§ NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI beg to nominate the Select Committee on Private Bills (Group A), Special Report, and to move that Mr. WALPOLE be a Member of the Committee.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENIn consequence of some observations that were made yesterday in reference to the mode in which this Committee is to conduct its inquiry, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not stated whether it is intended that this Committee is to be a private Committee or a public one, I will venture to move—and I do so, not by way of Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but rather as an 1957 addition to that Motion, "That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that it be an open Committee.;
§ MR. SPEAKERI would point out to the hon. Baronet that the Question now before the House is the appointment of the Committee, and the House is at this moment considering the names of those hon. Members who shall be appointed. The immediate Question before the House is that Mr. Walpole be a Member of the said Committee.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENMay I, in point of Order, ask whether, if no Instruction be given to the Committee, it will not necessarily be an open Committee?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe House is aware that every Select Committee is at liberty to exclude strangers if it thinks proper.
MR. KNATCHEULL-HUQESSENBefore the Motion before the House is put, I would venture to make an observation on the constitution of the Committee, if I am in Order in doing so?
§ MR. SPEAKERYes.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENWhat I wish to say to the House on the matter is this. In all former cases of this kind, as soon as a breach of Privilege has been committed, or as soon as any person has been accused of having committed a breach of the Privileges of this House, every Member of the House— all being alike interested in the preservation of our Privileges— has generally concurred in a Notice that on a certain day the individual so charged will be called to the Bar of the House; and on the individual so accused being called to the Bar, every Member of the House has had the opportunity of examining him, and asking him such questions as would enable the House to arrive at a conclusive opinion as to the course which the House ought to take with regard to such individual. Well, now, Sir, I wish to point out to the House that by the proposition now before it the House will, for the first time, be declaring that it has not sufficient confidence in itself, as a collective Body, to conduct an examination of this kind. I do not wish to raise any objection to this proceeding, because it was the evident feeling of the House, after the wish expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to accept the proposal he put before it; but, at the same time, it is desirable 1958 to obtain an expression of the opinion of the House as to whether, if a Committee is to sit upon this matter, and if the functions that have been hitherto discharged by the whole House are to be delegated to a limited number of individuals, the House will be disposed to part with the Privilege under which any Member of the House may be present at the deliberations of a Committee? I asked the question just now, because it was my impression that—and I wish you, Sir, to state from the Chair —if the Committee should decide on conducting their inquiry with closed doors, and thus exclude the public from being present, hon. Members of this House will have power to be present?
§ MR. SPEAKERI would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is open to any Select Committee to exclude strangers at their own discretion; but they cannot exclude Members of this House without first obtaining the Order of the House to that effect.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENThat, Sir, is what I wished to have made perfectly clear. With regard to the question of the exclusion of strangers, the House, no doubt, feels it right that there should be delegated to the Select Committee its own authority to clear the House of strangers; but I wish to know whether, in so delegating that power, it would also delegate power as to any further restrictions, whether it would authorize the Committee to exclude hon. Members of the House from its deliberations? If it be understood that it has not this authority, I have nothing further to say on the subject, and, as far as I can understand from what fell from my hon. Friend behind me, his object was to ascertain the same thing.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENIt appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) is as much out of Order as I was, when I rose just now, to make the few observations with which I intended to trouble the House. My objection to the Committee being a private one is that the publicity which I desire to obtain would thus be completely avoided; because, although every hon. Member of this House would be able to attend, lie would be under an honourable understanding to hold the proceedings of the Committee as private as if he were a Member of that Committee. That is what I object to in this instance. The 1959 question is one that does not affect merely the power, privileges, and honour of this House; it is one that concerns the vast considerations as to the interests of property in different parts of the Kingdom which are brought under the consideration of Committees on Private Bills; and where there is even the slightest charge against the honour of any Committee — and, in his (Sir Patrick O'Brien's) experience, it has ever shown that the persons making such charges have failed to establish them—there is the greatest reason why the public should see that the inquiry into the allegation is made publicly, and that we have no reason to refuse to persons outside, who may be interested not only in this Committee, but in a large number of Committees that are appointed to inquire into matters coming before the House from year to year and from day to day, a knowledge of what is done. It would be a lamentable thing if the idea should go abroad that anything is occurring in this House to which the public are not completely admissible. There were, no doubt, matters in which at times questions of State policy may render it necessary that the proceedings should be conducted in private. I think it is about eight or ten years ago, though I will not be certain that I am accurate as to the date; but, at any rate, it is some years ago since a question as to the state of society in a particular county in Ireland was referred to a Committee— the Westmeath Committee as it was called— and in that case it was thought desirable that, as certain persons might be indisposed to give such evidence as was necessary for the purposes of the public, unless they had the protection that would be afforded by secrecy, that the Committee should take evidence in secret. The House acted on a suggestion to that effect, and a portion of the evidence then taken was not afterwards published. But, in the present case, no consideration of the kind can possibly arise. The question is this. A serious charge has been made against the honour of a Committee of this House; and when it is to be inquired into by another Committee the House ought, out of regard to its own honour and its own feelings, to see that that inquiry has the fullest publicity. I believe that if it were necessary to take the sense of the House on the question, there are a 1960 great many hon. Members who would concur in the opinion I have ventured to submit to the House. I know I am not in Order in moving an addition to the Motion just now; but as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) has made some observations on the general question, I thought it right, prior to moving the addendum I intend to move afterwards, to interpose and state the grounds for the opinions that have actuated me in bringing this question forward.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Motion which the hon. Baronet desires to submit as an Instruction to the Committee will be moved more properly after the House has given its decision on the Question now before it. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that Mr. Walpole be a Member of the Committee.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Mr. GODSON, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. GRAY, and Mr. PEMBERTON, nominated other Members of the Committee.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENIs this the time for moving the Instruction I propose to ask the House to give to the Committee?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question before the House is that the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records; and the hon. Baronet is not in Order at present in moving an Instruction to the Committee.
§ MR. COURTNEYMay I ask, as a matter of Order, whether I shall be in Order in moving that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they shall receive evidence on oath upon the matter referred to then? I apprehend that it is quite within our jurisdiction to decide this.
§ MR. SPEAKERAny Motion for giving Instructions to the Committee would come more opportunely when the House has disposed of the preliminary point now before it.
§ MR. CALLANSir, before you put the Question before the House, I think it would be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1961 should give the House some explanation of the course he intends to pursue. When Notice was given of the appointment of the Westmeath Committee in 1871, the then principal Secretary of State for Ireland gave Notice at the same time that it should be a secret Committee. He did that, I believe, for the purpose of excluding even Members of this House from that Committee; but such a course is not intended to be pursued on this occasion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, I think that a question of much greater importance and wider scope now arises, and that is—whether, for the first time in the history of this House, an offender, or one who is presumed to have offended by committing a breach of the Privileges of this House, shall not be called to the Bar of the House in order to withdraw, or apologize, or explain his conduct; and whether the inquiry that is to be made is to be kept secret, in so far that no one shall attend except Members of this House?—for the rumour has gone abroad, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Committee about to be appointed is intended, in reality and in substance, to be a secret Committee. If this is to be the case, I would offer to the proposition now put before the House my most strenuous opposition. There is no use in blinking the fact that a charge has been made which affects the character of Members of this House. We have repeatedly heard it pathetically lamented by Members of the Government that this House has sunk in the estimation of the country; but I would say that in regard to one portion of its duties this House has not sunk, but that day by day it has raised itself in the estimation of the country by the strict impartiality, the honour, and the independence of the Members of its Select Committees on Private Bills, involving private interests of great magnitude. If, Sir, we allow a breath of suspicion to rest upon that honour, we shall inflict a fatal blow on the independence of the House, and a still more fatal blow on the opinion the country has formed of it. I, for one, acting, I believe, with the full concurrence of the Party with which I am associated, and with which I have the honour to act, feel that in such a case, involving such grave considerations, we of this section who have been 1962 accused in the Provincial Press of being actuated by treasonable motives — we who have been accused almost of being actuated by corrupt motives — have treated those accusations with contempt. When an accusation such as this is brought forward, we are bound, in my opinion, to meet it boldly. Let there be no concealment, no suppression of facts. Are we ashamed to come before the country and investigate such a charge? If we are not ashamed, the Committee should be an open one. It is a charge which attracts the undivided attention of the country; and at the present moment, when a General Election is pending, the character of this House is closely looked to. If we are afraid that something should arise, why not boldly avow it, and say it is not desirable that the public should know all the circumstances of the case? As a Member of this House, I say the Committee should be a public Committee— that it should be above reproach— and I believe that if this be so the result will be that every Member of the aspersed Committee will be cleared, and the Committees of this House will be established in higher estimation than ever.
§ MR. WHITBREADAlthough the turn the discussion has taken may be slightly irregular, and it would, perhaps, have been more convenient not to have raised it on a Motion that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, still, as it has been allowed to be carried on for some time, I wish to say one or two words upon the subject before it is too late. It seems to me that the fears of the hon. Member who last addressed the House are without cause. I take it that at no time in the history of Parliament has the honour and integrity of Private Bill Committees stood higher than at the present moment. [Mr. CALLAN: That is what I said.] It is true, as many hon. Members may remember, that there was a time when some rumours— mere idle tales— did prevail as to our Committees; but at the present time, I believe, they are above suspicion, and that the country recognizes this fact. Now, what has been done in the present instance I understand to have been this. Instead of following the usual plan of calling the offending person to the Bar of the House, it appeared to the right hon. 1963 Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that as there might be other names implicated in this matter, and the inquiry might be rather too complicated to be conducted in the ordinary way, it would be better to appoint a small Committee to investigate the facts. The House having agreed to the appointment of that Committee, and having, as I think, got a Committee in whose hands the honour and integrity of the House may well be left, it seems to me that it would be to act in an unusual manner if the House were to attempt to curtail the discretion of the Committee in the way suggested. Surely the Members of that Committee, acting with the right hon. Gentleman whose name is first upon it (Mr. Walpole), must all be fully alive to the necessity that this question shall be dealt with, not in any hole-and-corner fashion, but, as far as possible, as an open inquiry. At the same time, I should be very unwilling to fetter their discretion, so as to leave them no opportunity, supposing they found that evidence might be forthcoming with closed doors that could not be obtained in any other way, of taking that evidence in secret. I say I should be sorry to fetter their hands as to render it impossible that they should exclude strangers. That would seem to me to be a very unusual course, and one which I think the House has hardly ever adopted. Having appointed the Committee, it seems to me that the question of calling the offender to the Bar of the House is not thereby precluded. If the House or the Committee think there is any censure to be accorded to the person who brought this charge, or if they think there is any reason why he should be examined publicly before the House, then the House, on the Report of the Committee, or in spite of their Report, can call the individual to the Bar. What we are now about to do is to delegate the matter to the Committee with the view of having a searching inquiry— a more full and minute inquiry than we could conduct in this House; and, having appointed the Committee and got upon it the names of hon. Gentlemen who will fully satisfy the House and the country, it seems to me to be very undesirable to attempt, in an unusual way, to fetter the discretion of that Committee.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERAfter what has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), there is nothing left for me to say, except that I entirely agree with every word that has fallen from him. The object in view, in the appointment of this Committee, which I admit to be taking an unusual course, is not, in any way, to deprive the House of its power to deal with those who may be considered as having infringed its Privileges, but to investigate the circumstances that have been brought under our notice by the Report of one of the Select Committees— circumstances which appeared to be so far complicated that, at the present moment, the House must feel in some uncertainty as to the course they ought to take without further information. The question is, whether that information can best be got by calling one gentleman or more than one gentleman to the Bar of the House, and conducting a public examination; or, whether it would not be more convenient to make the inquiry by means of a Committee sitting upstairs? We came, yesterday, to the conclusion, which I think was a right one, that the best way to get at the real facts would be by a preliminary investigation upstairs. This does not, of course, preclude the action of the House after the Committee has ascertained the facts. With regard to the mode in which the Committee shall proceed, all Committees, unless specially instructed to the contrary, exercise their own discretion as to whether they will sit openly or with closed doors as far as the public are concerned; but, with regard to this House, every Member of the House has a right to attend the sittings of the Committee, unless the House otherwise directs. The power to take evidence on oath is also a power inherent in the Committee. There is no proposal to restrict the Committee, or to require it to keep its doors open or closed. That is a matter which we leave to the discretion of the Committee, feeling perfectly satisfied that their discretion will be exercised in a wise and proper manner. There is no intention to give any Instructions that they should have power to do this, as they already, by the Standing Orders, have power to do it; and, on the other hand, we do not propose any limitation upon those powers. I think, under all the 1965 circumstances, the House would do well to give the usual powers to the Committee to send for persons, papers, and records, without trammelling them with any other Instructions.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYIt speaks well for the honour and dignity of the House that we find ourselves in this difficulty as to determining the proper course to pursue when a charge of this kind is brought forward, which has elicited such a discussion. I have risen merely to say that, according to the experience of the House upon these questions, no charges of the kind now before the House, or made in modern times, have made any impression upon the public mind. I think we must feel gratified at finding that all hon. Members who have spoken take such an interest in the honour and dignity of this House; but with regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), I was not, myself, aware that he was authorized to speak for anybody but himself; although I should have been fully sensible of the advantages to my position in this House, and that of other hon. Members, if I had known that we had committed to him the duty of expressing what we thought would be for the honour and dignity of this Assembly. I may add, that I do not concur in the course that he wishes to be adopted as to giving Instructions to the Committee. The House has remitted to the Committee, composed of some most experienced Members, an inquiry which would constitute them, in the main, a Court of Inquiry. This Committee will, no doubt, hear all the evidence, and Members of this House will not be excluded from attending. The Committee will, in due time, report to the House, and the House will adopt its own course. For my part, I think it would be a very indiscreet thing to fetter the discretion of the Committee; and I cannot, therefore, concur in the course proposed by the hon. Member for Dundalk.
§ MR. COURTNEYAs the Chancellor of the Exchequer has intimated his opinion that no Instructions should be given to the Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on the point. I have already mentioned that I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), that it would be unwise to fetter the discretion of the Committee in respect to the admission or 1966 non-admission of strangers to hear the evidence brought before it, and the House seems to approve of that proposition. It is quite evident that any imperative direction that the Committee should be open at all times might have the effect of defeating the first object of the Committee, which is to obtain all the evidence it can on the allegations in respect to this matter. It may, possibly, be necessary for them to sit with closed doors and hear evidence not otherwise obtainable, and we must trust entirely to the discretion of the Committee in exercising its power to exclude strangers; but with respect to the question of receiving evidence on oath, different considerations arise. We wish to have this matter investigated for the honour of the House, and for the defence of the House in the eyes of the public; we, therefore, wish to have the evidence given in the most exact, precise, and responsible manner for that purpose. I should suppose that probably the Committee itself, in the exercise of the power it has obtained under the recent Act of Parliament, would think it advisable to receive evidence on oath; but there might be some hesitation on their part in adopting that course, as being some what unusual; and it would strengthen their hands if the House were to instruct them beforehand that the evidence to be received in this serious matter should be on oath. There is another reason why I think the evidence should be taken in this form. The statements made, if any prolonged inquiry is entered into, might be statements affecting other persons, and I think those other persons ought to have the power of holding the witnesses who made those statements responsible for them; if evidence be tendered on oath, every person tendering that evidence would be liable to indictment for perjury, if the persons objecting to his statements could prove that his evidence is false. Unless the evidence be given on oath, no such remedy could be had, supposing persons to be so wronged. Of course, there might be other remedies, such as an accusation of conspiracy, where two or three persons joined together to bring a false charge; but the process of vindicating the character of the person aspersed would be difficult for those persons. I think it extremely desirable that the Committee should resolve 1967 to take evidence on oath, and I think it should be an Instruction to the Committee that the evidence should be so taken.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEI think that, in the interest of the Members of this House, we ought to consider whether it would be wise to exclude shorthand writers from the proceedings of the Committee. In the interest of the hon. Gentlemen who had the Committee in charge, it is certainly most desirable that shorthand writers should not be excluded. Of course, I refer to the shorthand writers appointed by the House, and who regularly attend to make a record of the proceedings of our Committees. I do not think it will be necessary to admit gentlemen who will supply sensational paragraphs to the newspapers; but I do think that, in the interest of hon. Members generally, we ought to make a general Instruction to the Committee that they should not exclude official shorthand writers.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENSir, my object in rising in the first instance was to secure, if possible, that no Instruction should be given to the Committee by which the proceedings of this Select Committee would be necessarily conducted in secret. But, having attained that object, I would recommend to hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the subject that the best course for us to pursue is to place entire confidence in the Committee. We have obtained the services of men of great practical experience in the working of Committees; and, in my opinion, if we are willing to delegate to them the powers hitherto vested in the House, we may place implicit confidence in their discretion. As regards the taking of evidence on oath and other matters, we ought to bed content to leave them to the Committee.
§ MR. SHAWSir, I would venture to express the opinion that it would be very unwise to fetter the hands of the Committee; but, at the same time, I think it of great importance that we have heard the general opinion of the House on the subject. I am pleased that the Government have consented to widen the Instructions to the Committee, and that it is not to be a hole-and-corner affair. Certainly, there will be garbled reports and sensational paragraphs; but I am quite certain that the wisest course to 1968 adopt will be to allow the proceedings of the Committee to be conducted in the manner proposed, unless there is something exceptional; and, under such circumstances, it would be unfair to the Government that their hands should be tied. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, inasmuch as his object in proposing it has been fully answered by the conversation which has just taken place.
§ MR. DUNDASAs a Member of the original Committee in charge of the Bill, I may remark that we have only one wish, and that is, that the utmost publicity should be given to all the evidence. At the same time, I should be expressing my own opinion as well as that of my Colleagues, though I have not consulted them in the matter, when I say that we do not feel we have any interests apart from the interests of the House, and that we shall have the most complete confidence in the discretion of any Committee which the House may be pleased to appoint.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKELooking to the fact that the general opinion of the House seems to be that the witnesses ought to be examined on oath before this Committee, I would appeal to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) whether he has not practically obtained his point? It is clear that the Committee have power to examine witnesses on oath, and that, therefore, they will exercise it. Under these circumstances, I appeal to the hon. Member not to press his objection.
§ MR. FREMANTLEI quite concur with the remarks just made by my hon. Colleague on the Committee (Mr. Dundas). While, of course, every Member of the Committee desires the fullest publicity in this matter, we feel that we are in the hands of the House; and the strong feeling of the House appears to be that the hands of the Committee now to be appointed should not be tied in any way in making this investigation.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENNow, Sir, I am in Order. Of course, I should not for a moment presume to move any Motion against which I knew the House to be; but I trust the House will bear with me for a short time while I state the reason which induces me to propose 1969 that such an Instruction be given to the Committee. This is not the ordinary case of a Committee. It is the substitution of a Committee for a course of public procedure which has been always adopted by the House of Commons; and when we substitute a Committee upstairs for a public examination at the Bar, it is of the utmost importance that it should be broadly stated and indicated, and that in unmistakeable language, that that Committee should be confined to Members of this House. When we take away the publicity, we ought, at least, to maintain that publicity upstairs, which in some way would be a kind of recognition of the former procedure of the House. Let me suppose that Mr. Grissell, when he appears before the Committee, says—" I object to five Gentlemen, however respectable and honourable, having charge of my honour in this particular. I demand that publicity which every Englishman who has a charge made against him has a right to enjoy; " and supposing that Mr. Grissell, addressing the Chairman of the Committee, were to say—" Sir, I demand of you that the public be admitted, and that in my defence I have the opinion of the British public as well as the opinion of the House of Commons "— what answer would the Chairman of the Committee give to such a demand? He would, no doubt, find himself placed in a very difficult position, were Mr. Grissell to make that proposition. I do not mean to say that the Committee is not composed of men of the highest honour and complete sense of justice; nay, I go further, and say that if you were to place any other hon. Members of the House upon the Committee the same observation would be applicable.
§ MR. SPEAKERI wish to point out to the hon. Baronet that at the present moment there is no Question before the House, unless the hon. Baronet is about to conclude with a Motion.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENI intend to move an Instruction to the Committee, unless I see that the feeling of the House is against me. It has been said by an hon. Gentleman opposite that the decision of the Committee may be of such a character that the House may not wish to adopt it. Assuming that to be so, may I ask what material this House would have for discussion in considering 1970 the proceedings of the Committee? They would not have the evidence; there would have been no publicity; but the House, in ignorance of what the Committee upstairs have done, will be told—" You have the opportunity of reviewing the proceedings of the Committee." I do not see how we can adopt such a principle, and I fail to see the relevancy of many of the arguments offered to the House against the Instruction which I have now the honour to move. Without attempting to put the House to the trouble of a division if it does not desire it, I beg to move—" That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that it be an open Committee."
[The Motion, not being seconded, could not be put.]