HC Deb 22 July 1965 vol 716 cc1842-4
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

In recent years anxiety about the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, has been expressed on every occasion on which the report of a tribunal set up under the Act has been debated in this House.

Her Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to this matter, and I am now able to announce that the Queen has been pleased to approve the recommendation that a Royal Commission should be appointed, with the following terms of reference: To review the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and to consider whether it should be retained or replaced by some other procedure, and, if retained, whether any changes are necessary or desirable; and to make recommendations. The names of the chairman and members of the Royal Commission will be announced later.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

May I say that I think we have not yet achieved the ideal way of dealing with these matters and that a Royal Commission would be a very good way of trying to find the right way?

The Prime Minister

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There has been anxiety for a number of reasons about the tribunals. While we have seen alternative procedures develop—for example, the Security Commission, and the one-man Denning inquiry—I do not think that we are quite satisfied that we have yet found the right answer. I think that it will be helpful if the Royal Commission is able to study, in the case of some of the alternatives which have been developed, whether there are defects in the procedures which could be improved, so that recourse to the tribunals may be as rare as possible.

Mr. Grimond

I take it that the Royal Commission will report fairly quickly, otherwise it would seem to suspend the working of the procedure while it is considering it. Secondly, this is a matter which affects Parliament, and peculiarly this House, and it will be rather a pity if we have no opportunity to debate it, so that the views of the House may be before the Commission. Can the Government find a way to inform the Commission of the views of the House?

The Prime Minister

Any hon. Member will be free, of course, to give evidence singly or in any grouping or party sense. It may be that hon. Members will be invited to serve on the Commission. I would certainly feel that when the Report is available from the Commission we shall want to study it. There has been great difficulty about whether to suggest a Select Committee. After all, there is Parliamentary responsibility here. But so much is involved in the procedure of the Commission and there is so much of natural justice in its functioning that we thought it right to have a Royal Commission.

Mr. Bellenger

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the matter at any rate to some sort of climax? May I reinforce the remarks of the Leader of the Liberal Party about the Royal Commission taking a considerable time and the urgency of the matter, which is now about 40 years old? This is something which the House ought to take into consideration. My right hon. Friend has decided on a Royal Commission in preference to a Select Committee. I suppose that it is too late to change that decision. However, will he say that the matter will be dealt with with urgency?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be able to be dealt with as quickly as possible and that the Report will not take too long. But a lot of anxieties have been expressed. The Leader of the Opposition, from this Box, expressed some anxieties about the matter. I think that these are fairly general in the House, although we have not yet found a satisfactory alternative.