TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 20 July 1971)

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My speech on this Bill will be a mere replica of my speech on the last, because this also is a pure consolidation Bill. It has been through all its stages in another place. It was considered by the Joint Committee on the same day as the previous Bill, and the Committee 1391 reported that it was pure consolidation with nothing in it to which the attention of this House should be drawn.
However, I would mention a provision in Clause 13(10) which refers to industrial tribunals and states that that Clause shall have effect subject to any enactment passed in the same Session as this Act with respect to appeals from such tribunals.' That is an oblique way of referring to the Industrial Relations Bill, because under that Bill provision is made for some appeals to be heard by the National Industrial Relations Court, as opposed to the provisions in the Bill now before the House. That is why there is that rather oblique reference to any enactment passed in the same Session".

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)
As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this is pure consolidation, apart from one part of the Bill where, unfortunately, an impurity creeps in, and that is the subsection to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I am not entirely surprised that the subsection does not refer by name to the Industrial Relations Bill, although it is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that to which the subsection refers.
In relation to that Clause, as I understand it the purpose of the insertion of that subsection at the instance of the Joint Committee on Consolidation was to save the position in the event of the Industrial Relations Bill receiving the Royal Assent either before or at the same time as this Bill. Now that we know that that misbegotten brain child of the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to reach this House in time to be passed into law before at least the end of the first week in August and possibly, for all we know, not till September, it would seem that that particular provision is no longer necessary.
In those circumstances. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General would think it right at a later stage of this Bill to take out the reference altogether and to save defiling what would otherwise be what he called pure consolidation by reference to that other unfortunate Measure. Save for that one blemish, it is a Bill of which we can certainly approve.

§ Mr. Michael Hamilton (Salisbury)
The House is asked to approve the consolidation of the 1958 and 1966 Acts. If such consolidation succeeds in improving the clarity of and making more effective the work of the Council on Tribunals, I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Bill.
The whole purpose of the two Acts setting up this body is to inspire public confidence in the fairness, openness and impartiality of our tribunals and inquiries. If the Council on Tribunals succeeds in its rôle of watchdog, by all means let us pass the Bill, but if it fails in its task, the time of the House would be better spent considering whether the continued existence of that body is justified.
I want to give my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General a single brief example to explain what I mean.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say is not in order on a Consolidation Bill.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I appreciate that on a Consolidation Bill the debate has to be on the merits or lack of merits of consolidating Acts, but in the space of three minutes I am attempting to explain why I have some doubts about the merits of the Bill. If you give me leave to continue, Mr. Speaker, you will see that I am in order.
In March, 1969, I referred a certain matter—it would not be proper to go into detail now—to the Council on Tribunals. It recognised in reply that certain safeguards for the public were lacking. Hon. Members were assured : We … can rely upon the Council on Tribunals to insist on rules if it is thought necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1969 ; Vol. 787, c. 2344.] I accepted that assurance and I relied on the Council, but weeks passed and months passed and now years have passed and precisely nothing has happened. There have been infinite discussions and the Council has promised to let me know when those discussions are completed. That promise has remained unfulfilled and the years have gone by. Meanwhile, the public has continued to be unprotected and in that situation there have been further injustices as a direct result of the Council's 1393 failure to assert itself and to take prompt and effective action.
When the 1958 legislation was introduced, Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was——

§ Mr. Speaker
We are not considering that Act but whether to consolidate it with another Act.

§ Mr. Hamilton
We are considering whether the 1958 Act should be consolidated with the 1966 Act. I am very much in two minds about whether that consolidation is necessary and whether it will further the work of the Council on Tribunals.
In answer to your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I close by asking my hon. and learned Friend to look into the matter which I have raised tonight and to be kind enough to write to me fully on it without delay.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious, but he has been out of order most of the time.

§ The Solicitor-General
With the leave of the House, I shall attempt to reply to what was said. I take no time to reply to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), 1394 save only to remind him that the Industrial Relations Bill will reach the Statute Book, with or without his assistance, by the time forecast—namely by the end of the first week in August.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) was right, and I hope just within the rules of order, in stressing that this Bill is designed to reassert the necessity for fairness, openness and impartiality in the way in which tribunals and inquiries deal with the rights of the citizen. He referred, in an oblique but identifiable way, to the point he raised with and in respect of which he had sought an assurance from the Council on Tribunals. It would not be in order for me to give him that assurance now even if I were in a position to do so ; but I undertake to look into the point he raised and to let him have a reply as soon as may be. On that basis, despite my hon. Friend's reluctant enthusiam for the Bill, I trust that it will receive the approval of the House.