ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND ENQUIRIES (Hansard, 27 April 1961)

§ 43. Mr. MacColl
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that Ministers implement the recommendation of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries to the effect that they should submit to the parties at an inquiry for their observations any factual evidence, including expert evidence, obtained after the inquiry and influencing their final decision.

§ The Prime Minister
The Government agree that the parties to an inquiry should be given an opportunity of commenting on any new factual evidence obtained after the inquiry and this was made clear in the circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in February, 1958. But the Government have always taken the view that the term "factual evidence" does not cover technical or other advice given to a Minister by officials on the issues raised at the inquiry and on the weight to be attached to the evidence which was given there.

§ Mr. MacColl
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the Government agreed was an interpretation of the words "factual evidence", which no one else accepts including the Council on Tribunals, and that that interpretation has apparently led to a headlong collision between that Council and the Lord Chancellor? Would the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention also to the case of the Saffron Walden inquiry, where the only issues were on questions of fact about whether chalk would do 623 damage to crops and livestock and whether there was a demand for chalk production, and on both these matters, on which the views of the inspector were rejected by the Minister, there must have been some other factual evidence on which the right hon. Gentleman could have based a decision?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that in the debate it was made clear that the Government broadly accept the recommendations and in the circular I think it was also made clear. I quite admit that there is a rather difficult margin between the duty of a Minister to try to evaluate the evidence and production of new evidence. I have had the misfortune for three years to try to handle these kinds of cases. There are enormous volumes of evidence and very difficult decisions. They are broadly not juridical decisions, but the best basis we can give to the balance of public advantage. Since the Minister cannot be himself an expert, I think he is entitled when taking new evidence—that has always been clear—to rely on the advice of officials as to the weight which should be given to all kinds of evidence.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Council, which after all is a quasi-judicial body, held a long meeting about this and arrived at the conclusion that there had been a departure from the recommendations of the Franks Committee's Report? In those circumstances, is not the right thing to do in the general public interest to let the matter go before the Council on Tribunals and be properly and fully examined and reported on by that Council? I suggest that it is part of the Council's general duty.

§ The Prime Minister
I have seen the statement issued by the Council on Tribunals in reply to a statement made by the Lord Chancellor and I understand that the Lord Chancellor has himself replied. No doubt the matter will be further discussed between them—that is on this particular case. On the general principle, I think that this is right. Any new factual evidence, of course, should be, and it was understood would be, put back for comment, but I say that in trying to reach these very difficult decisions, which are rather a balance of advantage than of fact, it is right that the Minister should have the assistance 624 of his technical officials in evaluating the weight to be given to this or that argument.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, both about the decision taken by the Minister in this case, and also about the refusal to discuss with other parties to the case the new evidence—we would say factual evidence—presented to him and on the basis of which he appears to have taken this decision? Will the Prime Minister look at this matter again and consider the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the Council on Tribunals should be invited to look into the whole matter so that we can have a full report? Is he aware that the Lord Chancellor's statement has not by any means allayed public anxiety on the matter?

§ The Prime Minister
I can understand that, of course, but as all these tribunals were set up by the Government in the hope of getting a more acceptable system, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be better to await the outcome of the discussions now going on between the Chairman of the Council and the Lord Chancellor and to see whether out of that some new formulation is necessary or not.

§ Mr. Wade
As the case has raised some very important questions of principle, will the Prime Minister discuss with the Leader of the House the possibility of having a debate some time in the future?

§ The Prime Minister
That is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I should point out that this whole system is a great amelioration in the benefit to the ordinary citizen on the old procedure. I must also point out—and I have some experience of this—that there is always the great battle between those who say that our procedures in these matters are intolerably slow, holding up all kinds of necessary public work, and those who say that they are too rapid. One has to make the best balance one can, but I think that after the discussion between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Council it ought to be possible to look at the matter again.

§ Mr. Mitchison
If this is a great amelioration it ought to be assisted to work. If the Council on Tribunals is given this general duty to supervise this branch of the law lying between administration on the one hand and judicial proceeding on the other, it ought to be helped in doing it. In a case of this sort where the Tribunal thinks that there has been a breach of the recommendations of the Franks Report, surely it ought to be given the opportunity of examining and reporting on it and the matter ought not to be left to some secret solution between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman?

§ The Prime Minister
I did not understand that the consultations between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Council were secret. I understood that all the correspondence had been published.

§ Mr. Lipton
Will the Prime Minister be good enough to explain this: when I sought to put a Question to the Attorney-General impugning the action of the Lord Chancellor in this matter, the Question was transferred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, one of the people involved. Since when has it been the doctrine that the Minister of Housing is responsible for jurisdiction exercised by the Lord Chancellor in a matter of this kind when his own conduct as Minister is also impugned?

§ The Prime Minister
I find that question somewhat obscure. It passes my comprehension.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a further statement on this matter after the discussions, to which he has referred, between the Council and the Lord Chancellor have taken place? Is he aware that we reserve the right to take steps to arrange, in the time available to us, for a debate of this matter, because we are by no means satisfied with what has been said so far?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I will make a statement. I will answer any Questions put down to me. The second part of the question, about a debate, is a separate request.