TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (REPEAL) (Hansard, 30 March 1965)

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921; and for purposes connected therewith. On 22nd February, 1921, Captain Loseby, by Private Notice, asked the Leader of the House whether he was aware that a distinguished civil servant in the Ministry of Munitions had given instructions to his junior officers to destroy accounts and to cover up all the figures of the Ministry before they were submitted to the eyes of the audit office.

The Leader of the House replied that he was unaware of that and Captain Loseby, in a supplementary question, said that he had affidavits to establish what he had said and that the officer concerned had admitted doing this in the presence of Captain Loseby himself as well as the Minister of Munitions. He then pressed the matter and secured the Adjournment of the House.

In the debate the Leader of the House offered to set up a tribunal. The offer was accepted and there was then a very brief debate indeed. By a macabre coincidence, the late Mr. J. H. Thomas was one of those who spoke in support of setting up this sort of tribunal.

A few days later, on 4th March, a Bill was presented to the House. There was a brief discussion on Second Reading, which began at 11.20 p.m., and the Bill passed through, a day or two later, its remaining stages—with its Committee, Report and Third Reading fitting into one and a quarter pages of HANSARD. And on 13th April the first tribunal met to consider those allegations. It consisted of Viscount Cave, Lord Inchcape and Sir William Plender. It had seven public sittings and a number of private sittings.

This is the origin of the Bill, a bastard Bill, which provides a method of procedure never known to the law of England since we have had our present system of 1403 justice. I think that I am right in saying that I doubt whether our system of justice has ever been held in higher esteem than it is at this moment. The reading of the reports of the proceedings of the Court of Criminal Appeal is a welcome, happy and improving experience. More enlightenment is being shown today and we have a stronger, happier and more respected judiciary than we have had at any time, certainly during my lifetime.

We set up by this method, virtually without any discussion at all, a tribunal which can sit in private or public, can hear evidence how it likes and where it likes, can summon witnesses without any preliminary investigation or procedure and can cover an inquiry which may spread over innumerable matters not cognisant to our law and involving the repute of people who have only a remote connection with the central incidents.

The first tribunal reported in May of that year, within three months of the first allegations having been made. It was reported by the tribunal that seven civil servants had, in one form or another, said that such instructions were given, but the tribunal had come to the conclusion that the remark was made in good spirit, and not very seriously, that no one had acted on it, that there had been no concealment of any figures and that Captain Loseby, in making his statement, had done so in good faith but had been misled about the gravity of the matter.

Having done what every secret tribunal does when appointed—having gratified the people who appointed it—the tribunal then became functus officio. The late J. H. Thomas was one of those who had to face a similar procedure later on.

My first acquaintance with this sort of tribunal came when the investigation into the loss of the submarine "Thetis" took place. I then had the services as counsel of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I do not want now to rake up old history, but those of us who care to turn up the proceedings of that tribunal may well come to the conclusion that, although the facts did come out about the submarine "Thetis", they might not have come out but for the presence of my hon. and learned Friend and the questions he put, which were hardly anticipated and which brought out the whole 1404 of the facts of this epic disaster and classic tale of tragic mistakes.

I had to appear before the Belcher tribunal, and I would only say of that that people whose names were only mentioned there were damaged. The mud attached to colleagues of high repute who had nothing at all with which to reproach themselves. I myself take the view that grave injustice was done to John Belcher, whom many of us can recall. One man, whose conduct throughout had been most honourable and whose friendship with John Belcher did him great respect, was politically ruined ever afterwards by the fact that he was referred to as the man whose name was mentioned before this wretched tribunal.

People of liberal mind have always condemned the secret investigation, no matter of what kind or how motivated. We are living in an age of the existence of alleged secrets, and we have been paralysed by fear of the Russians finding our space secrets, I am told—a somewhat astonishing proposition. As I have said before, the way to end espionage is not to have secrets. That is the honourable, respectable and reputable way, and the sooner we come to that conclusion the better.

Today, I propose a short Bill which repeals this Act, which was born in sin, passed without due consideration and is continuing to live in iniquity. As some of my colleagues have said that something should be put in its place—I do not agree with them—I have added a second Clause which makes it possible for its date of operation to be postponed until after further consideration by the Government Front Bench, and I have every reason to think that consideration is being given to it. That being so, I commend this modest but important Measure to the House and ask leave to introduce it.