TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES
| Published date | 01 March 1959 |
| Author | J. A. G. GRIFFITH |
| Date | 01 March 1959 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb02165.x |
TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES
“But what good came of
it
at last?
”
Quoth little Peterkin.
“Why that
I
cannot tell,” said he,
‘‘
But ’twas a famous victory.”
OPPOSING
armies in perpetual array, campfire talks where the older
warriors retell their exploits in the last battle
so
many years before,
daily reconnaissance at stated hours known to both sides and left
unchallenged, sorties and skirmishes with dummy ammunition,
rules for mutual convenience agreed and adhered to, fraternising
games at Christmas,
no
wounds except those self-infiicted, card-
board guns, pouches filled with chocolate creams-and suddenly,
a shot fired in anger, a roll
of
drums, tents being struck, battalions
on
the move, the real thing at last, the noise and the people, hand
to hand, issues in doubt, reserves thrown in, decisive engagements;
then the aftermath, the counting of the dead, the re-forming
of
the units, and again opposing armies in perpetual array, more and
better campfire
talks.
. .
.
So
it
seems to have been with the cycle of
1928-82,
Hewart
and the Donoughmore Committee
;
repeated in
1954-58,
Commander
Marten lighting the fuse to
his
own
barrel, which duly exploded and
set
off
another which was not his, the Franks Committee, the
Tribunals and Inqukies Act, and Circular nine oblique fifty-eight.
Was
it
a necessary war? Was
it
a
famous victory?
The Committee
on
Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries
(Chairman: Sir Oliver Franks) was appointed
on
November
1,
1955,
“to consider and make recommendations
on:
(a) The
constitution and working of tribunals other than ordinary courts
,
cf
law, constituted under any Act of Parliament by a Minister of
the Crown
or
for the purposes of a Minister’s functions. (b) The
working of such administrative procedures as include the holding
of an enquiry
or
hearing by
or
on
behalf of a Minister
on
an
appeal
or
as
the result of objections
or
representations, and in
particular the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land.”
The Committee reported
on
July
15, 1957.’
The House
of
Commons debated the Report
on
October
81, 1957,
and the
House
of
Lords
on
November
27, 1957.2
A Government measure,
the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill, which made statutory provision
for some of the Committee’s recommendations, was introduced into
Was
it
even a just war?
And if
so,
who won?
1
Cmnd.
218.
2
575
H.C.Deb.
400-51Q;
206
H.L.Deb.
522-592.
125
126
THE MODERN LAW REVIEW
VOL.
22
the House of Lords where
it
received its Second Reading on
April
1,
1958,
passed through Committee on April
22
and
29,
was reported on May
13
and received its Third Reading on
May
20.3
The Bill received its Second Reading in the House of
Commons on July
3, 1958,
was reported and received its Third
Reading on July
25,
1958,
with amendments which were agreed
to by the House of Lords on July
28,
1958.”
The Bill received
the Royal Assent on August
1,
1958.
As
will
be seen, many other
recommendations of the Committee were in principle adopted by
the Government and put into effect by administrative devices
such as circulars and by changes of practice.
The Franks Report began by making some rather formal passes
through the air without striking anything except poses-a little
unreal though not altogether lacking in charm, as
if
the drafters
thought there was a lot
of
stuff always said at this point, to
be got out of the way and set down.
I
mean passages like the
need
“to
seek a new balance between private right and public
advantage, between fair play for the individual and efficiency of
administration,”
“
the procedures by which the rights of individual
citizens can be harmonised with wider public interests,”
“
finding
a right relationship between authority and the individual
”
(which,
we are told, is a problem
‘‘
not confined to this country
”
and has
“become a matter of concern on both sides of the Atlantic
”),
‘‘
the balance between the public interest which Administration
promotes and the private interest which
it
disturbs,”
“
govern-
ment rests fundamentally upon the consent
of
the governed,” and
so
in terms which look as though they were indicating the
ideal solution (the
“
balance,”
“
fair play,”
‘‘
harmonised,”
‘‘
right relationship
”)
when in fact they are restating the problem
or
relying on comforting, meaningless and apparently indestructible
constitutional fictions. Ministers of the Crown can do this turn
better than most. The Home Secretary slipped in Magna Carta,
the Bill of Rights, de Tocqueville and Blackstone, on moving the
Second Reading of the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill. In half
3
column, he managed to speak of the tilting of the scales in favour
of the State, of restoring the balance, of the arbitrary exercise
of the growing powers of the State, of striking a just balance
and of restoring to the individual citizen the protection to which
he has always been and must always be entitled.6 The Attorney-
General perhaps found breathing a little difficult at those heights,
so
he started his reply to the debate by saying how much better
the Conservative
“
Rule
of
Law
”
pamphlet was than the Socialist
‘‘
Personal Freedom
”
pamphlet, cocked a snook at Sir Hartley
208 H.L.Deb. 581-622, 852-908,1088-1118; 209
H.L.Deb.
274-298,
471.
4
590 H.C.Deb. 1609-1693; 592 H.C.Deb. 825-841; 211
H.L.Deb.
326.
5
Cmnd. 218,
paras.
5,
6,21,22.
8
590
H.C.Deb. 1609-21.
To continue reading
Request your trial