TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY (MEMBERSHIP) (Hansard, 15 November 1962)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement.
In accordance with the Resolutions passed yesterday by both Houses of Parliament, I have appointed a Tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House, Lord Radcliffe is to be chairman of the Tribunal, and the other members are Mr. Justice Barry and Sir Edward Milner Holland, Q.C.
Any communications on the subject of the inquiry which the Tribunal is undertaking should be addressed to the secretary of the Tribunal at the Treasury Solicitor's Office, 35 Old Queen Street, London, S.W.1.

§ Mr. G. Brown
The Home Secretary will be aware that we on this side welcome this belated action by the Government to carry out something that we have been asking them to do for some time. Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the fact that the present Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a speech yesterday, which was published at great length in today's Daily Telegraph, in the course of which it is said that Mr. Orr-Ewing referred to a 'certain lobby correspondent' who had been given confidential information in the lobby on this particular case"—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have considered this kind of difficulty. The Home Secretary has made a statement relating to the persons who are to work on this Tribunal and the address to which any communications should be sent. I can allow a few questions in elucidation of that statement. This is a matter of importance presumably because, after the Resolution of the House yesterday, all matters falling within the terms of reference of the Tribunal are now sub judice. The difficulty about these periphery matters is that I do not want to give a Ruling on the precise content of the terms of reference. That is why I am anxious that we should abstain from going into matters of the kind which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise.

§ Mr. G. Brown
On a point of order. May I submit this to you, Mr. Speaker. The last paragraph of the Home Secretary's statement says that any communications on the subject of the inquiry should be addressed to a certain quarter. I was about to ask the Home Secretary whether the Government were proposing to ensure that a communication was sent to the Tribunal drawing its attention both to the complaint that the Government made through the Civil Lord yesterday about the Press correspondent and to the fact that confidential information was passed on by a Minister to a member of the Press. Are the Government proposing to do that, or do other people have to do it?

§ Mr. Wigg
Further to that point of order. When I saw this article, I approached the Civil Lord's office this morning, for, not having much reliance in the Press, I thought it only fair to ascertain what he said. I asked whether I could be supplied with a copy of his speech, and, to my surprise, I was told that all that existed was a few scribbled notes.
I should, therefore, like some guidance from you, Sir, on our position. I am concerned about the fact that now that the Tribunal has been set up it is a judicial body and should be given every opportunity to be supplied with the fullest possible accurate information.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a little remote from the matter with which I have to deal now, which is what is in order by 580 way of question on this statement. To be frank with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I am not very impressed by the argument that, because the statement says to what persons communications on the subject of the inquiry should be sent, that enables anyone to raise by way of question the subject of any possible communication. That seems to me to be a rather different argument.

§ Mr. G. Brown
In the light of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue the matter. The point has, I hope, been made.
May I ask the Minister one other question? In view of their absence from the House at this moment, which we understand, will he, in particular, draw the attention of those of his right hon. Friends and others who made attacks on me yesterday, and were full of the implications of this matter, to the fact that the inquiry has been set up and tell them where they can make their representations so that they may have an opportunity to be called?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know whether the Home Secretary desired to reply to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). He had half-risen from his seat.

§ Mr. Brooke
I have been seeking, as a matter of courtesy, to inform the House that I acted this morning on the Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and signed a warrant setting up this Tribunal. It appears to me that my function is strictly confined to that and that I should not seek to define the terms of reference of the Tribunal or invite its attention to the question whether any piece of evidence is or is not within its purview.
The Tribunal, under the terms of the 1921 Act, has the power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath and to compel the production of documents. I suggest that I should leave all these matters to the Tribunal.

§ Sir A. V. Harvey
A few moments ago, you, Mr. Speaker, said that matters relating to the Tribunal were sub judice. Would you be good enough to indicate 581 from what time they became sub judice, because last night there was a programme on I.T.V. at five minutes past eleven, called "What the Papers Say"——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is nothing to do with me. What I am concerned with is how the rule of sub judice affects matter of order in this House. I am not concerned with the application of the rule elsewhere.

§ Sir A. V. Harvey
The programme referred to right hon. and hon. Members——

§ Mr. Speaker
It still makes no difference from the point of view of what I have to rule about.

§ Mr. Wigg
Now that the Home Secretary has given notice that the Tribunal is set up, may I ask him who is responsible for the provision of accommodation? Where will the Tribunal meet? May I ask him, as a senior Minister and not as Home Secretary, to make representations to whoever is responsible for accommodation to ensure that suitable seating accommodation is made available for Members of the House who wish to attend the Tribunal? On previous occasions, the seating arrangements have caused difficulty and sometimes one found oneself relying on the courtesy and kindness of the Attorney-General. Is it not of the utmost importance that Members of the House should be able to attend to hear what is happening?

§ Mr. Brooke
In the final analysis, it is for Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues to decide where they wish to sit. I will certainly see that what the hon. Gentleman has said is brought to their attention.

§ Sir A. V. Harvey
On a point of order. In the first part of my question to you, Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, I asked for your advice as to what time these matters became sub judice. Is it possible to have your view on that?

§ Mr. Speaker
They became sub judice when the House passed the Resolution last night.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
May I ask the Home Secretary who in the Government will be responsible for ensuring that the Treasury Solicitor, acting for the Tribunal, receives 582 information, including copies of speeches made by Ministers both before and after yesterday's debate?

§ Mr. Brooke
I think that it will be for the Tribunal itself to decide its own procedure and to decide on all matters about which it requires evidence. It is not for any member of the Government to interfere with that.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Can you, Mr. Speaker, help us about the limits of this sub judice procedure? A speech made by a Minister has been referred to here today, and we cannot assume that the Tribunal, although it will go into these matters very carefully, will necessarily read every newspaper. Would it be improper for us to ask a question, either now or later, of the Government as to whether they intend to put the observations of the Civil Lord before the Tribunal when it meets? Would that be sub judice?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall consider a question if and when it is sought to table one. I do not wish, if I can avoid it, to consider the precise confines of the terms of reference because the Tribunal, which is composed of very eminent men, will have, as a matter of law, to say what they are in relation to its own duties, and, naturally, I do not want to do that if I need not do so.

§ Mr. Callaghan
May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? May we take it that we are not automatically ruled out, because this matter has been referred to the Tribunal, from addressing questions to the Government as to the type of evidence which they themselves intend to put forward? Is it not clear that the Government have a responsibility to the Tribunal, but also have a responsibility to answer to this House for statements made by Ministers in connection with it?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman illustrates the difficulty of inviting me to give any kind of general Ruling before I see the specific Question. It will precisely depend upon the terms of it. As regards what evidence is to be brought before the Tribunal, it is probably very hard to argue that that is the Government's responsibility. I think that it is advisable to look at the terms of the precise Question.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? If the speech had been made without the Tribunal having been in the offing, it would have been possible for an hon. Member to put down a Question, perhaps to the Prime Minister, to ask whether the speech made by the Civil Lord last evening was in conformity with Government policy. If we are to take it that, since the matter is sub judice, we may not ask Questions about the speech of the Civil Lord, is it not the duty of the Government in the circumstances, since the House is debarred from raising the matter, to make sure that the Tribunal is fully seized of the contents of the speech and its implications?

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask me to pronounce upon what is or what is not the duty of the Government. It does not fall within my field. If anyone tries to put a Question down, I shall, in the course of my duty, have to rule upon it. That I will do.

§ Mr. Speaker
There are several hon. Members rising simultaneously to a point of order. I should prefer to hear them one at a time. Mr. Dudley Williams.

§ Mr. Dudley Williams
On a point of order. The House, obviously, is very concerned that this inquiry should be fair. I understand that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord made his speech at lunchtime yesterday. What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that, if the matter became sub judice after the passing of the Resolution yesterday, it is surely serious that there should have been a broadcast last night on I.T.V. and an interview with——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have quite enough responsibilities without pronouncing on broadcasts.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. May I ask for your help, Mr. Speaker? It so happens that I today presented to the Table a Question which related to the terms of reference of the Tribunal, and I was informed that it was not in order. However, I understand that I may submit a Question—it has already been submitted—which asks the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary to amend the terms of reference to enable the Tribunal 584 to consider certain events which occurred after the Motions in both Houses of Parliament were agreed to last night. The amended terms of reference might relate to the speech of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I understand that the matter is before the Table at present and, no doubt, will be submitted in due course to you, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is most attractive to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe ingenious methods which might or might not succeed, but I must not pronounce about them at the moment.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Further to the point of order which has been raised, Mr. Speaker. May I put this question to you? Assuming that it will be out of order to put Questions on the Order Paper because of the setting up of the Tribunal, will you consider whether it would be out of order for the Leader of the House or some other appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House about the very serious accusation that a journalist has lost his job here because of information given through him——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That does not bear any appearance of a point of order.

§ Mr. Callaghan
But, Mr. Speaker, the House——

§ Mr. Speaker
No. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand, I shall have to explain. I do not rule hypothetically upon whether it would be out of order for a Minister to do this or that. I could spend all day making such Rulings.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Arising out of the original statement made by the Home Secretary, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will take into account the serious allegations which have been made?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Callaghan
It is of great concern to the public——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to address a point of order to me before the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seeks to do something else.

§ Mr. Wigg
May I help you, Mr. Speaker, and, perhaps, help the House? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I addressed myself to this problem this morning. I too, have put a Question on the Order Paper to the Attorney-General—I understand that it is in order—asking the Attorney-General, in the discharge of his duty, to bring these matters before the Tribunal.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall see the hon. Gentleman's Question in due course. If it is in order, it will appear on the Order Paper.
In the interests of the House generally and the progress of business, I think that I must put some limit to this. I am not prepared to give hypothetical Rulings on points of order.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question about his original statement, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Home Secretary is responsible for the custody of the prisoner about whom all the inquiry has arisen, will he say whether the prisoner will have facilities for attending the Tribunal?

§ Mr. Brooke
First, we must discover whether the members of the Tribunal wish the prisoner to appear before them.

§ Mr. G. Lloyd
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of considering the possible hardship, including financial hardship, falling upon individuals as a result of the proceedings of the Tribunal? This question was raised in another place yesterday. Will it be within the competence of the Tribunal to provide any remedy in this matter?

§ Mr. Brooke
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney. General answered that question last night.

§ Mr. Short
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not, in the points of order raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and the hon. Member far Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), a point which has so far been missed? This matter became sub judice about ten o'clock last night. Speeches were made yesterday in the debate which would not have been made had it been sub judice then. The House has always 586 kept control over the reporting of its proceedings, either in broadcasting or in print. Because of that, is it not a prima facie case of breach of Privilege if anyone now repeats in print or in sound broadcasting statements which were made in the House yesterday?

§ Mr. Speaker
Various problems arise. I assume that when the hon. Gentleman uses the word "now", he uses a common form of words meaning to refer to anyone who, in future, does such-and-such. If that is what he means, I do not think that I have to pronounce about it now because it is totally hypothetical.

§ Sir A. V. Harvey
You did say a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, that, after ten o'clock last night, when the Motion was passed, the matter became sub judice before the Tribunal. I was pointing out to you that a broadcast took place last night which referred to right hon. and hon. Members of the House, and this broadcast commenced at 11.5 p.m. on the I.T.V. programme. I suggest to you, Sir, that if you were to examine it, you might find that there was a possible breach of Privilege. That is the point I was trying to put to you earlier.

§ Mr. Speaker
I had not appreciated that the hon. Member was trying to raise a breach of Privilege. I am not certain that it is the right time to do so. I will give the hon. Member an opportunity to do it when we get to that time.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to all the points of order and questions raised so far, and the point throughout them all has been the question of what is sub judice in this connection. Is it quite clear that a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act is a court to which our rules about sub judice apply at all? It is not a court. There is no issue for it to determine. No one is charged before it. There is no verdict of guilt or innocence involved. Why are we precluded from asking any questions we like in the ordinary course of our business?

§ Mr. Speaker
I will examine the point which the hon. Gentleman raises and, as a result of my examination, apply the rule where there is need to apply it. I think that that is the right way to deal with it.

§ Mr. Bottomley
Are not we in danger of making ourselves look rather absurd, Mr. Speaker? The House debated this very important subject yesterday, and the public as a whole have a right to know what took place. Therefore, today's newspapers had to cover that, too——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is addressing me on a point of order, or what he is doing. If it is not a point of order, I cannot hear it.

§ Sir A. V. Harvey
The point which I made a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, refers to a programme on Independent Television, "What the Papers Say", which commenced at 11.5 p.m. The announcer was Mr. Bernard Levin. I think that if you examine this programme, Mr. Speaker, you will see that there are innuendoes against right hon. and hon. Members of the House over some period of time one hour after the Motion had been put to the House. I should be obliged if you would rule on this.

§ Mr. Speaker
First, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some contempt or breach of Privilege. Under our present dispensation, I will take 24 hours to consider the complaint. I am not quite certain, in these circumstances, what is the machinery for me to get the text of the broadcast to begin with. I should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would hand that in as though it were a newspaper, and then I should have something to go on.