HC Deb 16 February 1959 vol 600 cc31-4
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the case of John Waters.

I have given careful consideration to the terms of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and other hon. Members.

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the case of John Waters and to advise this House whether the said John Waters was assaulted by certain police officers as alleged, and in what circumstances it was decided that no prosecution should be instituted.]

It is an established principle of Government in this country, and a tradition long supported by all political parties, that the decision as to whether any citizen should be prosecuted, or whether any prosecution should be discontinued, should be a matter where a public as opposed to a private prosecution is concerned, for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure.

It would be a most dangerous deviation from this sound principle if a prosecution were to be instituted or abandoned as a result of political pressure or popular clamour. In this case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate decided, after considering the evidence before him, that criminal proceedings would not be justified.

In reaching his decisions the Lord Advocate's duty in Scotland, like the Attorney-General's in England, is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, whether the person involved is a public functionary or a private citizen. In the words of Lord Simon he should absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister or Cabinet or anybody else that he should prosecute". This is an important aspect of the matter. Nevertheless, although this principle must stand, there is a second which cannot be ignored. Considerable disquiet has been expressed both inside and outside the House over this affair and public confidence has been correspondingly disturbed. The Government have therefore, felt it right that there should be some form of inquiry.

The most convenient method is clearly to act under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The purpose would be to inquire into the allegation that John Waters was assaulted at Thurso on 7th December, 1957, and into the action taken by the Caithness police. This would give the fullest opportunity for all the available evidence as to what happened on 7th December, 1957, to be brought out and examined by the Tribunal and for full inquiry as to whether the events were properly investigated by the police.

We propose that the necessary Motion should be taken as the first item of business tomorrow.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the decision announced by the Prime Minister and the fact that the Government, taking into account the feeling in the House and in the country, have decided to institute this inquiry after all. A special word of credit is, I feel, due to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who has pressed this matter very strongly, with support from all parts of the House, and I feel myself this is much the best outcome.

Sir D. Robertson

May I associate myself with the words used by the Leader of the Opposition, and ask the Prime Minister to accept my grateful thanks and those of my constituents and, I believe, of all the people and of our free Press for the prompt and efficient action that he has taken on this case?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

While accepting, of course, the very fine statement of constitutional principle which the Prime Minister has just given us, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not realise that it really overlooks what has caused all the difficulty in this case, namely, the refusal of the Lord Advocate and of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to give the grounds upon which the prosecution was turned down? This House is, of course, entitled to know the grounds upon which that was done—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—without, of course, inquiring into any detail about it.

The Prime Minister

All these are matters, like so much of our constitution, of balance and good sense. I think that it would be the general view of the House that it would be a very bad thing if the House or the Cabinet of the day tried to influence the semi-judicial functions of the Law Officers in the institution or the dropping of prosecutions. I do not want a Campbell case in reverse. At the same time, these are matters of balance. I think that the decision we have taken will commend itself as a reasonable settlement.

Mr. Ede

Could the Prime Minister tell me this? Recently, there have been two such tribunals, the Lynskey and Parker Tribunals. In each case the witnesses were examined in chief by the Attorney-General, who assembled the evidence. Would it not be rather peculiar if, in this case, that function fell to the Lord Advocate, who has already expressed an opinion very strongly on the issues which will be submitted to the Tribunal?

The Prime Minister

No. I must make it clear that the Lord Advocate has merely given his view that up to now there has been no evidence which would justify a prosecution, but I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I think that we shall find it fairly easy to make arrangements for the Tribunal which will overcome his difficulty.

Mr. Ede

I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Doughty

Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be most undesirable if Law Officers, so far as their judicial functions are concerned, came to the House and gave explanations upon legal matters of that kind, upon which they could be questioned and debate take place, matters on which they are asked to advise solely in their judicial capacity?

The Prime Minister

Yes, and what I have suggested, while completely preserving the principle which, I think, we all feel important, meets, I think, the general feeling of the House as to the best way to handle this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the last supplementary question and answer, and ask you whether, as a matter of order, that question and answer were not both misconceived. Has it not been the invariable practice for very many years to permit Questions to be put down to the Attorney-General, and for the Attorney-General to answer them, about his reasons for the exercise of his functions? Quite clearly, he is not to be subject to any pressure, but information to the House has always been thought well within our Standing Orders and practice.

Mr. Speaker

The original Question by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) was, of course, in order. Otherwise, it would not have been allowed to appear on the Order Paper.