§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the powers of Royal Commissions.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, it is usual for the Warrant appointinga Royal Commission, which is issued by Command of the Queen, to give the Commissioners power to call witnesses, to call for information in writing and to call for, have access to and examine all such books, documents, registers and records as may assist them. The Commissioners may also be empowered to visit and personally inspect such places as they deem expedient.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, while the Minister's Answer is, of course, wholly in line with the reference in Todd's Parliamentary Government of England of 1869, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that a Royal Commission has no powers whatever to send for papers or persons, if those persons are not willing to attend? Is he also aware that any reference to the use of, "the usual powers"—aRoyal Commission has the usual powers as mentioned in connection with, for example, the Royal Commission on Gambling or, again, the Royal Commission of 1874—is wholly misleading, because all the authorities agree that a Royal Commission has no powers? Furthermore, is my noble friend aware that on the two occasions since the First World War when a Royal Commission has sought powers a change of name was required, because an Act of Parliament was needed to give it those powers?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, without some research I cannot pretend to know what examples my noble friend has in mind, but he is quite right in saying that a Royal Commission does not have coercive powers. That is perfectly true and I think that it could be a quite formidable difficulty were it not for one fact; that is, that so far as the Home Office is aware there is no evidence that the lack of existence of such coercive powers has in any way inhibited the getting of the requisite amount of information from witnesses.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the two examples I quote relate to Section 84 of the Government of India Act and the Inquiry into the coalmining industry in 1919? On every occasion when an Inquiry was necessary it has been found that powers were required. Is my noble friend saying that coercive powers are not required? If so, why is it that in the case of a Select Committee those powers are expressly conferred by Parliament?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, on the latter point raised by my noble friend, he is quite right. All I am saying is that there is no evidence, so far as the Home Office is aware, that in recent years there have been any difficulties in obtaining the assistance of witnesses before a Royal Commission. That is the only point I am trying to make.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take this on board? He is to have an Inquiry into the betting and gaming industry. Is he not aware that it is a fact that one family has amassed a fortune of not less than £600 million and has never on any occasion disclosed the facts on which the public could make up its mind? Unless that Royal Commission has powers, then the Royal Commission is a fraud.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, if there were any such difficulties, then it would certainly be a matter of some concern to the Government. All I can do is repeat to my noble friend that in recent years there has been no evidence that the lack of existence of coercive powers has inhibited Royal Commissions from discharging their responsibilities.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend inclined to agree that in the 985 last 60 years, at any rate, successive Governments have appointed Royal Commisions as a device in order to shelve awkward questions?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am certainly well aware that that charge has been made on a number of occasions, and it may well be that it has been justified on a number of occasions. But I do not think it would be right for a Government to come forward with proposals to Parliament on the complex matters which are involved in betting and gaming legislation, without careful analysis by a body of the eminence of a Royal Commission.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, in that case why did not the Minister, when I questioned him at the end of July, agree that, before a decision was taken that there should be a Royal Commission as against a Select Committee—and I readily agree that the argument is balanced—this House and another place should be consulted, because it is a matter of vital concern not only from a fiscal point of view, but from a social point of view.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I can well recall my noble friend raising the point before the Summer Recess and, certainly, the Government took this into account in the discussions which took place within the Government, as to whether we should proceed by way of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. As my noble friend fairly says, the argument is to some extent an evenly balanced one. We came down in favour of a Royal Commission and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has agreed to become Chairman of it.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, is it not a fact that inquisitorial powers based on compulsion are not universally popular?
§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRANMy Lords, I hesitate—
§ Several Noble Lords: Order!
§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRANMy Lords, I hesitate to enter this discussion and I do so to ask the Minister whether he is aware that there was at least one useful Royal Commission, which was set 986 up in 1946, entitled the Royal Commission Rewards to Inventors with powers to summon witnesses? Is he also aware that that Royal Commission was set up in order to deal with patents and trade mark matters, instead of the courts? Is the noble Lord further aware that that Royal Commission was headed by a former Member of this House, the late Lord Cohen of Walmer, and that that Royal Commission happened to have myself as its part-time secretary, which is my reason for presuming to interevene now? I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that certain Royal Commissions have powers to summon people to deal with matters that are not dealt with by the courts.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I believe the whole House would agree that the Commission was fortunate to have the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, as its secretary. I should add that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is surprising that one who upholds the rule of law should, when it suits him, describe the power to sub-poena as inquisitorial, whereas last night he was supporting the rule of law on all counts? Does the Minister not agree that that kind of dichotomy in thinking is very near to humbug?