HC Deb 24 July 1900 vol 86 cc1042-3
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the persons appointed to report on the arrangements for the care and treatment of the sick and wounded in South Africa will have any, and what, powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to examine witnesses on oath, and to compel the production of documents; and, how it is proposed to protect witnesses who give evidence; and whether, with a view to extend to witnesses the protection afforded by The Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act, 1892, he will consider the propriety of holding the proposed inquiry under the authority of a Royal Commission.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

As the hon. Member is probably aware, there is no power under any form of Commission other than a Statutory Commission to take evidence on oath. This Commission, like all Commissions not directly appointed by Parliament, will therefore be without that power. I understand that the chairman of the Commission has already made public the very elaborate precautions which the Commission propose to take for the protection of witnesses, and I doubt whether any statute would give a protection so absolute. At the same time, as Parliament has passed a statute protecting witnesses before Royal Commissions—a protection which does not extend to commissions otherwise appointed—this Commission will be made a Royal Commission.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Will the Commission have compulsory powers to insist on bringing witnesses before them?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have already stated that no Commission not appointed by Parliament except one appointed by statute has those compulsory powers.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

This Commission is a farce.

* MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

Has a Royal Commission which derives its authority from the executive power of the Crown not those compulsory powers?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir; I have twice said so.

* MR. BURDETT-COUTTS

Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. I admit that it is rather a long question, but it can be briefly answered. In cases of Regular soldiers who believe that they will be marked men and would be ruined for life, and, therefore, will not speak; in the case of more humble people in some kind of active employment in connection with the Army Medical Department who have the same feeling and, therefore, will not speak; in the case of civilian surgeons in the employment of the Army Medical Department and dependent for their daily livelihood on the continuance of that employment and therefore will not speak; and in the case of civilian doctors—

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is really delivering a speech and an argument. An answer has been given to the question, but the hon. Member is now proceeding to point out a number of cases in which he considers that witnesses require protection. If move information is required he should give notice of the question.

* MR. BURDETT-COUTTS

I had no intention of making a speech, I was only enumerating certain cases with regard to which I desired to ask a question. I will, however, stop the enumeration and will ask the right hon. Gentleman how, with regard to all those cases of people dependent on their employment for their existence, he proposes to obtain such important evidence without compulsory powers, and whether he proposes to give the witnesses protection?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In my opinion the question conveys a perfectly unmerited insult upon persons who do not deserve it at his hands or anybody else's. If the hon. Gentleman will wait until he sees in print the statement made by Lord Justice Romer this morning, he will see what precautions have boon taken by the Commission