§ 4.0 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which the Prime Minister has just made in another place. His words were:
"In recent years anxiety about the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 has been expressed on every occasion on which the report 908 of a tribunal set up under the Act has been debated in this House. Her Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to this matter, and I am now able to announce that the Queen has been pleased to approve the recommendation that a Royal Commission should be appointed with the following terms of reference:
'To review the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and to consider whether it should be retained or replaced by some other procedure, and, if retained, whether any changes are necessary or desirable; and to make recommendations.'
The names of the Chairman and members of the Royal Commission will be announced later."
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, while welcoming the announcement that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made to the House, I should like to ask him whether he would not agree that the first sentence of the Statement made by the Prime Minister is not wholly accurate? Is it not the case that, each time there has been a tribunal of inquiry since 1921, it has been followed by criticism of the procedure adopted in some respect or other at that particular inquiry? Also, is it not the case that each further inquiry has led to a further development of procedure? While welcoming the appointment of this Royal Commission to tackle the difficult problems that I know arise in the conduct of such inquiries, I would ask whether the noble and learned Lord would not agree that that was so.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there have been reports of tribunals which have not led to any debate in another place; they have concerned relatively non-contentious inquiries. But it is the fact that, whenever a debate has taken place in another place on a particular tribunal, considerable anxiety has been expressed on a number of matters: on the inquisitorial nature of the procedure necessarily adopted by the tribunal; on allegations that wholly innocent and respectable people may become involved and may have to incur heavy legal expenditure in being legally represented before a tribunal; on the actual procedure before the tribunal, including such matters as the leading of 909 evidence by counsel, the cross-examination of witnesses and, in particular, the somewhat equivocal part played in such inquiries by the Attorney General; and also on the arrangements for dealing with witnesses who refuse to answer questions.
All those are matters which the Royal Commission will be able to consider, as under their terms of reference they will also be able to consider alternative forms of inquiry, such as the Security Commission and the individual inquiry conducted privately by Lord Denning in relation to the Profumo matter.