TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY (Hansard, 4 December 1962)

§ Q3. Mr. Hale
asked the Prime Minister if he will move to amend the Resolution of the House of 14th November so as to require the Tribunal to give particular consideration to the circumstances under which confidential information relating to the Vassall case was given by or on behalf of a Minister to a Lobby correspondent accredited to the House: and if he will make a statement.

§ The Prime Minister
I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on 20th November.

§ Mr. Hale
But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was a detailed and apparently carefully premeditated allegation that secret information relating to the Vassall case had been communicated to a Lobby correspondent who had betrayed the secrecy of the case and published it and had been removed from the Lobby? It was made in a long speech with an incivility unbecoming to the Civil Lord and a loquacity inappropriate to the Silent Service, and the only explanation given subsequently was that perhaps he was mistaken in one or other of his facts. Surely this is a matter for some action by the Government.

§ The Prime Minister
I thought that this particular matter had been dealt with.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Fell
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Tribunal will do nothing to upset the relationships which exist between the Lobby and Members of this House which are based on trust and mutual confidence?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Since the right hon. Gentleman, through the terms of reference, instructed the Tribunal to look into certain cases of alleged leakages to the Press, may I ask whether he would take very seriously the point in this Question that other leakages, not embarrassing but helpful to the Government but nevertheless bad, should also be looked into?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that it would be practicable to change the terms of reference of the Tribunal and I am quite confident that Lord Radcliffe will carry out this work in a satisfactory manner.

§ Q6. Mr. Wigg
asked the Prime Minister whether he will offer to give evidence to the Tribunal appointed by Resolution of the House on Wednesday, 14th November, 1962.

§ The Prime Minister
I am naturally prepared to give evidence to the Tribunal if I am requested to do so.

§ Mr. Wigg
Does the Prime Minister agree that he has a duty over and above waiting for a summons from the Tribunal? After all, he is certainly covered in the terms of reference, for he has an overall responsibility for security in this country. Surely one of the things which the Tribunal must do is to establish whether the Prime Minister himself has carried out his duties with sufficient competence.

§ Mr. Speaker
On that assumption it would appear to come within the terms of reference of the Tribunal.

§ Mr. Wigg
On a point of order. The terms of reference of the Resolution of the House ion 14th November refer in (4) to any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 523.] Surely, here the Prime Minister must himself realise the burden of his responsibility and should be the first to volunteer. Is the Prime Minister aware that only last Thursday I did my best to see that no cost would fall on him or the Conservative Party if he wished to be defended by counsel?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has this wrong. If it be assumed that the Prime Minister is a person directly or 1138 indirectly responsible for the employment of the particular individual and his conduct and so forth, all that would be part of the circumstances of the Vassall case referred to the Tribunal.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Must we not be careful not to take this rule impossibly far? How can it possibly reflect on the Tribunal to suggest that an hon. Member or the Prime Minister should volunteer to give evidence? We are not referring to their being called. This cannot specifically be reflecting upon the Tribunal in any way. It is not dealing with the Tribunal's responsibility. It deals with the Prime Minister's responsibility.

§ Mr. Speaker
It was for that very reason, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, that the Question appeared on the Order Paper. It is proper to ask whether a person will volunteer to appear but when it comes to the range of responsibility I think it comes under the rule.

§ Mr. Wigg
On a point of order. The fact that the Question was on the Order Paper means that it was accepted, and that surely establishes the fact that it is in order for the Prime Minister to answer whether he himself feels that the burden of his responsibility has been such that he must offer to give evidence. Surely the House has the right to know that, because once we can establish that we can seek to get the Resolution amended to bring the Prime Minister within its terms, assuming, of course, that he wants to give evidence.

§ Mr. Speaker
The view which I take—I think that it strictly follows the Ruling which I gave the other day in general—is that it is perfectly all right to ask someone whether he will volunteer to give evidence, but if the question goes on to say that he ought to volunteer because he has certain responsibilities, then one is embarking upon the field of what has been referred to the Tribunal. That is the distinction.

§ Mr. Wigg
In that case, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can understand why hon. Members opposite want to dodge this. This is, surely, a matter for the Prime Minister. He set the Tribunal up. He laid down the terms of reference. He can amend them. We 1139 are now asking him whether he feels the burden of responsibility so as to offer to give evidence to the Tribunal; and if not, why not?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I have ruled about it. That is the view which I take.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Mr. Speaker, does not your Ruling cut across the admission of the Question? The Question is admitted, and it asks the Prime Minister, not anyone else but the man who is responsible for the security services, whether he will give evidence. The right hon. Gentleman happens also to be the man who made attacks on some of us.
The Question having been admitted, you now rule, Mr. Speaker, that we may not ask the Prime Minister about his responsibility for the security services. Is not this, in a way, giving us by the admission of a Question one thing and taking it away from us by a later Ruling? Can we possibly be refused the opportunity to question the Prime Minister about evidence which he has to give just because the Tribunal has been set up?

§ Mr. Speaker
The difficulty is simply this. I cannot quote verbatim the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) which caused me to give a Ruling, but what has been referred to the Tribunal are the circumstances in which offences under the Act were committed by the named individuals—prima facie, that comprises the responsibility of all those concerned with security matters in relation to that case—and the four particularised items which included any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for the employment and conduct of that individual and for his being treated as suitable for employment.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question went straight into that area.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
May I ask you to consider this question, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, the sub judice rule is very important but it would, I submit, be wrong to take it too far. Is it not the case that the sub judice rule means not that one may not make references to a tribunal or court but that one must not make improper references? If we take 1140 the rule so far as it seems that you are doing, Mr. Speaker, in this last Ruling, is it not taken so far that we deprive ourselves of rights which we ought to have? Clearly, any improper reference to what the Tribunal ought to do or to the subject matter before it would be wrong, but to extend the rule to the point where one may not make any reference at all to anything in connection with the Tribunal is going further than any court would go in enforcing its own sub judice rule, is it not?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have not intended to widen in any way the Ruling which I gave the other day. What I think is sub judice, as I have said, is that which, according to the terms of the Resolution, we have referred to the Tribunal. The only problem which thereupon arises is whether or not the particular supplementary question on which I ruled is one which goes into the field of those terms of reference. I will look at it again. I should certainly like to consider the actual words used by the hon. Gentleman because, obviously, one has to work rather fast at Question Time. I did indicate, as the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will remember, that my Ruling the other day would inevitably involve me in having to rule on a number of peripheral matters. The difficulty is increased in this case because the terms of reference to the Tribunal were particularly wide. It is peripheral matter of that kind on which I have ruled.

§ Mr. M. Foot
If the Prime Minister does volunteer to appear before the Tribunal, will he be represented by the Attorney-General or, if not, by whom?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that that matter is not really very difficult. I have no doubt whatever that, if Lord Radcliffe feels that I can give any evidence of value to him, he will ask me to do so.