HC Deb 10 June 1936 vol 313 cc205-9
Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice)

asked the Attorney-General whether he has come to any decision on the question of proceedings arising from the report of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Tribunal?

Mr. GALLACHER

On a point of Order. I am in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I want your Ruling. I am of opinion that it is out of order for the Attorney-General to make a statement at this time, that this House has a duty to discuss the report presented to the Government, and to take a decision of its own as to whether those who are affected by the report are fit to be Members of this House or not. We are entitled to have that discussion before we get a decision from the Attorney-General, because if he makes a decision in favour of the prosecution then we cannot discuss it. This House has a responsibility to discuss the report now, and take a decision.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order. A question has been put to the Attorney-General, and he may answer it.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)

I have considered the question whether I should institute criminal proceedings under the Official Secrets Act against all or some of those affected by the findings of the Tribunal recently set up by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. I consider in the first place what evidence would be available in a criminal trial. This involved questions of some difficulty as to the admissibility and effect of statements made to that Tribunal by those whose conduct is in question. The House will not expect me to go in detail into the various legal considerations, but I may say that there cannot be an offence of receiving information under Section 2 (2) of the Act unless an offence of an unauthorised communication under Section 2 (1) is first proved. That unauthorised communication must, in my opinion, be deliberate. This is a point of importance, as under our law an accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt, and if there were a doubt as to whether any disclosure was deliberate or inadvertent, the accused would be entitled to be acquitted.

I have also had in mind considerations based on the general principles on which criminal justice is administered in this country. Much of the relevant evidence in my possession was given by those whose conduct is now in question to a Tribunal with wide powers of summoning witnesses and calling for documents. I am not, of course, suggesting that in no case should a prosecution follow on the report of such a Tribunal, but it would be somewhat foreign to our general methods that information which results from the existence or exercise of wide powers of compulsory interrogation and discovery of documents of this kind should be made the basis of a subsequent criminal charge. There is a further point. In a criminal trial the fundamental principle is that the jury should act, and act only on the evidence called before them at the trial. It would, of course, in this case be impossible to obtain a jury who were not familiar with the findings of the Tribunal, and indeed with much of the evidence called before them. I have in these circumstances decided not to institute criminal proceedings.

Mr. THURTLE

Is the Attorney-General aware that in its findings, the Tribunal did not suggest that the disclosure of the information was inadvertent? They made no suggestion of that kind at all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I was not dealing, as the House will appreciate, with the findings of the Tribunal. I was dealing with the evidence which would be available should criminal proceedings be instituted.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice)

asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take on the report of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)

The Attorney-General's decision has cleared the way for the Debate too morrow. I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) wish to make personal statements at the end of Questions to-morrow, and they will be in their places for that purpose. I am sure the House will approve this course. In these circumstances, I do not think we should anticipate to-day the course of to-morrow's proceedings, but, in order to secure full range for the Debate, we will put on the Paper to-night a Motion for to-morrow in the following terms: That the report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, be now considered.

Mr. GALLAGHER

I am concerned with regard to what would have been ruled out if the Attorney-General had taken a decision to prosecute. Have not the Government a responsibility, having appointed a Commission of Inquiry and got its report, to come forward and make recommendations regarding that report or regarding a decision arising out of that report? Surely the Government cannot walk away from its responsibility?

Mr. ATTLEE

May I take it that the Prime Minister, following the statements which are to be made by the two hon. Members, will himself give his opinion on the subject of the report?

The PRIME MINISTER

Certainly, I propose to take part in the proceedings, but I am quite certain that no Member of the House will desire to prejudge the statements that will be made.

Mr. THURTLE

Arising from the statement of the Prime Minister, may I ask whether he does not think that he, as Leader of the House, has a responsibility to make some declaration upon the findings of the Tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER

I am quite aware of my responsibility, and I shall do my best to exercise it in the way I think best.

Mr. GALLACHER

I want to put a question, and I want an answer. Do the Prime Minister and the Government accept the findings of the Tribunal?

Mr. HARDIE

On a point of Order. I want to know whether it is in order for the Government to set up a tribunal and get its report, and then say that no decision can be taken until statements are made by those who have been accused and who have been found guilty by that tribunal?

HON. MEMBERS

No!

Mr. SPEAKER

No point of Order arises.

Mr. HARDIE

It is a point of Procedure in regard to this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is a very old Rule of this House in regard to the Privilege which Members have.

Mr. THURTLE

Will it be in order to-morrow to move a manuscript Amendment to the Motion which is to be moved by the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER

It will be in order to move an Amendment, but before I say that the Amendment will be in order I must see the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE

If any decision is taken to-morrow by the House which goes against the findings of the Tribunal, what then will be the position?

Mr. SPEAKER

We had better see what happens in the Debate.

Mr. HARDIE

It will be too late then.