§ 35. Miss Baconasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a new committee of inquiry into the powers and functions of tribunals.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think there is any need for a further inquiry so soon after the very full inquiry carried out by the Franks Committee.
§ Miss BaconIs the Prime Minister aware that in a recent case which I brought to the notice of the House a constituent of mine was acquitted at Leeds Quarter Sessions, by the unanimous verdict of the jury, of falsely obtaining unemployment benefit, but that a year later the tribunal set up under the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said that he must repay the money, and according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance the tribunal judged that the man's good faith had not been established? In those circumstances, is it not time that we knew just where we stand with regard to the relationship between courts of law and tribunals?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are two points on that. I understand the hon. Lady's anxiety. As I understand it, this matter is now the subject of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner who is the final adjudicating authority. The matter is, therefore, not finally settled. I also understand that the question which he has to decide is whether somebody who obtained unemployment benefit while in fact working should pay back National Insurance money which he ought not to have had, and this is not the same question as to whether he obtained it by fraud.
§ Mr. G. BrownWill the Prime Minister, if he can find the time, look into this case himself? Here was a man who went before the courts. He was acquit- 418 ted by a unanimous decision of the jury, and on the face of it the tribunal seems to have set itself up to decide the same question in a wholly contrary manner. It looks to me very worrying. Will he have a look at it before he pronounces judgment?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I have not only read the debate, but I have looked at the papers. There are two quite separate questions. There is the question of whether a man obtains money by fraud, and the quite separate question of whether a man who obtains money, not by fraud, should pay it back if it is shown that he should not have had it. That is the question which is now subject to appeal by the tribunal. Only when that appeal is settled ought I or the Minister to take cognisance of it.
§ Mr. W. YatesWill my right hon. Friend accept that on this question, and other questions like it, people are getting worried by the intervention of the Executive in the function of the judiciary and, in particular, the dual rôle of the Lord Chancellor in another place?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. But, of course, under the existing machinery—until we set up the Franks Committee and got the tribunals—this matter would have come before the Executive system which had been going on for many years. Our object in setting up the whole Franks system was to make some corrective over the powers of the bureaucracy and that, I think, it is effectively doing.
§ Miss BaconDoes the Prime Minister realise that in coming to its decision, the tribunal did not say that the man had got the money accidentally, but that his good faith had not been established? Surely, if anybody walks out of court a free man, he has a right to feel that his good faith has been established.
§ The Prime MinisterI should think it wiser to let us have the result of the tribunal before we decide what, if anything, should be done about it.