HC Deb 18 March 1969 vol 780 cc214-24
Mr. Speaker

Mr. Crosland—statement.

Hon. Members

Where is he?

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers)

The House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend left the Board of Trade some time ago with the intention of being present at this moment. I know that the House attaches the greatest importance to what my right hon. Friend will say. I can only conceive that there has been some untoward incident in his journey here. I am sure that the House will not wish to make assumptions until a full explanation has been given.

It may be helpful to the House, and avoid further delay, if I indicate what my right hon. Friend would have wished to say had circumstances allowed him to be present. The House will know the great courtesy that my right hon. Friend always shows on these occasions and will not assume that it is not his intention at the earliest moment to give a very full explanation—[Interruption.]

The House will be delighted to see that no harm has come of my right hon. Friend, so I shall be glad now to withdraw.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland)

I should like to begin by apologising to the House for my under-estimation of the amount of time that would be spent on the preceding business.

With permission, I will make a statement about the inquiries which my Department has been making into the existence of rings at art auctions. I have now had the opportunity, on my return from a two-week visit to Latin America, of examining in detail the results of these inquiries.

They were undertaken by two experienced former police officers, who are members of the Investigations Branch of the Board of Trade. These officers interviewed over 40 persons concerned in different ways with sales of works of art, including most of the leading art dealers in London. They also made inquiries of many other art dealers, both in this country and in Italy. In the course of these general inquiries, information was given about the sale at Aldwick Court.

After consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I have decided that the report of these inquiries should not be published. The report gives details of the persons interviewed by my officers, of the statements made by those persons both orally and in writing, of the officers' assessments of the reliability of the witnesses and the value of their evidence, and of the officers' conclusions. Some of the material on which the report is based was given confidentially, and some of it may well be defamatory. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be wrong for me to be responsible for breaches of confidentiality or for the publication of defamatory statements.

Further, and perhaps more important, it would be wrong in principle to publish details of an inquiry of this nature which necessarily included an investigation into the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings. Publication might well cause injustice to persons named in the report who will not be charged, and who consequently will not have the safeguards afforded to defendants in a criminal trial. Moreover, publication might have an adverse effect on future investigations into allegations of criminal practices of all kinds.

But I wish to give the House the essential findings which emerge from the report. On the question of the existence and possible operation of rings generally, many art dealers have given a certain amount of information which, however, never descends from the general to the specific. That is to say, they have all heard of rings operating, but cannot, or will not, supply precise information as to their membership or operation. The inquiries, therefore, do not disclose any evidence which could form the basis of criminal proceedings. I should add that a study of the prices achieved at sales at the leading art auctions in London over the last two years strongly suggests that rings have not operated there and that dealers compete freely and properly for pictures.

As to the Aldwick Court sale, I repeat what I told the House on 6th November, namely, that no detailed or useful information was given either to the Board of Trade or to the police, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, until after the time-limit for any prosecution had expired.

It may be said that further or better information might have become available had inquiries been started earlier. But the outcome of the present inquiry does not encourage me to believe this. The only information of any substance or significance concerning the Aldwick Court sale which my officers have been able to obtain has been provided by people who were in a position to make that same information available well before the time limit for any prosecution had expired, but who made no move to do so. Indeed, we were given no clue even as to who these people were until that time had expired.

As I have said, I do not intend to publish the report, but my statement this afternoon has given the House the essential conclusions which emerge from it. In my view, the most important thing now is to make rapid progress with the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Bill, which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has so helpfully introduced with the full support and co-operation of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Channon

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many people, both inside and outside this House, will find his statement this afternoon extremely disappointing?

Is he further aware that this only goes to show that the wrong form of inquiry was set up by his Department? Is it not a fact that hon. Members, on 6th November and on many other occasions, pressed him to set up a different sort of inquiry under which none of these difficulties would have arisen?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rumours which have been flying around and the position in which the London art trade is now left by his refusal to publish this report is a most unsatisfactory situation and may damage many people in the London art trade?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the legal difficulties could be cleared up, both the British Antique Dealers' Association and the Society of London Art Dealers are most anxious that he should publish this report? Is it not possible to get over these legal difficulties by laying this report in response to an Order for an Unopposed Return, which has been done many times in this House—most recently in the Bristol-Siddeley case? Would it not be far better to clear up this unsatisfactory state of affairs than to leave the matter where it is at the moment?

Mr. Crosland

No, Sir. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

First, as to this being the wrong form of inquiry, there were only two forms of inquiry fundamentally possible. One was an inquiry conducted, as this was, in confidence, in which persons might be prepared to give information because that information would not be published. This seemed to be the sensible way of going about things.

The only other form of inquiry would be a public inquiry, perhaps under a O.C., as the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) has suggested, in which witnesses would not enjoy any protection and would, therefore, be wholly unwilling to provide information I should not think that that kind of inquiry would benefit anyone, so I have no regrets about the form of inquiry that was chosen.

As to damage to the London art trade, I hope that what I have said about the findings concerning the London art trade is sufficient answer to the question, because it is important to clear it of any imputation of incorrect or inappropriate actions.

On the last question about an Order on the Bristol-Siddeley analogy, I should like to look into that and give the hon. Gentleman a considered answer.

Mr. Costain

Will the President confirm that the Bill which I am sponsoring would lead to the prosecution of people named in an inquiry? That being so, will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see that time is provided to give a speedy passage to the Bill?

Mr. Crosland

I am strongly in favour of a speedy passage for the Bill, and so is my right hon. Friend.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, nothing in this report would lead, or has led, to any possibility of criminal proceedings being taken. I think that the report, in a general sense, lends support to the objects of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman has introduced.

Mr. Whitaker

Is it not obvious that the present strength of State machinery for investigating these practices is less than adequate, because it was left to a national newspaper to expose a major example of the racket, despite the grave risk of libel to which it exposed itself in doing this public duty?

Mr. Crosland

I hope that my hon. Friend is not misunderstanding what the rôle of the Board of Trade is in this. We have a general responsibility for supervising the law relating to auctions. That is our sole responsibility. Any question of prosecution or criminal proceedings is not a matter for the Board of Trade. That is a matter for the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if any hon. Member, or anyone in the art world, has now, or has had in the past, any evidence which might lead to criminal prosecution, it is his duty to draw this evidence to the attention of the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we appreciate the difficulties of publishing evidence which was given in private which might be defamatory, he has given the House very little information? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, as a result of the inquiry, that he knows the sort of powers that are required to prevent any such occurrences in the future? Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending an Amendment to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)? If the Government are not prepared to expedite the passage of that Bill, are they intending to introduce legislation themselves?

Mr. Crosland

I have given little detailed information because the results of this inquiry were, in a sense, negative. The inquiry showed that there was a good deal of hearsay information about the operation of rings, but no evidence was produced to the inquiry which would justify criminal prosecution, and, as I have already said, there was evidence that the London art market, in particular, operates freely and properly.

As to the Bill, I do not think that, in the event, the results of this inquiry either alter the case for it or against it. I am certain that the thing to do now is to get on with the Bill whose provisions will be necessary whatever the consequences of this inquiry.

Mr. John Mendelson

While accepting that one could not place the blame for this unsatisfactory outcome on my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, for his part, my right hon. Friend accepts that he has put the House and the public in a highly unsatisfactory situation? On the one hand, my right hon. Friend argues that, on the advice of the Attorney-General, he cannot publish the report, and on the other, he leaves the public in the dark about whether there were any guilty parties. May I therefore press my right hon. Friend most strongly to reconsider the matter and to discuss it with the Attorney-General to see whether, after all, the report can be published as fully as possible?

Mr. Crosland

My instincts are entirely on the side of my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I have, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, given the reasons, which I find to be powerful ones, why the full report of this inquiry cannot be published. As to leaving the public in the dark about whether criminal events took place or not, I think I made it clear in my original statement that no evidence emerges from the report which would justify any criminal proceedings.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan

As the right hon. Gentleman was spurred into setting up the inquiry only as a result of an article in the Sunday Times, may I ask whether he is, in effect, saying that there was no substance in that article? If so, will he bear in mind that there have been no actions for defamation following that article?

Mr. Crosland

I do not wish to comment any further on the Aldwick Court sale as such, for the reason that that sale is now time-expired and therefore it would not be right to comment on it. As to whether there would have been any evidence of criminal offences committed at that sale, it was fully open to anybody who had such evidence to bring that evidence to the attention of my Department, or to the police, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, before the six months had passed, but no such evidence was given from any quarter.

Mr. Barnett

I am sure that most of us would like to see the report, but is not there some confusion here? We may want to see the abolition of rings generally, but the fact is that losses which have been made in instances of which we know are not necessarily due to rings but to inadequate reserve prices being placed on particular articles owing to inadequate advice being given. Should not we be centring our minds on how to deal with this aspect of the problem rather than on the one about which we have been talking?

Mr. Crosland

I think that there are occasions when my hon. Friend's analysis is the correct one. I have no doubt that in the course of the Committee discussions on the Bill, which I hope will now proceed, this matter can be more fully debated.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Mr. A. Royle

On a point of order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and I originally raised this matter with the Board of Trade, would it be possible for me to be called to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker is not omniscient. The hon. Member has raised a valid point. Mr. Anthony Royle.

Mr. A. Royle

Many people outside the House will consider that the President of the Board of Trade is tending to raise a disturbing wall of silence around the Board of Trade. Did any of the people who were interviewed by the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors identify anyone who had taken part in a ring?

Mr. Crosland

I hesitate to speak on legal matters without my right hon. and learned Friend immediately beside me, but nobody identified anyone in such a way that could have led to any criminal proceedings being taken.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

On a point of order. As I first raised the matter in October, 1964, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I allow the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question, he must ask my leave to do so. I think that the hon. Member has a point.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in his statement, he gave an indication that he was satisfied that there was no ring in pictures. Why was there such a wall of silence about rings in other forms of antiques throughout the country?

Mr. Crosland

What I said about rings in pictures was that there was a good deal of hearsay information but no firm evidence which would have allowed criminal proceedings to be taken. As to other rings, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, this inquiry was confined to rings at art auctions. We are dealing primarily with pictures.

Mr. Heath

May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, feels that the matter has been left in a rather unsatisfactory state? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in some other matters, for example where security is involved, the Government publish a report after they have deleted matters which they consider not to be in the public interest to publish and after they have shown it to myself as Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A short time ago you rebuked me for asking the Minister once to change an answer that he had already given to a question. The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members are asking the Minister to change an answer that he has given to a question. May I ask why you rebuked me and have not rebuked the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition is a right hon. Gentleman, not an hon. Gentleman. He was not asking the same question in any conceivable way whatsoever.

Mr. Heath

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General whether it is possible to make deletions from the report which will avoid the difficulties about defamation, and, if so, whether this could be done? Or would he agree to the Attorney-General discussing with one of my right hon. Friends who has legal experience what the difficulties are to see whether they can be overcome?

Mr. Crosland

There are two points here. I think that there would be great difficulties about publishing an expurgated edition of the report. The bulk of the report consists of statements from the 40 or more people who were interviewed. I think that an expurgated edition would omit all the information that was most interesting and would not give any indication of where the omissions had been made.

I should like to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend whether the full report should or could be made available to the right hon. Gentleman under the procedure which he described. As far as I am concerned, I would greatly welcome this.

Sir J. Vanghan-Morgan

On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he would like to publish something but has been overruled by the Attorney-General, and as the Attorney-General is present, may we have a statement forthwith on why he overruled his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a matter for the Attorney-General, not for the Chair.

Mr. Brooks

On a point of order. In fact, I have two points of order to raise. On the first, may I have your guidance? It is the normal custom in this House when Members rise to seek to catch your eye to put supplementary questions to accept your judgment about the time when the discussion should be exhausted, and I think it is true to say that the majority of us accept that unequivocally. This afternoon we have had no fewer than three hon. Members rising to make specific points, and in two cases to extend the discussion. Would it be possible for others who are members of the Committee which is to discuss the Bill tomorrow to put representations to you that we have as much right to be called as others who are not members of the Committee? If that be the case, it appears to follow that, if such representations are made and those hon. Members are then called, this will extend the time for questions on my right hon. Friend's statement very substantially.

Mr. Speaker

I agree with all that the hon. Member has said, in spirit, in tone, and in everything. If the hon. Member wishes to put a supplementary question, he may do so.

Mr. Brooks

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not waste the time of the House, because this will now remove the need to raise it as a point of order. Might I put it to my right hon. Friend that, as he is in some difficulty, because we understand the Parliamentary Commissioner is at the moment investigating certain allegations of maladministration by his Department, it might be in the interests of the House to know whether Sir Edmund Compton will have a right to see the full unexpurgated version of this report?

Mr. Crosland

Yes, Sir, he already has done so.

Forward to