7.
6.
SECRET
-16-
Public Reaction:
Obviously, Mr. Beveridge would be opposed to these proposals
and would seek to criticise them if acted upon. However, it is hard
to see how he could complain if no action is taken to restrict or curtail
the scope of the Inquiry and no suggestion is made that the
Commissioner's report will not be published. If the proposals are
adopted it might be politic to include in the public explanation of such action reference to the objectives of trying to get the Inquiry
completed as soon as possible and that such action may assist the Commissioner to expedite the process. An implied suggestion that the
Inquiry should concentrate on matters within the terms of reference
rather than extraneous suspicions of misconduct may not be out of
place.
The Time Limit Proposal:
In the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry no date was
specified for the rendering of the report. There is under Section 3(a) power to abridge the time. Since nobody wants an incomplete report the specification of a time for reporting is really only persuasive in effect. It is less persuasive where the public know that when a tribunal seeks an extension it has been busily working on its case since it
was established. It is more effective where the tribunal's workings are not visible to the public so that an errant tribunal has to contend with the possible suspicion that it has not been doing the job. If the proposal to direct the Inquiry to conduct its hearings in camera is adopted then this action could possibly be coupled with it in that it is suggestive of official impatience with the time (and cost) being taken by the Inquiry.
SECRET