§ 11.5 a.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if I repeat a statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. I will use his own words, and they are as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
"Since the debate on Monday, I have considered, as promised by my right honourable friend the Leader of the House, the form of a further inquiry into the security implications of the events leading to Mr. Profumo's resignation. I think it is generally agreed that there should be an investigation in the light of this case into the operation of the security service and their relationship with the police in connection with matters of national security. The Government intend to establish an inquiry for this purpose. But before I describe it there are certain other questions which I must now bring to the attention of the House.
"It will be within the knowledge of many honourable Members that, in connection with the recent episode, rumours are circulating which affect the honour and integrity of public life in this country and, if they were true, might point to a security risk. Such a situation cannot be tolerated. I have therefore decided that the public interest requires us to establish a Judicial inquiry.
"Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, has agreed to conduct this inquiry and to render his report to me as soon as possible. His terms of reference will be as follows:
1490 "'To examine in the light of the circumstances leading to the resignation of the former Secretary of State for War, Mr. J. D. Profumo, the operation of the security service and the adequacy of their co-operation with the police in matters of security; to investigate any information or material which may come to his attention in this connection and to consider any evidence there may be for believing that national security has been, or may be, endangered; and to report thereon.'
"In the course of the discussion with the Leader of the Opposition I have explained to him the reasons for which the Government believe that in the circumstances with which we are now confronted this inquiry should be of a Judicial character and should cover a wider field.
"When I receive the report I will discuss it with the right honourable gentleman. The Government will then decide the form in which it should be published, whether in whole or in part."
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for having given the Government's statement. Obviously, there is no blame upon him or anybody else because it was only a few minutes ago that I knew the statement was going to be made in this House, but I have not had time to have adequate consultation upon its very important contents. The need for clearing up the facts which have arisen in the course of recent events is generally accepted. I gather that there has been considerable discussion between the Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Prime Minister, to which of course I was not a party and I do not know anything about it; they were all private conversations. But I should imagine, from what I have been able to ascertain in the course of a few minutes only, that there is bound to be some criticism on the part of my Leader in another place, with regard to both the narrowness of the terms of reference and the difficulties that will attend upon any single judge in this matter, although, of course, in this House we have very full and great confidence in the Master of the Rolls, the noble Lord, Lord Denning. Generally speaking, I am 1491 not in a position this morning to offer any detailed comment and something further may have to be raised later on, perhaps some time before the actual inquiry commences. So, if the noble and learned Lord will excuse me, I should like to hold open the possibility that I may raise the matter at some other time.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, may I just say this in reply to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition? I am sorry not to have been able to give him more notice of this statement and its contents, and I appreciate his difficulty in dealing with it at such short notice. I think when he comes to examine carefully the terms of reference that I have read out, he will agree it would not be right to describe them as narrow. Of course, if the noble Earl wishes to raise any further points with me about this matter, I shall be only too glad to answer him in regard to them.
LORD REAMy Lords, I naturally find myself in a very similar position to that of the noble Earl who leads the Opposition. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for what he said, and grateful for his last remarks, which I take it may apply to me as well as to the noble Earl.
Perhaps I might ask one or two questions, not for immediate answer but to indicate what is in some of our minds. Towards the end of the statement I believe the noble and learned Lord said that the inquiry should be of a judicial character and covering a wider field. I am not quite clear what the word "wider" refers to and what is narrower than the field it proposes to cover.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I can answer that. First of all, I can assure the noble Lord that most careful consideration has been given to the form this inquiry should take. The Government have come to the conclusion that it must be in all the circumstances, which I will not expand now, a judicial inquiry. The reference to the wider form of inquiry really means this. At the end of the debate in another place the statement was made that an inquiry would be held into the purely security aspect. The noble Lord will see when he examines the terms of reference that the first part of them deals with that, and then they continue: 1492
To investigate any information or material which may come to his attention in this connection, and to consider any evidence there may be for believing that national security has been or may be endangered, and to report thereon.It is that part to which the adjective "wider" is applied, and I think perhaps I have now said enough to indicate and to support my statement that that particular part of the terms of reference really cannot be described as "narrow".
LORD REAMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his kind explanation, which answers my query. I agree with the noble Earl that we cannot possibly enter into a debate on it. But might I suggest to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack just one or two small points which may arise? I think all of us want to know whether this judicial court of inquiry will have power to subpoena witnesses; whether it can call for documents; whether the evidence and the witnesses giving that evidence will be privileged in the normal sense, and also, perhaps more particularly, those who are conducting what might be called the prosecution (if that is the right word) in the judicial inquiry, who would normally he the Law Officers of the Crown. In the circumstances of this matter, which has been going on for the last week, these gentlemen appear in a certain light which certainly all of us would like to be cleared up; and I wonder whether it is quite suitable that they should be involved in the prosecuting side of an inquiry rather than as witnesses in the normal way.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, with regard to the last question, the noble Lord has in mind, of course, an inquiry set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. This judicial inquiry will not, certainly at its outset, be under that Act, and there is, so far as I am aware, no intention of the Law Officers of the Crown taking part in the investigation, which will be conducted by Lord Denning. With regard to the other questions which the noble Lord raised, at an inquiry of this kind at the outset the learned Judge presiding, the Master of the Rolls, will not have power to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents. But the position is this: that if he finds 1493 that he has difficulty in getting what he wants, he will report to the Prime Minister and the question will be considered. I think, in the light of comments that have been made in relation to recent inquiries under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, it is right that we should, initially at any rate, start upon the new procedure which was outlined and suggested by my right honourable friend in the course of the debate on the Vassall Inquiry and see how that goes. But if the learned Judge, the Master of the Rolls, has any difficulty in conducting a proper investigation through lack of powers, I have no doubt that he will report to my right honourable friend and the position will be reconsidered.
LORD REAMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clarifying, and to some extent reassuring, remarks.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I must say that the more I listened to that explanation the more am I anxious to find out what is the exact position in another place. I think we shall know within an hour or two, and then perhaps I may have something more to say about it. Perhaps I could approach the Lord Chancellor.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I fully appreciate that, and of course I will do my best to deal with, and answer, any paints that the noble Earl, or indeed anyone else, wishes to raise with regard to this matter.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Lord Chancellor to explain a little more, if he can, the phrase "national security" referred to in the terms of reference? Is it to carry, in this instance, the ordinary meaning of the word in relation to external dangers—the question of Communist subversion from overseas—or has it, on this occasion, some internal content: the maintenance and the coherence of our society, public morale, and so on?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I do not think that it really falls upon me to define the content of the words "national security". I think it requires to be given the widest content that those words possibly carry.