PUBLIC INQUIRIES (Hansard, 4 May 1961)

§ 44. Mr. Lipton
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to announce the result of the discussions between the Lord 1599 Chancellor and the Chairman of the Council on Tribunals relating to the conduct of Ministers in public inquiries.

§ The Prime Minister
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor discussed the matter yesterday with the Chairman of the Council on Tribunals and some of his colleagues on the Council. He is considering the matter and expects to make a full statement on Monday.

§ Mr. Lipton
Is the Prime Minister aware that widespread and responsible public opinion views with considerable disfavour the slippery tactics of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Lord Chancellor in connection with the chalk pit inquiry?

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must require the hon. Member to withdraw that expression.

§ Mr. Lipton
I withdraw those words and substitute, "the dubious tactics of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Lord Chancellor in connection with the chalk pit inquiry". Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this murky business will be cleared up satisfactorily not later than Monday next?

§ The Prime Minister
I cannot rival the hon. Member in his choice of epithets, but I should have thought that the word "slippery" was the last word I would have applied to the Lord Chancellor. There will be a statement on Monday. I am well aware of public interest, but I think that it would be better to await the statement and then see what the situation is.

§ Mr. G. Brown
The Prime Minister's absolving the Lord Chancellor from a charge of being "slippery"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—is a very interesting and remarkable thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Are you aware, Sir, that the case of Satan rebuking sin is one thing, but Satan encouraging sin is a different matter altogether? Slippery is slippery, whether it is the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister, and both are experts.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Member must have omitted to remember the with- 1600 drawal that I required of his hon. Friend. Perhaps he would put the matter right.

§ Mr. Brown
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I remembered. I thought that I should probably be asked to withdraw that word, and I do so, and introduce instead the word "devious". Had I not been provoked by the moronic chorus opposite I would not have made the reference. I was here between 1945 and 1951, and nothing that we can do now could equal what the party opposite did then.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the right hon. Gentleman has been here all that time he will remember that this is Question Time.

§ Mr. Brown
I was here then, Mr. Speaker, and you were not, and I know what the party opposite did then—and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) more than anybody—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has failed to take the hint. The rules of order require him at this time to confine himself to questions.

§ Mr. Brown
Yes, and the rules of order also require—[Interruption.] As long as hon. Members opposite shout I shall answer back. If I am not allowed to put the question then I will treat them—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sure that hon. Members would not desire to put any obstacle in the way of the right hon. Gentleman keeping in order.

§ Mr. Brown
The question I rise to ask is whether the statement that is to be made on Monday is to be made in this House, wherever else it is made, so that we may cross-question the Minister responsible. We are very concerned at what appears to have happened here, especially about the transfer of Questions from the Law Officer who, to us, appears responsible, to the Minister, who is in the dock. Will the Prime Minister assure us that a statement will be made in this House on Monday?

§ The Prime Minister
On Monday there is to be a debate in another place, which I understand arises on a Motion of one of the noble Lords on the Labour side, and it is very proper that the Lord Chancellor should make a statement in 1601 reply to that Motion. After that, questions may be asked, which I or other Ministers will do our best to answer, and if there were a requirement for a debate one could no doubt be arranged through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Brown
But my hon. Friend's Question today arises out of the transfer of a Question the other day, which we disputed at the time. Could not the Prime Minister, out of courtesy to this House if for no other reason, arrange for a statement to be made in this House on Monday so that, if we wish, we may ask supplementary questions arising out of an incident that happened in this House?

§ The Prime Minister
This does not arise out of the transfer of a Question. It is a simple Question, asking when the Prime Minister proposes to announce the result of the discussions between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman. I said that as there is to be a debate in another place on Monday it seemed not unreasonable that the statement should be made there.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
If a Question were put down to the Prime Minister, or whoever is the appropriate Minister—about which there seems to be some doubt—could not it be arranged for that Question to be answered on Monday?

§ The Prime Minister
If the Question were put down to me I could answer it on Tuesday, which would probably provide a better opportunity for supplementary questions to be asked, and for questions to be asked arising out of the debate.