COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 30 July 1958)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this is the Amendment which I promised when the Bill was last before your Lordships and I wanted some further time to consider it. I promised that the Amendment would be made in another place, and it has been made. This Amendment gives effect to the view that was strongly held in all quarters of your Lordships' House that reasons should be given for the decisions of tribunals and 500 of Ministers in the procedures which we had been discussing.
May I summarise the new clause? It follows very closely what I suggested to your Lordships as being the form of Amendment that was in my mind and to which I wanted to give further consideration. I think I can put it shortly in this way: that reasons must be given, first, if they are requested; secondly, the request must be made on or before the notification of the decision; thirdly, they may be withheld or restricted on security grounds; fourthly, reasons are not to be required for matters which must come before Parliament; fifthly, the clause does not apply where there is already statutory provision for reasoned decisions—we do not want to repeal those other statutory provisions without consideration not only by ourselves but by the Council on Tribunals; sixthly, the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can, after consulting the Council on Tribunals, exclude a category of decisions from the clause if they think reasons unnecessary or impracticable, but your Lordships will see that any exclusion that is made by my colleague and myself can be annulled by Parliamentary procedure and therefore we are subject to Parliamentary control; seventhly, the tribunal or Minister may refuse to give reasons to someone not primarily concerned if to give them would be contrary to the interests of anyone who is primarily concerned. That, I think, is an ordinary fairness.
That is the outline of the matter. I should be pleased to go in detail into any points which noble Lords have, but I think, if I sense the feeling of the House, they would desire me to deal with the matter shortly, and I have done so. I beg to move.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, it is only proper again that I should offer to the noble and learned Viscount the thanks of the House for meeting what was a very strong case put from all quarters of the House, by the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as well as from these Benches. If I may be allowed to do so with very 501 great respect, may I offer the noble and learned Viscount my congratulations on the way he has got over all the hurdles, which were very many? This new clause lifts some of our hopes, that had really sunk to despair, that this Bill will do what it was hoped it would do. It brings into the Bill for the first time, if I may use a colloquialism, with both feet, administrative inquiries as well as tribunals, and that is what we 'begged the Government to do. So as far as those of us who were critical on that score are concerned, the noble and learned Viscount has met us handsomely.
There is one question I should like to ask. This clause has never been considered in your Lordships' House at all. If the noble and learned Viscount would be kind enough to look at subsection (1) (b) he will see that it says: any Minister notifies any decision taken by him after the holding by him or on his behalf of a statutory inquiry, or taken by him in a case in which a person concerned could (whether by objecting or otherwise) have required the holding as aforesaid of a statutory inquiry. it shall be the duty … "Statutory inquiry" is the operative expression. If the noble and learned Viscount will look in the Bill itself, he will find that "statutory inquiry", according to the interpretation clause, Clause 12, means an inquiry or hearing held or to be held in pursuance… Does that mean that it will cover a hearing or an inquiry held through the post, by correspondence or exchange of documents, or does it mean that it must be held in person before the Minister or by a public statutory inquiry? If the noble and learned Viscount can give me an assurance that it covers all aspects of inquiries I shall be grateful.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am happy to deal with the point the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised. Paragraph (b) applies the subsection to decisions taken by a Minister after a statutory inquiry has been held by him or on his behalf or taken in a case in which a person could have required a statutory inquiry to be held. "Statutory inquiry" is defined, as the noble Lord pointed out, in Clause 12. The reason why paragraph (b) requires 502 reasons to be given when an inquiry could have been required by the parties but is not in fact held is, as the noble Lord had in mind, that many cases in the planning field and many compulsory purchase orders are settled without a formal inquiry, the citizen being given any reasons which he wants in discussion or correspondence. The Bill is drafted to cover that. The only point that is excluded are discretionary inquiries which are not judicial, where the Minister wants some further information. I think that answers the noble Lord, and I ask your Lordships to agree with the Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. That completely covers the point. May I say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who, as I think the noble and learned Viscount knows, is detained on judicial business, is very interested in this clause and asked me to convey to the noble and learned Viscount his thanks for the way he has met the case.