TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921 (LONDONDERRY SHOOTINGS) (Hansard, 1 February 1972)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I have been asked to move, and do move, the Motion standing in his name: That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, January 30, which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day.
I want to be as short as possible, for reasons which I will endeavour to explain. Faced with the news which has dominated public attention in the last two days I believe that the Government were faced with two alternative courses of action. I do not believe that there was a third course. I do not believe that there was an intermediate course of action which any Government ought seriously to entertain. Either we had to stand pat on the account of the facts given by the Army Command, or we had to order an inquiry of this kind. Quite clearly, there were serious arguments in favour of what I have described as "standing pat". They cannot be derided or set aside. One national newspaper at least has expounded them and embraced them in its leading article this morning. I think, therefore, that I ought to explain quite quietly what they are, and why we have chosen not to accept them.
The arguments would, I think, run something like this. The situation that we have to face is a serious situation; our troops in Northern Ireland are not there by their own choice, they are obeying military orders; their presence there has been expressly approved by Parliament; they are there daily subjected to violence, including carefully prepared murder by riflemen and bombers; the civil population are being terrified by bombs, and their lives and property endangered and destroyed by bombs which are, after all, the most indiscriminate of all weapons; every weapon of propaganda is being employed and is being levelled against those whose duty it is to enforce the law there, and sometimes even against those whose duty it is to speak in favour of moderation. An order 774 to restrain processions and parades in this atmosphere was deliberately defied, and there are no doubt in existence those who will use perfectly peaceful demonstrations as cover for more sinister activities and who try to bring the troops into the open by booby traps and riot. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that life would be lost.
I say now, and I do not believe that I shall be contradicted, that it is unthinkable that any British Government, of whatever complexion, would authorise the indiscriminate destruction of life. I believe it quite unthinkable that British troops would obey such an order if it were given. Obviously, we cannot order inquiries into every incident that takes place; nor can we be sure that other incidents will not take place. There have been three Inquiries into this sequence of events: the Cameron, the Compton and the Scarman. None of them has been wholly satisfactory. When Mr. Justice Scarman does ultimately report he will be dealing with events almost three years past, and his report, when it comes, may be more interesting, alas! to the historian than to the contemporary political world. That is no criticism of the Chairman of any of these Inquiries.
These were powerful arguments, and they cannot be derided. Nevertheless, my Lords, the fact remains that 13 people were killed and about 17 were wounded between a quarter to four and sunset on Sunday afternoon. There have been wild and sometimes reckless charges hurled at the troops—charges which, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, are wholly without foundation. In these circumstances—and it is in these circumstances that I ask your Lordships' approval—Her Majesty's Government reached the conclusion that it was important to establish the facts, to establish what actually happened. To quote the Leader of the Opposition in another place—I am not using his actual words, but I am quoting his sentiments, and some of his words: "In order to establish the facts there must be an inquiry. It must he judicial. It must be speedy, and it must be impartial." The terms of reference must be devoted simply to establishing what happened; in what sequence it happened; where it happened; when it happened. For this purpose I would submit to the House that the Cameron, the Scarman and the Compton models are not 775 really a possible solution to our difficulty if we are to fulfil these conditions, and I think these are the conditions which it was agreed yesterday on both sides of both Houses ought to be fulfilled.
A secret inquiry would not carry conviction. On the other hand, we must protect witnesses from intimidation and victimisation on either side. We must seek the facts, and we must not allow the inquiry to be diverted by opinions or propaganda. To fulfil these conditions, and all of them, I see no alternative but to employ the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, the only instrument we have to hand which is both constitutional and flexible enough to provide what we want. It was clear to me that only the most experienced and skilful judge could head the Inquiry. I therefore thought it right, despite the inconvenience of removing the linchpin of our judicial administration here, to inquire of the Lord Chief Justice himself whether he would be willing to accept this difficult and disagreeable task if he were invited to undertake it. With admirable patriotism he agreed to do so, and I do not myself believe that it is possible to imagine a better choice.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who has explained to me that he cannot be present at the moment—criticise that choice, and suggest someone from outside this country. Indeed, he mentioned the name of Mr. Lester Pearson, for whom I desire to express nothing but admiration; but an Inquiry conducted by him would not have been speedy, and it would not have been judicial, as Mr. Lester Pearson is not a professional judge. I doubt whether it could have been got into operation within a reasonable amount of time. I must express profound regret that anybody, in either House of Parliament, could actually suggest that anyone in the world will say that the Lord Chief Justice of England is not an impartial person. Many things have been devalued in my time, but the standards of impartiality in the English Judiciary have never been devalued, and I must express profound regret that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, thought fit to make the remark he did.
I pointed out to the Lord Chief Justice, and I point out to this House, that it is common (although it is not 776 necessary or universal) for a Tribunal formed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act to be composed of two or more members. But he expressed his preference in the peculiar circumstances of this particular case for acting alone, and in the peculiar circumstances of this particular case I must tell the House that I think he was right, and the Government therefore propose to give effect to this decision. The Lord Chief Justice hopes to embark on his task very soon indeed—I would even venture to begin to hope at the beginning of next week—and to complete it speedily. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in wishing him Godspeed, and to express our gratitude to him for undertaking this disagreeable but vital task.
I think the less I say about the merits of the case the better. We have decided on an Inquiry and I hope the House will agree to an Inquiry; we have decided on using the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act and I hope the House will agree that it was the only possible choice if an Inquiry was to be held; and we have decided on Lord Widgery as the head of the Inquiry, and I hope the House will applaud that choice. We are asking, for constitutional reasons which were contained in the Statement that I read this afternoon, the Stormont Parliament to pass parallel resolutions. That I think is necessary in order to make quite sure that the Inquiry is legal and is not limited to reserved subjects, but can inquire into transferred subjects.
We are debating Northern Ireland to-morrow. I shall not be taking part in that debate. I do not wish tonight to prejudice Lord Widgery's Report, but I must emphasise in concluding my remarks that our appointing an Inquiry does not imply the smallest doubt on our part of the account of the matter issued by the Army Command. On the contrary, the appointment of the Inquiry emphasises that neither we nor, in our opinion, they have anything to hide. If there be anything to hide, let it be brought out into the open and let those who have issued rash condemnations before the facts are sifted be men enough, if they be proved wrong, to apologise for their error. Great is the truth, my Lords; let it prevail. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made a most powerful and convincing case for the proposal set out in the Motion which he has moved, and I, for one, am grateful for the detail that he went into in the matter of the choice of the Lord Chief Justice—I am not sure what the head of the Tribunal is called—and into the reason why he has chosen to sit alone. I must admit that some doubts were expressed as to whether this was wise, but I am quite sure that the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Widgery, in this matter, with which the noble and learned Lord himself agrees, is right. Of course the decision has the great virtue that it will mean that the Inquiry, while being at the highest judicial level, will almost certainly be conducted a great deal more speedily. I therefore welcome the sort of timetable which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has set out. My great anxiety was that it would be like the Scarman Inquiry—and there is no more energetic or admirable Judge than Sir Leslie Scarman—whose Report has only recently been finished, so far as I know, and has not yet been published. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may not be able to answer the question to-day, and it does not directly arise on this Motion, perhaps to-morrow we could be told that the Reports of both the Scarman Inquiry and the Parker Inquiry—two important Inquiries—are going to be published. I do not press the noble and learned Lord on this point, and I mention it only in order to say how much one welcomes the urgency in this matter. I have no doubt that Lord Widgery is taking on what is bound to be a very difficult and unpleasant task, and I echo, as I am sure the whole House echoes, the appreciation which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed for his willingness to undertake it.
If I may say so, I thought the noble and learned Lord was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of 778 Whitley, but I shall be able to check in Hansard what he said. Although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I do not think he said that, in his opinion, the Lord Chief Justice was not acceptable or would not do the job, but that there would be others in Ireland who might decline to cooperate because of the deep emotions that have been aroused and because of the fears that a British Lord Chief Justice might somehow seem unacceptable. I hope that those fears are not realised. I think that to have the most senior figure of the British Judiciary, rather than inviting somebody from outside who would not have the same facility, is a measure of the seriousness with which we view this matter. I do not think we need say any more.
It certainly will not be for me to form any opinion to-day, and I hope not to-morrow, on what actually happened in Derry on that day. The noble and learned Lord was very careful how he put his case, and said that this decision in no way implied that the Government accepted any charges against the soldiers, but if noble Lords to-morrow, out of a sense of duty, and indeed believing it, defend the Army, they cannot, I fear, expect that those who are critical and believe the terribly circumstantial eye-witnesses' stories will not choose to repeat them. But I shall not myself do that and I only hope, as the noble and learned Lord so eloquently said, that the truth will prevail and that we shall know the facts of this dreadful and distressing business.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am deeply grateful both for what the noble Lord has said, and for the way in which he said it. As regards to-morrow's debate, I have said that I shall not be taking part. But I think it is legitimate for my noble friends who will be taking part to put forward what they believe to be the true facts, because so many other facts have been stated on the contrary side and I think it would be utterly wrong for those who are responsible for the Armed Forces not to see that their case is as forcibly presented as the cases of their detractors have been. Although I speak where I do, and on the Motion that I am speaking on, I would not wish in any way to 779 prejudge the Inquiry, and I know that Lord Widgery will approach the matter with a completely open mind.
I do not think I was unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. If I created the impression that he had said it was his opinion, I think that a reference to Hansard to-morrow will show that I did not in fact do so. But it seemed to me lamentable that anyone should suggest that anywhere in the world a Lord Chief Justice of England, simply by reason of his national origin, was not acceptable as an impartial Tribunal. I say fervently that to seek to support in any way the reason for such a point of view is something which I personally very much regretted when I heard it said this afternoon. But I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I note also that he expressly dissociated himself from that opinion. With those words, I hope that we may proceed to the passage of the Motion.