HC Deb 14 March 1968 vol 760 cc1643-6

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to move, That leave be given to the Committee of Public Accounts to hear counsel in their inquiry on the subject of Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited to such extent as the Committee think fit. The House will be aware, from the Special Report which the Public Accounts Committee submitted to it on 6th March, that the Committee is conducting an inquiry into certain evidence which was given to it during the course of the investigation in the last Session into certain contracts between the Bristol Siddeley Company and the then Ministry of Aviation.

The House will also be aware from a second Special Report, which was available this morning, that certain witnesses before the Committee have requested permission to be accompanied by learned counsel when they appear before the Committee. The permission of the House is required for the attendance of counsel before a Select Committee.

The Public Accounts Committee thought that it would be wrong to deny to witnesses in this particular situation any assistance which they felt might be of help to them. I hope that the House will come to the same conclusion. I hope that I shall not be thought presumptuous if I suggest that at this stage of our inquiry the less said about these matters the better, although perhaps I might be allowed, lest I inadvertently mislead the House, to tell it that I do not propose to preside over the sitting of the Committee during this particular inquiry. I regard myself as disabled from so doing by the fact that I have for some time known personally one of the witnesses concerned, and it would be therefore unseemly and inappropriate in an investigation of this character, affecting their personal conduct, that I should sit.

Mr. Ellis

We now face an unprecedented situation. We have had two Reports from the Select Committee, the second presented this morning. I happened fortuitously to be in the House then. The implications of what we are to do are difficult to determine at this time, and I would like to give notice that some of us, in agreeing to this, will have to make important reservations on how this affects the Committee of Public Accounts. I feel that it would be right to protest that we are making a very radical departure from what I understand has been the practice of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I make the criticism in this mild form, but believe that it is fair, right and proper to do so.

Mr. Speaker

Order. On the simple matter of order, it is not unprecedented.

Mr. Orme

Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman through you, Mr. Speaker, whether a precedent is being created in allowing counsel to represent these people at these hearings? If so, why has this practice been adopted, since these people have previously been before the Committee without such counsel?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In reply to the first point, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) was inconvenienced by the time-table which the Committee felt necessary to follow in this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is particularly aware, because he mentioned it in the business statement last week, it is desirable that the Committee's work should be concluded so as not to stand in the way of the debate on the main issue, which both sides of the House are anxious to have. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, realise that a simple request for representation by counsel by witnesses appearing before the Committee would not seem—it certainly does not appear so to the Committee—to raise any matters of controversy about which hon. Members would wish to be concerned at any length.

In reply to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), I believe that there is no recent precedent for the appearance of counsel before the Committee of Public Accounts, but there is certainly one precedent, which I have consulted, in connection with the appearance of counsel before the Committee of Privilege, in a somewhat analogous situation. If I may repeat what I have said, I hope that the House will on reflection feel that where individuals are in what is for them a serious situation, it would be a grave responsibility for any Committee or the House to deny to them the assistance which they, rightly or wrongly, think they require. I hope that the House will give a clear passage to the Motion.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Until the last few words of my right hon. Friend's remarks, I was convinced that this ought to go through as he wishes it and as the Leader of the House apparently wishes. But apparently it is a precedent with respect to allowing counsel to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. I feel that if we are setting a precedent on matters of this importance, then more thought ought to be given to this than can have been given in the short exchange that we have so far had.

On the face of it, I would have thought it was a reasonable and proper thing to do. I would have thought that if we want to get to the bottom of this and have all the evidence we ought to let the Committee have all the assistance it desires, as it can have in most other directions. I am not against this, but if we are setting a precedent which will affect future Parliamentary procedure, it ought to have more investigation than it has so far had, despite the persuasion of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If I may reply, by leave of the House, as I understand it, and I speak subject to correction, this is without precendent as far as the Public Accounts Committee is concerned, because that Committee is very rarely—only in exceptional circumstances—concerned with matters of privilege. Where the action of individuals—I must use careful language here—could amount to breach of privilege or contempt of the House, there are, as I have said, precedents for allowing such individuals, who are in a sense imperilled, to be accompanied by counsel. I think that on reflection my hon. Friend will realise that, although this is a precedent for the Public Accounts Committee, it is not, as a matter of general principle, setting a new precedent.

Question put and agreed to.