HC Deb 29 November 1962 vol 668 cc661-5

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

53. Mr. WIGG

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the payment of the expenses of individuals allowed representation before the Tribunal appointed by Resolution of both Houses on Wednesday, 14th November, 1962.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 53.

This is a Tribunal of a quite exceptional character, set up in pursuance of Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament to inquire into an urgent matter of public importance. Witnesses appearing before it to whom the Tribunal allows legal representation may be involved in expenses although they may not be found blameworthy.

In such cases the Government will be prepared, in the public interest, to give consideration, after the Tribunal has reported, to claims which may be made to them for a contribution from public funds to the expenditure incurred.

Mr. Wigg

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for it is only in accord with common justice. There is one person whom I am particularly anxious to protect, namely, the Prime Minister. Would the Home Secretary therefore give an assurance that the expenses of the Prime Minister will be paid when he gives evidence before the Tribunal on the competence with which he has discharged his duties and responsibilities for the Secret Service, for I should hate the cost to fall upon the Prime Minister or upon the funds of the Conservative Central Office?

Mr. Brooke

I think that that supplementary question is hypothetical in double degree.

Mr. Gaitskell

Are we to understand from the Home Secretary's statement that the decision whether witnesses who incur costs may be assisted will rest entirely with the Government? If so, is it not really inappropriate that this should be so? Should not the matter be dealt with by the Tribunal itself? Should it not be left to the Tribunal to decide whether in any particular case it is appropriate that public funds should be used for this purpose?

Mr. Brooke

This is not part of the functions of the Tribunal and I understand that it is not a function which the Tribunal itself is anxious to take on. I think that my statement should be satisfactory to all quarters and I am very glad to have been able to make it.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the Home Secretary think again about this? Is it not very unsatisfactory to leave this matter in the hands of the Government, when they are so heavily involved in the whole business? In the circumstances, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he will represent to the Tribunal that it is reasonable that it should advise the Government on matters of this kind?

Mr. Brooke

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's desire to arrive at an arrangement which is generally accepted. I will certainly bring to the notice of the Tribunal what has been said. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will not hold me to blame for having told the House that according to my present information the Tribunal itself would prefer to be relieved of this additional responsibility.

Mr. Grimond

I, too, would ask the Home Secretary to look at this matter again, because I think that there will be great anxiety. Is it not the case that no one can appear before the Tribunal without the Tribunal's approval, which means that there can be no frivolous appearances before it? Therefore, why do we need to discriminate at all? If discrimination there is to be, surely it would be better for the Tribunal to do this. Will the Home Secretary also ensure that the principles upon which discrimination is exercised, whoever exercises it, are known to the House?

Further, did I understand the Home Secretary to say that this offer of expenses would apply only to people who were not found blameworthy? In point of fact, no one is accused before the Tribunal. As I understand, its Report is to be for the Prime Minister and it is for him to decide what action should be taken. I do not understand what is meant by the word "blameworthy" and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would either expand on this or assure us that everybody who appears before the Tribunal, whether they are reflected upon or not, are entitled to claim their expenses.

Mr. Brooke

If the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that, he will find that it is not so easy. None of us can tell what the Tribunal may say. It may pass reflection on certain individuals—I am speaking purely hypothetically—of such a character that nobody would say that those individuals should have their expenses paid out of public funds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am speaking purely hypothetically. In this Statement I was seeking to guard public funds against being called upon to reimburse expenses which the country as a whole would think it unconscionable should fall upon the taxpayer. It seems to me to be very desirable to make a distinction of that kind.

Mr. G. Brown

Do we make that distinction at the moment about legal aid for those who may be accused in the courts? Do we make legal aid conditional upon their not being found guilty?

Mr. Brooke

According to my information, legal aid in cases of libel is not available. I am certainly prepared to take into consideration all that has been said. I was seeking today to make an announcement that would be generally helpful, because I thought there was a considerable anxiety that people who are completely innocent might find themselves heavily mulcted by their expenses. I am quite prepared to examine further all that has been said, because it is certainly the Government's desire that we should arrive at an arrangement which would seem generally to be fair.

Sir G. Nicholson

Although nobody will quarrel with the, premise of my right hon. Friend's decision, there are certain points to be cleared up. It is entirely within his competence to decide on this question? Under what Vote will it be accounted for, and will it be taken as a precedent?

Mr. Brooke

This is an ad hoc decision which I am announcing for this particular Tribunal. I think that every case must be looked at individually. I think that it is likely that any charge will fall on the Law Charges Vote. The decision will rest with the Government, but, of course, the Government will be answerable to Parliament for any decisions that they make.

Mr. G. Brown

May I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is clearly sensitive to the tact that the House on all sides is not really so happy about the announcement which he has made? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he will think about it again. Will he be willing to discuss it with us on this side of the House before he makes a further decision? [HON. MEMBERS; "No"] Why not? And will the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement to the House?

Mr. Brooke

Yes, Sir. I am perfectly willing to discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour Party—[Laughter.]—the Leader of the Liberal Party. The recent by-election results have been very confusing. As I say, it is the Government's desire to arrive at an arrangement that will be generally acceptable. At the same time, I feel sure that it will be the desire of both sides of the House not to burden public funds unnecessarily in this matter.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Gaitskell. Business Question.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. If there is to be any discussion of this matter, surely backbenchers have some right, with respect, if there is to be any variation in this procedure. I put the Question down in the first instance and I should have thought that if the Home Secretary seeks to vary the announcement which he originally made he would at least pay me the courtesy of consulting me.

Mr. Speaker

I must confess that I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) as to what was the point of order.

Mr. Wigg

Question No. 53 was mine, Sir, and the Home Secretary made an announcement which I thought was acceptable, on general grounds, to the House. Since that time he has been pressed to vary it and has said that he will take into account opinion in all parts of the House. If so, and if the right hon. Gentleman is to have formal consultations, I should have thought that in courtesy he would consult some of us who have shown an interest in this matter throughout the Whole proceedings.

Mr. Speaker

I find some difficulty in making a point of order out of this. Mr. Gaitskell. Business question.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. The matter under discussion is one of general interest to the House, and is not connected with any ordinary party conflict of opinion. I do not want to be over-insistent about this, but there are hon. Members who may have views about this matter who are not represented in the discussions which the Home Secretary has promised to have. Some of us think sometimes that there are matters on which we might have equal rights with other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker

It still does not make it into a point of order. I do not have anything to do with consultations through usual or unusual channels.