PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL (Hansard, 9 March 1967)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I should not wish this Bill to be dispensed with entirely formally, even though the hour is late. There is one question that I should like the Lord Chancellor to answer. It is a point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, during the Second Reading debate, and I think that I myself mentioned it also. It concerns the inter-relationship between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals.

I noted with interest the list of examples—and it was only a list of examples and not a comprehensive list—of the things which the Parliamentary Commissioner might be able to deal with, which was given by the noble and learned Lord at one point in the Committee stage of the Bill. He included in it a series of incidents or occasions which might be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, which are also quite clearly within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals. I refer particularly to the operations of a Government Department in dealing with matters of appeal; for instance, against planning permission and other similar events. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Council on Tribunals and the Parliamentary Commissioner would have overlapping functions. I know that the Parliamentary Commissioner is to be an ex officio member of the Council on Tribunals, and I have no doubt that there will be the most sensible liaison between him and that body. Nevertheless, these are matters which are of interest to citizens and of which I hope they will want to avail themselves; and possibly their advisers will wish to do the same.

I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could therefore confirm that, notwithstanding the advent of the Parliamentary Commissioner upon the scene, the Council on Tribunals will still be seized of the same matters as it was seized of before, and that there will hereafter be a choice for a member of the public either to refer the matter direct to the Council, or, through the noble and learned Lord himself or his Member of Parliament, to seek to have the matter raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner so that both channels are still open and a citizen may make use of either of them as he thinks fit in the 1636 circumstances. Of course, how it is then worked out behind the scenes is another matter. But it would be useful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm that this is still the position, and that there is in no way a derogation from the powers or position of the Council on Tribunals as a result of the new powers given to the Parliamentary Commissioner. I think it would be a good thing if that point were dealt with, because I do not think it has been covered since the noble Baroness raised it.

The only other thing I want to say from these Benches is that we hope that the Parliamentary Commissioner will now be able to undertake his task, and to come into his kingdom to which he has been for rather a long time a shadowy heir apparent. We wish this experiment very well indeed, and we realise—and I hope that the public realises—that it is a limited experiment, as it must be in a country with so many people who might wish to complain about these matters. But we hope that out of this experiment experience will grow, so that in due course it may be possible to see whether we can extend the limits of the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction and give him an even more comprehensive task to do than that which pertains to him under the Bill. With those words of welcome, I think it would be a good thing to send this Bill, having been improved by this House by Amendments from all three Parties, on its way to another place.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, may I, in the first place, make it clear that I was not seeking to dissuade the noble Viscount from addressing the House. I had thought that perhaps our observations might more usefully, or more usually, be made on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. But, of course, any noble Lord is equally entitled to address the House on the Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time.

I think that the House has substantially improved this Bill. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether another place was or was not wise not to include Members of your Lordships' House among those through whom the Parliamentary Commissioner might be reached. I am sure that another place having, whether wisely or not, taken that view, your Lordships were wise to deal with 1637 the matter in a dignified way and not to get on a high horse about it, and to express the view which after a Division your Lordships took.

We have considerably clarified what I think was the common intention throughout in wanting, first of all, the Parliamentary Commissioner to have as wide powers of investigation as possible; but, secondly, that he should not act as a one-man Court of Appeal from discretionary decisions. In the form in which the Bill reached us, this was, I think, open at least to doubt as a matter of construction, and I have no doubt that we have considerably improved the Bill in that respect. We have, again I think rightly, altered the Bill to provide that not only annual reports but also all the special reports to the Select Committee shall be published to this House as well as to the other House; and, speaking for myself, I am equally sure that we were wise in not including Regional Hospital Boards to start with.

It has always seemed to me, if I may say so, that there were three requisites to the success of this enterprise. The first is that we should get the right man as Parliamentary Commissioner—and all noble Lords in all parts of the House have agreed that the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate comes under that expression; secondly, that he should have the widest possible powers of investigation; and, thirdly, that he should not be overwhelmed to start with. We have always had to recognise, first, that the largest country in which the idea of a Parliamentary Commissioner has ever been tried has a population of 6 million; secondly, that it is most important that it should not only be the fact, but should be known to be the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner himself looks at the cases—which is why his personality is so important; and thirdly, that there may be a great tendency for anybody with any sort of grievance, whether it comes under the Bill or not, to try out the procedure to start with. That is why I feel we were Quite wise not to include Regional Hospital Boards, at any rate to start with, because they can always be included later if we think fit.

1638 To deal with the point which the noble Viscount has raised, it occurred to us that there is a field within which there may be some overlap as between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals. After considerable consideration, we came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to write down on a piece of paper what would be the best thing to happen in every case of that kind. It is for that reason that we have provided, in Clause 1(5), that the Commissioner shall be ex officioa member not only of the Council on Tribunals but also of the Scottish Committee of that Council, because we felt that this possible overlap was best left to them to work out together. I confirm, in answer to the request, that there is nothing whatever in this Bill which derogates in any way at all from the present powers of the Council on Tribunals, and there will be some cases in which the citizen will have a choice and will be able to do what he likes. But I think the presence of the Commissioner himself on the Council will ensure that there is no duplication, and, obviously they will consider together what is the best way in which to handle any particular case.

I have been an Ombudsman enthusiast throughout, and I believe that here we have something which is going to be a considerable arm for ordinary Members of another place against the Executive, to a far greater extent than they could ever have controlled the actions of Ministers or Departments before; secondly, that this will provide a remedy for grievances of the citizen against the central Government; and, thirdly, while I do not know of any country which has a better Civil Service than we have, everything is always capable of improvement in administration and this step will also, I believe, have that effect.