HC Deb 27 April 1966 vol 727 cc703-8
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

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

I have to inform the House that the Queen, on my recommendation, has approved the dissolution of the Royal Commission on the Penal System in England and Wales. In its place my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will appoint a Standing Advisory Council to make recommendations about such aspects of penal treatment as he may refer to it or as the Council itself, after consulting my right hon. Friend, feels it ought to consider.

The Royal Commission, whose terms of reference had been reported to the House on 16th April, 1964, columns 601-5, was appointed in August, 1964, with 16 members under the chairmanship of Lord Amory.

While no fundamental differences within the Commission on philosophy and principles have manifested themselves, six of the members have felt increasingly that the time is not opportune for a single review of the penal system, leading to a comprehensive report, which could set the direction for a generation. They are in favour of early experimental changes in the system, but they believe that such changes, combined with the relative lack of conclusive research results, will make it difficult in the near future to offer recommendations designed to last for a lengthy period. These members recently tendered their resignations; and two others felt that, in these circumstances, the Royal Commission could not usefully continue, and they also tendered their resignations.

The remaining eight members, including the Chairman, took the view that the task of carrying through a fundamental and searching reappraisal of the purposes of a modern penal system and the methods by which those purposes should be translated into practice, was entirely feasible for this Royal Commission. This being their view, they would have preferred to have completed the Commission's task, and, following the resignations, would have wished appropriate new appointments to be made to augment the remaining membership.

It appeared to the Government that the better course would be to dissolve the Commission and appoint a new standing body. The evidence obtained by the Commission will be published and made available to the new Council; and it will be kept informed of the results of research in the fields of criminology and penology, in the planning of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary now has the assistance of a strong research council.

The new Advisory Council, unlike the Royal Commission, will be able to report from time to time on those aspects of the treatment of offenders on which advice is urgently required; and it can itself take up matters which, after consulting my right hon. Friend, it considers to be important.

While the Chairman and some of the members consider that a fundamental reappraisal by the Royal Commission should first have been completed, the Royal Commission as a whole are in agreement that the permanent machinery of government should now be strengthened by the establishment of a body exercising a continuous review of developments in the penal field.

A further announcement, giving the membership and terms of reference of the new body, will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Heath

Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be widespread disappointment that, after 18 months' work, the Royal Commission should now be dissolved? Would it not have been possible to avoid quite such a serious situation developing if, after the resignation of the six members, the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary had said firmly that they would appoint others to take their places, thus enabling the Royal Commission to continue?

Is it not also true that the Standing Advisory Council cannot be a substitute for the Royal Commission in the long-term examination of the problems which were in its terms of reference? Therefore, although there will be a body to advise on certain specific items, there will be no substitute for the Royal Commission, which, in itself, is a matter for widespread regret. We all share the disappointment that the Commission should have been dissolved.

The Prime Minister

I think that all of us will share the disappointment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about what has arisen. It would have been impossible to carry on after the resignation of the six. One of the fundamental questions here is whether, looking back on it, we were not all wrong—it was the previous Government who appointed the Royal Commission, but we all commented on the terms of reference—in thinking that, in this field, what was wanted was a once-for-all look, as is the manner of Royal Commissions, at something which is changing so rapidly and whether, perhaps, we were not wrong as well, all of us, in feeling that a Commission could do a job with such wide and far-ranging terms of reference.

This is why the Commission has broken down. Nevertheless, we feel that the publication of the evidence and making it available to the new Council will be the most realistic way of taking full advantage of the very hard work which has been done under Lord Amory's chairmanship during these 18 months.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the words of his statement "…the task of carrying through a fundamental and searching reappraisal of the purposes of a modern penal system and the methods by which those purposes should be translated into practice", are matters which are long overdue? Would he not agree further that no better machinery has been devised for carrying out tasks of that kind than a Royal Commission? Would he assure the House that the standing body which is apparently to be introduced in its place will at least have the benefit of the chairmanship of a permanent officer, perhaps of the status of a Minister of State, who will be able to carry on the task which the Royal Commission has begun?

The Prime Minister

I can well understand the feelings of my hon. and learned Friend, who has put in a great deal of work as a member of the Royal Commission and was one of the 50 per cent. who wanted to carry on with its work. However, as he would be the first to recognise, the views which he has expressed were not universally shared on the Commission, and half his colleagues felt that this was not the way to deal with this particular problem, however strongly my hon. and learned Friend himself may have felt about it.

With regard to his suggestion about the new body, my right hon. Friend will, of course, consider this and other suggestions about the chairmanship, the membership and the organisation of the new body.

Mr. Sharples

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of the principal reasons for the abandonment of the Royal Commission is the fact that its main recommendations were probably anticipated by the publication of two Government White Papers? Does he not share the disappointment of many people, both within and without the House, at the abandonment of this study, the first for over 70 years?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correctly informed about this. While it is true that, when the Royal Commission was set up, we on this side said that we would reserve the right, if we became the Government, to get on with urgent legislation without waiting for the Royal Commission to report, in fact this has not been one of the issues. Indeed, those who resigned—the six I mentioned—were, I think, foremost among those in the country who welcomed the White Papers and the proposals which we have made. This could have been a difficulty, I agree, but it was not.

Mr. Hogg

The Prime Minister has disclosed the view of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who is a member of the Royal Commission. Has there been any discussion between the Government and members of the Commission on whether the attitude of the other members of the Commission should be disclosed or not? If so, what was the result?

The Prime Minister

I would not have disclosed the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) had he not himself made clear what it was in his question just now. It was well known that he was a member of the Royal Commission. Had he not made his own view known, I would not have felt free to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met all the members of the Royal Commission a few days ago and the statement issued afterwards represented the agreed view of all the members of the Commission. It would not be helpful if there were competitive statements coming out from those who took different points of view on the Royal Commission. I think that all of us and all the members of the Commission will try to avoid that.

Mr. Deedes

Is the Prime Minister aware that the future of the Royal Commission was discussed soon after the Government took office 18 months ago? What has occurred between the decision taken then and the decision reached now?

The Prime Minister

The answer lies in the wider experience gained by the Royal Commission in trying to carry out the very wide and searching terms of reference given to it by this House. A substantial number of members of the Royal Commission felt that, in the light of continuing experience, it would not be useful for the Royal Commission to carry on. That is why they resigned.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must move on.

Mr. W. T. Williams

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although you have called three hon. Members opposite, for some reason you have omitted to call anyone from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) must get his facts right if he protests against the Chair. I called an hon. Member from the side on which the hon. and learned Gentleman is sitting. There were reasons for calling those hon. Members I did call, and I hope that the House will have confidence in my choice.

Forward to