§ 45. Earl Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation requiring a member of a Royal Commission from the time of his appointment until the Commission of which he is a member has reported to refrain from making controversial statements, in print or by speech, on subjects affected by the terms of reference of the Commission, in view of the fact that a similar obligation is already imposed upon members of other forms of public inquiry.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)No, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not aware that any such obligation is imposed.
§ Earl WintertonWill the Prime Minister give further consideration to this matter to see whether the practice of Royal Commissions cannot be brought into accord with that of judicial inquiries, in view of the fact that there has recently been a glaring case of a member of a Royal Commission making a most partial and controversial statement about a subject under inquiry?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that calls for legislation. I think the position is pretty well known. It depends on the scope of the inquiries. In certain circumstances it might be a grave inhibition to impose too close a restriction.
§ Mr. HoggSurely, there is not much point in appointing a Royal Commission if the members of the Royal Commission show that they have made up their minds before they have heard the evidence?
§ Mr. MikardoDoes the Prime Minister think that the general principle laid down 692 in the noble Lord's Question should apply to members of the Economic Planning Board?
§ Captain CrookshankIf there is not a case for legislation in the view of the Prime Minister, is there not a case for a reproof from him, for what that is worth?
§ The Prime MinisterI must know what the circumstances are before I issue a reproof.