appeal to the courts. Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler all found it extremely "unsuitable" that people should have appeals to the courts and I have no doubt that Louis XIV thought it most "unsuitable" that anyone should be sent to the Bastille except with a lettre de cachet. These things have always been "unsuitable" and surely the doctrine that liberty is safe in the hands of Executive Government, is one which the whole of history tells us is untrue. Why have a trial by jury? It would be much more suitable to commit the man straight away. That is much more reasonable. Why have habeas corpus? Why not lock him up? I know that they do so under Defence Regulations—that is another sign of progress. But the idea that an appeal to the Executive through Parliament is a substitute for the courts—an idea in which hon. Members opposite seem to believe—seems to me to be wholly wrong, and not based on history. It is not supported by anything we see in any of the "stooge" Parliaments abroad. The idea that a majority, just because it is elected, is controlled either by reason or precedent is wrong. It has never been proved in history and no one could say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are controlled either by reason or precedent—particularly by reason. The idea of any kind of protection by Parliament I believe to be wholly fallacious.

A noble Lord said in another place he hoped we should transcend any statutory formula. Surely our business in Parliament is to make statutes as clear, and as definite as possible; and then to see that those statutes are enforced by the impartial tribunal of the courts, not by an appeal to the Minister who is an interested party. I think this is much the most sinister part of this sinister Bill, and I hope it will be thrown out.