HC Deb 10 November 1919 vol 121 cc169-201

  1. (1) Where any trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, whether, or not the dispute is reported to him under Part I. of this Act, inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute, and, if he thinks fit, refer any matters appearing to him to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court 170 of Inquiry appointed by him for the purpose of such reference, and the Court shall inquire into the matters referred to them and report thereon to the Minister.
  2. (2) A Court of Inquiry for the purposes of this Part of this Act (in this Act referred to as "a Court of Inquiry") shall consist of a chair man and such other persons as the Minister thinks fit to appoint, or may if the Minister thinks fit consist of one person appointed by the Minister.
  3. (3) A Court of Inquiry may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number.
  4. (4) The Minister may make rules regulating the procedure of any Court of Inquiry, including rules as to summoning of witnesses, production of documents, quorum, authentication of documents, the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor, and the appointment of committees.
  5. (5) A Court of Inquiry may, if and to such extent as may be authorised by rules made under this Section, by order require the production of any books, papers, and other documents relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry, and require any person who appears to the Court to have any knowledge of that subject matter to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars in relation thereto as the Court may require, and, where necessary, to attend before the Court and give evidence on oath, and the Court may administer or authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose.

If any person fails to comply with any Order of the Court under this Sub-section, or furnishes any particulars which are false or misleading or gives any evidence which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

Mr. R. YOUNG

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or is apprehended."

We do not wish to give the Minister power to interfere before direct negotiations have taken place between the parties concerned. Further, we desire that in all cases of dispute they should come before the Industrial Court, and that being so there is a fear in our minds that if we allow a discussion to go on at the same time there might be dissatisfaction caused. We do not want a Court to be set up when negotiations are taking place, but in the event of the negotiations breaking down in relation to the first Court, then there will be an opportunity for negotiations under the second heading. I think before any action is taken under this Clause, and when a Minister thinks a trade dispute is not likely to be settled, he can fall back on the Clause which has already been passed, and under these circumstances I suggest that these words should be left out.

Sir R. HORNE

I appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend has said in rela- tion to this Clause, and I think I can assure him that no one is likely to interfere while negotiations are still in progress or even when the negotiations have a chance of being broken off. In framing the Clause in this form I have followed the words already sanctioned in an Act which has been referred to many times tonight—I mean the Conciliation Act, which expresses the situation in precisely the same form as I have proposed it there. It says, in fact, that where a dispute exists or is apprehended the Board of Trade shall do certain things. I think it is very proper we should have that power, because very often prevention is better than cure, and if there is an opportunity for a Minister to interfere at a time when he might alleviate a situation which is being gradually inflamed, he might do much more good than if he left the matter to simmer and then boil up. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I am certain he can rely on the discretion of Ministers not to interfere unnecessarily or prematurely.

Mr. CLYNES

I agree with the argument submitted by my right hon. Friend, but I would like to suggest to him that there is another point of view. Still, if he cannot see his way to delete these words by accepting our Amendment, will he give us some assurance that at least during his term of office, which we trust may be long, he will set an example to his successors. What we desire is to secure the minimum of State interference between employers and employed, while preserving the maximum of peace between them. That is the situation which is generally desired, and we are rather afraid that a State Department might get into the habit of mind of regarding it as its business, on hearing a rumour of some movement or claim for wages, or some application for changed conditions to at once set its machinery working and to begin to interfere when interference might do, not good, but harm. There is a danger of that, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit. I do not suspect that he himself is likely to do this thing, but these words have in them some element of danger, and I think we may ask him for some assurance that in practice it would not be regarded as the business of the Ministry of Labour to interfere at a point which would interrupt efforts to settle matters on the lines usually followed by the parties, or in any way to make the contending parties feel the State is stepping in long before its services are required or likely to be useful.

Mr. HAILWOOD

There is another side to this question of the Minister refraining from interfering. There might sometimes be cases where the parties to the dispute are of opinion that it is better to go on strike in order that the Government may interfere. We have had examples of cases where negotiations have been broken off in the hope that the Government will interfere, but the Government have not interfered until the strike has actually taken place. I think the Government should have power to exercise its discretion of interfering before the strike does occur. The words used here are "trade disputes," and I think it is essential that the Government should interfere in the early stages and make itself au fait with all the facts and try to prevent the dispute developing into a strike.

Sir R. HORNE

I think I can assure my right hon. Friend opposite that any body who has had sufficient experience in these matters would be very glad to follow the course he has laid down.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. YOUNG

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "whether or not the dispute is," and to insert instead thereof the words "if the dispute has not been."

Our position in this matter is that the Minister should take no action until the decision of the other Court has been made known. We do not desire that the Minister should interfere in this connection with anything that has been taking place.

Sir R. HORNE

One of the important factors with regard to the Courts of Inquiry is that the Minister should be able to interfere even if the matter has not been reported to him by one of the parties concerned in the dispute, if he has to wait for a report, sometimes the occasion for his best interference may have passed. The same considerations which applied in connection with the previous Amendment seems to apply also in this case, and I hope my hon. Friend, in view of the attitude of the Committee on the previous Amendment, will not press this one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think the next Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes, has been disposed of by the decision of the Committee on Clause 1.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["and the Court shall inquire"] to insert the words "either in public or in private at their discretion."

This Amendment gives the Court of Inquiry the option of holding the inquiry either in public or in private. Hon Members will see that under Clause 5 a Court of Inquiry has power to make interim reports. After they have made an interim report it is immediately laid before both Houses of Parliament and becomes public property. If the Court of Inquiry has power to make public its interim reports, I do not see why it should not also have the discretion to hold the inquiry in public. It is a very important Court and we want to give it as much discretion as possible. In certain, circumstances it may be very advisable that the inquiry should be held in public. As the Bill stands the Minister alone has the power to make rules and orders for the procedure of the Court of Inquiry, therefore he will have power to say that the inquiry must be held in private only. As we are giving the Court of Inquiry power to publish interim reports it is rather inconsistent to prevent it holding the inquiry in public if it thinks fit to do so.

Sir R. HORNE

I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with the reasons for it he has put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HENDERSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "consist of a chairman and such other persons as the Minister thinks fit to appoint, or may if the Minister think fit consist of one person appointed by the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "be constituted in like manner to an Industrial Court under Part I. of this Act."

This is the Amendment which the Deputy-Chairman suggested had been dealt with on Clause 1. Our object in seeking to move the series of Amendments standing in my name is to try to bring the constitution of the Court of Inquiry into line with what we endeavoured to bring about on Clause 1. The Minister has met us on Clause I to the extent that he has promised to continue the panel system. While we are anxious to secure the retention of the panel system in connection with Part I. of the Bill, we are also anxious to secure the appointments to the Court of Inquiry from some sort of panel as has been accepted in connection with the earlier Clause of the Bill. I can imagine that these Courts of Inquiry, properly constituted and securing the confidence of all the parties concerned, might serve a very useful purpose, but if they are to be useful there must be a feeling on the part of the workmen that those appointed possess in some degree the practical knowledge and experience to enable them to conduct the inquiry as it ought to be conducted, if a dispute is going to be warded off and if any points of difference between the employers and the organisation are going to be brought to a mutual and satisfactory arrangement. I understand that that point has not been disposed of in connection with Clause 1. If anything, I think the Minister has met us, and that is a justification for our asking that he will reconsider his decision, because all that this Clause does is to give him the power of referring a dispute to a Court of Inquiry, without saying anything as to the quarter from whence the members of the Court of Inquiry are to be drawn. They are to consist of such persons as the Minister thinks fit to appoint. If, as he has already admitted with regard to a Court of Arbitration, that has to give an actual decision which the parties on both sides are bound to honour and observe, surely in the case of an inquiry which is to be instituted into some difficulty, we are right in asking that he should meet us by having some sort of panel in whom all parties will have confidence—the chairman's panel, the employers' panel, and the workmen's panel from whom he makes his selection.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

I thought at first that this Amendment referred to Amendments of which we had already disposed, but it may possibly stand by itself. So I will put it to the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE

The Amendment could not be carried in its present state, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has moved it with the intention of getting some assurance from me as to the constitution of the Courts of Inquiry. I perfectly agree with him that unless a Court of inquiry is composed in such a way as to obtain the confidence of both parties to a dispute it would be useless, and the public would have no confidence in a Court whose members were mostly in ignorance of the matter which they had come together to discuss. Accordingly it is plain that the Court must comprise people who know both the employers' and the workmen's point of view, and to that extent I am perfectly prepared to give my direct assurance. As to the precise form of the constitution I am not prepared at this moment to speak, because one of my great hopes with regard to the National Industrial Council has been that we should find in the constitution of these bodies the kind of people on both sides who would form the very best Court you could constitute for the purpose of making the necessary inquiry. One would not like to tie one's hands at this stage to the setting up of particular panels. My desire is to make such a Court of Inquiry as would really represent the people on both sides and obtain confidence. Whether that requires to be put in in definite shape I shall consider between now and Wednesday if the right hon. Gentleman will leave it at that for the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CLYNES

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).

As far as I know this is quite a new feature in connection with Courts dealing with such matters. If the Court is to consist of an unlimited number of persons and we are left in the dark as to who these persons will be, we are entitled to some statement as to what this Subsection means. There must be, I suppose, some definite reason for putting in so pointed a statement and we should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir R. HORNE

The only object we had in putting in this Sub-section was to provide against things which happen not infrequently—people falling ill or even dying. It would be a very unfortunate result if in the middle of an important Inquiry some member fell ill and the Court had entirely to suspend its operations and. discussions. Time really is of the essence of the actions of these Courts of Inquiry, and it was from the point of view of safeguarding that position, so that there should be no doubt the Court would still go on though one of its members fell out, that we put it in and I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the reasonableness of that proposal. There is certainly no sinister motive behind it whatsoever.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

From the point of view of the general public as well as of the trade unions, this Sub-section might well be left out. Surely in the case of a member of the Court falling ill someone might be co-opted in his place. It seems to me we are laying ourselves open to serious trouble. The right hon. Gentleman only mentions death and illness, but there might be other reasons why the number would not be complete. I am sure that will at once lead to suspicion. It seems to me to be rather a dangerous Sub-section. If there is so little in it, why cannot it be left out? Certainly it struck me when I read the Bill as being very extraordinary. The Bill would be better received outside the House if the Sub-section were left out.

Mr. D. HERBERT

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has adduced the greatest argument possible in favour of retaining the Sub-section, because the introduction of another member to this body in the middle of its proceedings might be most inadvisable and calculated to arouse suspicion. It seems to me that this is necessary in order to provide against the possibility of a vacancy occurring towards the end of an inquiry when all the evidence has been heard, and the whole matter has been gone into, and that will practically be thrown away unless the Court can continue to act notwithstanding the vacancy. In a case of that sort the importation of another member will be the worst possible proceeding.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. BULL

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).

Being a solicitor I might be suspect in suggesting that this Sub-section should be omitted, but I am not likely to be interested as a solicitor in any of these inquiries. Therefore I suggest that this Sub-section might be reconsidered. My right hon. Friend (Sir R. Horne) is eliminating the greater part of the Clause, and therefore I suggest that the Committee might very reasonably consider the question of the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitors. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) conducted with great ability during the War an inquiry in Westminster Hall, and he said he was very much impeded by the fact that neither solicitor nor counsel were allowed to take part in these inquiries. He found that cases were not properly presented, and that in a large number of cases the Committee were detained by having to inquire from the witnesses who came before them whether they had presented their case properly, either as plaintiff or defendant, and he very greatly regretted the fact that there was no professional advice in connection with the inquiry. Therefore I suggest, on behalf of the Bar and the Law Society, whether it is advisable that "the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor" should not be deleted. In view of the deletions which my right hon. Friend suggests it is a question whether the Subsection should not come out. At any rate I plead that this matter should be very carefully considered.

Sir R. HORNE

As may be readily imagined, I have no sympathy with those who seek to lessen the work which comes either to solicitors or to counsel, and perhaps both to my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull) and to myself the old phrase may be applied that dog does not eat dog. In connection with this matter of appearance before the Court of Industrial Inquiry I am certain there are many occasions when the appearance of solicitor and counsel only serves to aggravate proceedings rather than facilitate them. I have known of some cases within the present year of which that might be said with the greatest possible truth, and accordingly I should hope that the appearance of counsel would be limited to the very narrowest possible dimensions. With that in view we took the power to regulate the cases in which solicitors and counsel might appear. It is also true that there are occasions when the conduct of proceedings is expedited by people who are skilled in the production of evidence. We cannot do better between these two contending views than to allow the Minister a discretion as to what can be done in any particular case that comes before the Court of Inquiry, and I hope the Committee will be willing to leave that discretion in the hands of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. H. SMITH

I venture, with great respect, to differ from the right hon.

Gentleman. I do not think that he has answered the case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull). This is not a question of aggravating the proceedings, and I am very much surprised that my right hon. Friend, who was at one time a distinguished member of a distinguished profession should suggest that the presence of counsel or solicitor would aggravate the proceedings. I treat this matter very seriously, and I would cite the historic example of the Military Service Tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House then, but he will remember that for a year or two the Military Service Tribunals had the advantage of having cases presented to them by counsel and solicitor, and when the Minister of National Service brought forward a Military Service Bill, in which he proposed to deprive these tribunals of the service of counsel and solicitors he was threatened with mutiny by the Military Service Tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes), who is now in his place, will not contradict me on that point. He knows that the Military Service Tribunals, particularly in London, and I believe it spread to the provinces, threatened that if he proceeded with that proposal it would be quite impossible for them to conduct their work. Why does the Minister of Labour suggest that the presence of counsel or solicitor at these tribunals would aggravate the proceedings? If the Minister of National Service had proceeded with his proposal to exclude counsel and solicitor he would have been in very great danger of wrecking the whole of that remarkable machine which he and the Government had built up.

10.0 P.M.

I do not understand the relation between Sub-section (4), which we are now discussing, and Clause 9. Sub-section (4) of Clause 4 says: The Minister may make rules regulating…the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor. That is as to the Courts of Inquiry. Clause 9 provides for the making of rules, and says: Provision shall be made by rules under this Act with respect to the cases in which persona may appear by counsel or solicitor…before the Industrial Court, before an arbitrator or before a Court of Inquiry. In one case the Minister may make rules and in the other case they shall make rules as to the representation of people by counsel or solicitor. Having regard to the very extraordinary example which we had in the Military Service Tribunals, and having regard to the wording of Subsection (4), Clause 4, and of Clause 9, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not done himself justice. Is it not well established that, as was the case in the military service tribunals, the tribunal wants to get at the facts and wants to do justice? Everybody knows that the Military Service Tribunals worked with wonderful results, and with a determination to get at the true facts in the shortest possible time. They were working at high pressure, and it was perfectly wonderful the way in which they dealt so justly with so many cases. In regard to the tribunals now about to be set up, we can say as prophets that the desire will be to arrive at the true facts of each case. How can my right hon. Friend suggest that you are increasing the work of these tribunals if the parties who are making their appeals are represented by the legal profession? That is contrary to every lesson which has been learned. If you get a just tribunal, honestly trying to get at the facts in the shortest space of time, and if the party is not represented, the just tribunal may spend in some cases minutes and in some cases hours trying to extract facts from a person who is not skilled in laying the facts of his case. If, on the other hand, that person is represented by an advocate, the Court has the right to assume that all that has to be said for the party is said, and the time of the Court is saved enormously by having all the knowledge of the facts presented by a skilled legal person. Like my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull), I am little likely to gain anything by this Amendment. It is very easy to say that an Amendment of this sort benefits one if one happens to be a member of the legal profession, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will not suggest that we are actuated by any selfish motive. It is our desire to ensure not only justice, but quick justice, in proposing that these tribunals should have every assistance that can possibly be given to them.

Mr. HODGE

I am not going to speak only as far as trade unions are concerned. I think I can speak with some knowledge of the opinion of employers, and they do not want either solicitors or counsel introduced into trade disputes with reference either to wages or conditions of employment. If we had a wages dispute in the iron and steel trade, it would be more trouble for me to get my hon. and learned Friend to conduct the case than to conduct it myself, because he would have to be taught. There are a great many technical and practical questions which have to be placed before those who are judging, and those who have any practical knowledge of industry know that it is the practical man who can make out the best case. For that reason alone I hope my right hon. Friend will stand fast and not accept this Amendment. I would not object to solicitor or counsel coming in if both parties agreed. I think that that is quite a sufficient safeguard, because they would never get in.

Sir N. MOORE

I do not want to range myself alongside the lawyers, but if the desire of the Minister is to do away with professional advocates this Clause is not going to achieve that end. Where arbitration is at work at the present time there are professional advocates both on behalf of Labour and employers, and these become equally proficient as anyone else, and the same advocates appear for the various sections of the community. I am sure that many will agree that hon. Members who have raised this point have not been actuated by any unworthy motive, but have simply done so in the interests of the public good.

Sir R. HORNE

I agree that there is a certain overlapping between Sub-section (4) of Clause 4 and Clause 9. Undoubtedly this matter of the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor is dealt with in both these Clauses, and it is necessary to delete one of them. With the consent of the Committee, I propose to delete, in Sub-section (4), the words "the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor." In Section 9 the matter will come up again. Of course, I absolve at once my hon. and learned Friends from any suggestion of being interested by any private motive in making this suggestion, and I am sure that they hold the view, which I also hold, that the employment of counsel and solicitor does in a great majority of cases lead to the expedition of the work. But I am equally certain that when you are dealing with industrial matters you do not get expedition. In dealing with these matters you deal very often with questions of negotiation and conciliation, and the appearance of counsel or solicitor in these cases is often an impediment rather than an assistance. I am talking from ex- perience which, with till his learning, I am perfectly certain my hon. Friend has not had in reference to industrial disputes and, guided by that experience, I venture to present to the Committee the view which is embodied in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sir R. HORNE

I beg to move, to leave out the words "production of documents."

Mr. CLYNES

This is one of a couple of Amendments which are very closely related and may also be said to hang on the Amendment lower down in the name of my right hon. Friend. I would like to take the opportunity of pressing what is the Labour and trade union view on the subject Personally, I regret that my right hon. Friend should delete these words. The trade union is sin association of persons. Employers when they act as an association and form one body should be treated exactly like trade unions. The law should apply equally to both kinds of associations. That is what we propose. The Amendment says that rules shall be made with regard to confidential documents, and the confidential transactions of a trade union or an association of employers, and we should like those words later on to be accepted. I think that you will find it difficult to accept them from the Chair if those words now being considered are carried. Equality of treatment in the case of these two associations will suggest itself as acceptable to the whole of the Committee, but the general question of Part II. of the Bill is one of inquiry. Every step is to be taken to inquire, even when a dispute which is apprehended, not to say has actually taken place.

Usually in these disputes the facts are in dispute, and I suggest that you cannot get at the facts unless you get at the very material private documents relating to the financial and business, sides of these firms whose argument is that they cannot possibly afford to meet the terms of the men. If inquiry is to have any purpose at all it should be that of getting at the truth, and the facts usually lie at the bottom of a basket in connection, with these questions of wages and conditions of work. Workmen rarely believe what employers of labour say with regard to profits and their inability to improve the standard of wages of the employés. Workmen see businesses expanding with every evidence of development of prosperity. They see records of great sums carried to reserve, and in a considerable number of ways there is some proof of what might be termed, without offence, devices for dealing with sums of money which are part of profits so as to conceal the prosperity of the firm, with a view to not having to concede better conditions to the workers.

Those of us who have for so many years had to do with so many hundreds of trade union meetings, and have had to deal with great masses of men know how difficult it is to persuade a body of men of any of the embarrassments which employers of labour so frequently allege. Therefore, if you are to have effective inquiry, and to make a good use of the investigation you must be able to get at the documents which alone usually contain the exact facts regarding the situation which has to be-inquired into. Recently we had the railway dispute, and I will take, it to illustrate my meaning. On the one side, the Government alleged that the railways were being run at a loss which had to be met by a subsidy, and therefore they could not bear any farther burden which an increase of wages would occasion. On the other hand, the men said that if all the work of the railway companies in recent years in the carriage of men and materials in connection with the War had been paid for at the rate at which it would have had to be paid for if the same number of passengers and the same weight of material had been carried for the ordinary community the Government would have had quite a considerable profit, and that therefore the workmen, the wage earners, ought not to suffer because of that situation.

The Government, I suppose, if this question had been inquired into by the operation of such a Bill as this, would have had to produce documents, facts, particulars, and figures, or else the inquiry into the matter would have been a futile proceeding. So it would be in most inquiries, unless you could have documents furnished to reveal the truth to those who, as the Court, had the responsibility of making some real and important investigation. So I say that if my right hon. Friend deletes these other words, and the succeeding words, even words relating to the authentication of disputes and words relating to papers and books, and documents which are part of the subject-matter of the inquiry, he is so paring down the opportunities for real inquiry as to make it almost a futile proceeding to begin any investigation. For what purpose are you to call witnesses? Who would think of going into a Court of law on any other matter with the right to withhold the documents which contain the facts, and which alone are really the repositories of the truth? I suggest it would be fail-so to phrase the terms of this part of the Bill as to protect associations of employers as associations, to protect working men as associations acting through trade unions, with regard to the facts and figures, and data as to profits of firms or businesses, their position and wealth, and in regard to all these things provide the fullest possible opportunity for getting at the truth which the inquiry is instituted to reveal.

Sir E. POLLOCK

The right hon. Gentleman, as always, has made his point abundantly clear, but after listening to his clear and precise examination of the position, I feel satisfied that there is really no dispute between either side. He is anxious that this tribunal should have full materials—I use a neutral word—on which to judge what is the true position of either the employer or the employed. In an Amendment which comes later on the Paper it is sought to insert the words: Provided that no Order or requirement shall be made under this Sub-section with regard to confidential documents or confidential transactions of a trade union or association of employers. Will he allow me to remind him that the words "production of documents" is really a term of art? There is a precise ancillary to our procedure in the Courts of justice, whereby we provide that parties to a suit shall make what is known as a production of documents. They have to make an affidavit of documents; they have to send up all the documents relevant to the dispute, and the production of documents is a well known principle of the law used every day, and around it a great many rules have been made. My right hon. Friend says, "Well, I do not want to go to a point to which objection might be taken on the other side. I do not want to go so far as to say that an Order shall be made as to confidential documents or transactions; that would be going too far." But he says, and with abundant reason, "I do want to have production of such documents as may be necessary for the purpose of illustrating the facts." Take one illustration. He would desire to have, for instance, the published balance-sheets for several years, in order to show what had been the profits made by any particular firm or the amount put to reserve. Those would not be confidential documents, but they would illustrate the facts. He demands all that, quite rightly, but he says that we must make an alteration in this so that we do not go too far and ask for confidential documents. If we leave the words in the Bill "production of documents," primâ facie, that would carry with it the system that applies in the Law Courts, namely, the production of all documents, whether confidential or otherwise, which would be relevant to the issue. The proviso cuts down that production of documents. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is to leave in the words "production of documents," because we want a certain number of documents and prevent that production going too far. It is necessary to make rules of procedure for the Court as to the summoning of witnesses and the like. It is far better to leave out the words "production of documents" than to introduce a system which is well known and recognised, and then by a proviso cut it down to a point which would make it useless. So far as documents may be necessary for the purpose of informing the tribunal of the facts of the case, all those documents can still be produced, and no doubt would be produced, but the specific method of insisting on what is legally known as the production of documents would become unnecessary if that was to be safeguarded in the manner suggested. In the case of the Interim Courts of Arbitration there were no compulsory powers as to production, and they have been able to get at the facts and quite satisfactorily and safely. With these observations I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate it is not because there is really any difference, but because we do not desire to put in the Bill terms which would afterwards be contradicted by the proviso that we take out reference to the system of production of documents.

Mr. HODGE

I think the Solicitor-General has missed the point of my right hon. Friend's observations. In dealing with an employer who is a unit and has got to prove his case, we do not want the production of minute-books and other private documents of the association of employers, and which have got nothing to do with the dispute, and in the same way we want to protect the trade union from the production of similar documents. It would be a wrong thing for us to ask disclosure of documents relative to the em- plovers' association as such, and equally evil to ask trade unions to produce similar documents.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but what he has said does not really alter my opinion. It still seems to me to be quite unwise to introduce this system of the production of documents and then to introduce the proviso. I am quite certain the Courts will be able to ask for, and will receive, all the material documents which are relevant to enable it to get at the facts, without putting in a system which would be imperfectly worked and which is quite unnecessary to achieve the object in view.

Mr. HODGE

We are not the sinners, as would be assumed from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Sir E. POLLOCK

No.

Mr. HODGE

We'll, I think so. The words are in the Bill as printed, and it is the Government who are seeking to take them out, so that I think a good deal of the argument against us is based upon wrong grounds entirely. But it is no use trying to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Major BARNES

One cannot help wondering whether the deletion of these words is really done for the purpose of getting rid of the awkward proviso which would otherwise follow. I take it the great effect of dropping these words is that there would be no necessity for the proviso. I wanted to oppose the deletion of these words because I intended later to oppose the insertion, of the proviso. In the earlier stages of this Debate one or two hon. Members said that the chief reason for having this Court of Inquiry was not so much in the interests of the parties immediately concerned as of the general public. That being so, it seems to me that the value of these Courts of Inquiry to the general public is going to be very much diminished indeed by the dropping of these words or by the insertion of the proviso. It might very well be of the greatest possible interest and importance to the general public that every document should be produced, not only the documents of private employers, but of employers' federations and also trade unions, and one cannot help feeling just a little suspicious about the concern of my hon. Friends of the Labour party to protect the records of employers' federations. Recent inquiries have brought to light that there are many combinations or associations of employers which have a very real bearing upon trade and labour disputes, and it might be of the utmost importance in an inquiry that those conducting it should know something of what had been done in employers' associations and federations. There is another matter which conies very much to the fore in Labour disputes, and that is the charge that we hear all round about us to-day that a great many of these disputes arise from the action of the trade unions, that there are limitations-and regulations put upon output and production by the trade unions which form in many cases the basis of the disputes, and it would seem to me that in an inquiry it might be vital that there should be disclosed, if it exists, information of that kind, and that for this purpose the Court should have the fullest power of getting documents, not only from private employers but from employers' federations and equally from trade union associations. I regret, therefore, that the learned Solicitor-General intends to drop this Clause.

Mr. LANE-MITCHELL

Assuming that what the Solicitor-General has said is right, what power will the Court of Inquiry have to call for documents? It is not like an Arbitration Committee, which has optional power. It is compulsory for them to produce documents in this case, and you seem to fritter that away.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Colld we have some explanation of this? I gather it is not intended to give the Courts power to demand the production, of books and accounts.

Sir E. POLLOCK

If we leave out these words it does not at all mean that the Courts will not have the opportunity of calling for and obtaining the production of documents which are necessary. They would have in the ordinary course the ordinary power. For instance, if it is said before the Court that some agreement has been made, then in the ordinary course that would be produced. But the "production of documents" is something different. "Production of documents" as now known to the law is this: Before an action gets anywhere near the Law Courts, each party has to make an affidavit of all the documents, and after that they have to produce those documents, and then there is an opportunity of inspection. Under a compulsory system documents are first of all scheduled in an affidavit and can be inspected and required to be produced. That is what is called the system of "production of documents." But a great number of documents are ordinarily produced in the ordinary way without any compulsion at all, and with good will on both sides, because it is part of the necessary equipment of either side for the purpose of substantiating their case, and I think the slight confusion before the Committee arises from this. They seem to think that, unless you put in the words "production of documents," no documents will be produced. That is quite wrong. By putting in "production of documents," "authentication of documents" and so on, the draftsman must have supposed that, in addition to the question of compulsory summoning of witnesses, it was intended to give the Courts this full power of production of documents, and, as I pointed out, that appeared to go too far, and to impose too much compulsion. Therefore, it was determined to delete it, but when it is deleted that will not prevent the Court making use of documents which will be produced, and I have no doubt will be produced generously on both sides. Under Subsection (5) a Court of Inquiry may by order require the parties to furnish any books, papers, and other documents as the Court may require, which really means that if those documents were found necessary they would be produced. The confusion of the Committee arises from this: They assume that without the words "production of documents" no documents will be produced. That is not so. Documents will be available for the purposes of the Courts, but what it is intended to do is to avoid giving any colour that we are introducing into these Courts a system, which is a very highly finished system, of the Law Courts as to the production of documents.

Mr. THOMAS

The Solicitor-General has attempted to demonstrate one fact, namely, that, although he now proposes the deletion of certain words from the Bill referring to certain documents, that that does not mean that the Court will not have the same power, and the same authority.

Sir E. POLLOCK

dissented.

Mr. THOMAS

Certainly: but that is not so. We are, therefore, justified in pressing for the Government to carry out the original intention. Let us take an illustration of the present coal situation. Supposing the Miners' Federation and the coal-owners were to agree at the present moment to refer that important matter in dispute to this particular Court. It is alleged oil both sides that the Government's position is a wrong position. In the first place, the statement is made that there is no bargain in regard to limitation of profits. That is to say, the coal-owners distinctly say the statement that they are limited to 1s. 2d. is not true. This may be right or wrong, but that is their case. Then the Government, on the other hand, say that they are limited.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes)

That has never been settled. They will be limited. A Bill is to be introduced at an early date.

Mr. THOMAS

I am not concerned at the limiting, and as to whether or not it has been considered—whether that is or is not a fact. I am merely stating what is the public position at this moment. The public are under the impression, rightly or wrongly—

Sir A. GEDDES

Again, I know my right hon. Friend is not wishful to misrepresent the facts on what I said a moment ago. I merely said that the Government did not say so. I quite admit that the people are saying so.

Mr. THOMAS

Then there is a matter in dispute in regard to the coal-owners' profits? There is equally a matter in dispute as to the justification of the price the consumer is paying. Either side may be right or wrong. I am not arguing that. That can only be proved by documents, by evidence being produced. The Solicitor-General says we have had experience during the past four years, and on no occasion has it been necessary for the production of documents of this kind. That may be perfectly true, but you are here setting up by Act of Parliament an entirely different Court, and if confidence is to be established, not only between both sides, but on the part of the public as well, the latter must feel that everything in connection with the matter in dispute has not only been investigated, but that every opportunity for investigation has taken place. The difficulty the Committee is in at this moment is: Why did the Government themselves introduce these words? The Amendment has not come from us, but from the Government. Clearly the Government must have thought and believed when they introduced the Bill that those words were necessary. Hon. Members below the Gangway raised the point of the objection of trade unions to the Amendment. I say quite frankly that if all documents are to be produced that it should apply equally to both sides. There can be no exception to the rule. Every document in connection with our organisation is public property. They are published and printed, and I have no objection, as far as my union is concerned, to the restriction applying to us as it applies to the other side. I believe it will tend to general satisfaction if documents of all kinds are produced, and I see no reason for the omission of these words.

Mr. H. SMITH

I rise to make a suggestion to the Solicitor-General. I differ from the view which he takes in this discussion. He says that the Committee seem to think if these words are deleted no documents will be produced, but I do not think that that is the opinion of the Committee. Our fear is that if these words are deleted some valuable documents may be kept back. Unless you give the Court power to call for documents which are known to exist and which a party may be unwilling to produce, there is a genuine fear if you delete these words there will be no power under which the Court can call for some essential or valuable document. That is the fear of the Committee and which I hold myself. If there ever were issues in respect of which the whole of the facts ought to be laid before the Court they are to be found in the questions raised under this Bill. Let us get these documents so as to be able to get the true facts, and how can you ensure this unless you give to the Court power to demand documents which they know exist? Under this Bill as suggested they have no such power.

The Solicitor-General has based his objection largely on certain legal objections. He says that the words "production of documents" have a highly technical meaning. He and I know that you can read through some ten or twenty pages to show what is the meaning of "production of documents." If you use these words they must bear a technical meaning. I would remind the Solicitor-General that in the rules of the Supreme Court provision is made for the production of specific documents, and that is a different thing to the general production of documents, which is very complicated. There are rules in our Supreme Court which give power to call for specific documents, and why not insert tine word "specific" before "document"? That would mean that the parties would submit a request that certain documents should be produced, just as we go before the Master in Chambers and give reasons why a specific document should be produced—it may be an agreement, a letter, or something else. If they can show cause why for the settlement of a dispute some specific document should be produced, why not give them power to order it as opposed to the general production of documents? My suggestion will ensure that the Court has power to order any specific document, and I think that will avoid the difficulty raised by my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I am much obliged for my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, but as a matter of fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, He who complies against his will, Is of his own opinion still. My difficulty is that so long as we have these words "productions of documents" in, I feel sure that we are introducing a system which applies in the Courts amongst commercial people. Nothing is more objectionable, nothing is held to be more burdensome, and nothing consumes so much time as this system of the production of documents. Indeed, in the Commercial Court we have adopted a system under which we ask for specific documents in order to get round this very heavy burden which is imposed most unwillingly upon the commercial community and which they find involves them in great cost and to be very arduous. That is my difficulty, and, knowing a great deal more about that than hon. Members—because in my work at the Bar I have had a great deal to do with the production of documents—I am very reluctant to leave in those words. So far as I can learn—and I had nothing to do with the drafting—I find that the words "production of documents," "authentication of documents," and so on, have been introduced really as a form which had been used upon some previous occasion, and without carefully considering and weighing as they were each put forward. Are we to stand by that burdensome system? I feel sure that I have the whole sense of the Committee with me when I say that was not intended and that was not the purpose for which the production of documents is asked. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. H. Smith) suggests that we should use another term well known to the Law Courts and that we should put in "specific documents" or "documents specified." That would introduce another set or code of rules and would go beyond what, I. think, is necessary, because, if hon. Members will look at Sub-section (5), they will see the words to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars in relation thereto as the Court may require, and, where necessary, to attend before the Court and give evidence on oath. If that be carried out to the full, whenever documents are required in the course of an inquiry as incidental to the evidence given or as containing the materials upon which the evidence is based, the documents will be produced. I do not want, however, to introduce a system under which before the case goes to trial you may have "specific documents" or "documents specified" or all documents produced, because I know how burdensome that system is. If you leave these words out, you do not exclude a tribunal from seeing the documents, but you do take away from the tribunal a power which is burdensome and which in my opinion is unnecessary. I am quite ready to consider the position, but I cannot think that anything else is necessary. If, however, we leave out anything that is necessary, it will be possible to deal with it upon Report, but I really do urge the Committee to accept the proposition made to leave out these words because the system which would be introduced is so burdensome. It is upon that ground and no other ground that I urge the Commissioners to accept the view that I present to them. I am sorry to have intervened in the Debate so often. But the matter was one that required explanation, and I wanted to make it as clear as I could.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have listened with great attention to the honeyed phrases of the Solicitor-General, and I am more convinced than ever that these words are necessary in the Bill. Neither party to the dispute need go to the Court, but if they do go there then everything relating to the dispute ought to be laid on the Table. The learned Solicitor-General has spoken of the difficulties attendant on orders for the discovery of documents in Courts of Law. But this is not to be a Court of Law. I hope it will be a Court of Justice. On a previous Amendment the Minister of Labour joined with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton in saying they did not want lawyers to interfere in these disputes or have anything to do with them, and the Amendment which evoked that argument was negatived. It is to be open to the Minister of Labour to make rules for the production of documents, but what is really aimed at is the production of balance sheets. That is what we want to be made compulsory, and I hope my hon. Friends will insist on that. If the public read this Debate and understand that the Government after backing the Bill with these words we have now cut them out they will at once come to the conclusion it has been done in consequence of pressure. I see the Solicitor-General shakes his head, but that will be the opinion of the public. The "Daily Mail" will say it to-morrow. They are looking for weak points in the Government policy, and, inasmuch as the Opposition in the House is weak, we have to rely on the Press to help us. I believe similar words to these appear in the Profiteering Act; why not leave them in this? Half the problems in Labour disputes are based on a suspicion as to the enormous profits, made by certain firms which justify the demand for increased wages, and therefore I submit that the Government are not acting in the best interests of the nation in seeking to leave these words out.

Mr. CLYNES

We cannot allow this Amendment to be disposed of without expressing our keen disappointment with the explanations given as to what is meant by the Clause. If this Amendment stood alone, there would be something to be said for the explanations of the Solicitor-General, but it is one of several Amendments grouped together on the Order Paper. Those Amendments, if carried collectively, so pare down the terms of the Clause that all words relating not merely to documents but also to books and papers and the authentication of documents will be deleted. The only phrase used by the Solicitor-General was "production of documents." The proposed Amendments go further and will leave the Clause shorn of all reference to papers, books and the authentication of documents. Whereas the original wording of the Clause required persons to bring forward under the rules the books, documents and papers and the authentication of documents, with the Amendments the. Clause will merely empower the Court, when it thinks fit, to call upon persons to furnish in writing certain particulars. That is a substantial difference.

Mr. H. SMITH

That however under Sub-section (5) is only given to such an extent as may be authorised by the rules which we are now discussing in Subsection (4), so it is very much more whittled down than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) appears to have understood.

Mr. CLYNES

That supports the argument I was endeavouring to make. As the House has suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to make a good job of this Bill and as this inquiry is being forced upon us, we think that the Courts should have documentary powers adequate enough to lift these firms and businesses above the suspicion in which they rest in the minds of the working men. The working men suspect that the facts are not revealed in these inquiries that take place from time to time. The position is that if the right hon. Gentleman presses this Amendment he will be obliged to press the others [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. I imagine they were put on the Paper for some definite purpose. If he presses them we shall have to offer the strongest resistance we can to the thinning down of the Clause. It is an extraordinary thing that in so few lines as are contained in these two Sub-sections there should be so many Government Amendments. It is not a case of this proposal being subjected to great haste. Bits of phrases in other Bills have been collected together in this extraordinary document and only when we come to examine them do we find what is really meant. There is a number of Government Amendments, which, if carried, will take the substance out of the inquiry of the Court. I therefore trust the right hon. Gentleman can see his way not to press the Amendments on the Committee.

11.0 P.M.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I am very reluctant to appear to neglect any suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman. We are very anxious indeed to make the Courts as powerful as may be for the purpose of dealing with the cases which may be brought before them, and anything which would shake the confidence of the public in the Courts would be disastrous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has handed me the Profiteering Act, but I find the words there are not, "the production of documents." It does not include what I have indicated as the legal system of the production of documents. It is a very different phrase. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me if in matters of law I prefer to rely on my own opinion. When I put out to sea with him I will give him full command, but when he comes into the Law Courts he would think very poorly of me if I did not know quite as much about the production of documents as he does, and though I gather that he has been a successful litigant on some occasions, I do not quite know whether that gives him the same kind of experience as something like thirty-five years in the Law Courts has given me. He suggests that I shall find something from the Profiteering Act. I find the words there are "and produce such documents as they may require "— that is as the Court may require. It occurs to me that we might insert the words "and requiring the production of such documents as they may require." I think that would meet the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I think they would have that actual power, but in order that there may be no mistake about it I should be quite ready to put those words in on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir R. HORNE

I beg to move, to leave out the words "authentication of documents."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

May I ask the Solicitor-General also to amend these words, on Report so as to include the authentication of such documents as are required, and so make the ship quite watertight.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I will not rule that out. I do not wish to take up any hard and fast attitude. The meaning of authentication of documents is that copies should be accepted instead of originals. I think both sides would probably prefer the original documents. During the War we have sometimes used copies in the Courts, but I think both sides would prefer the originals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), leave out the words "the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitors."

In Sub-sction (5), leave out the words "the production of any books, papers, and other documents relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry, and require."

Leave out the word "that" ["knowledge of that"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."

After the word "subject-matter," insert the words "of the inquiry."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Mr. HODGE

I beg to move, after the word "purpose" ["for that purpose "], to insert the words Provided that no Order or requirement shall be made under this Sub-section with regard to confidential documents or confidential transactions of a trade union or association of employers. As far as the Association of Employers is concerned, it would be wrong to argue that they should disclose anything of a confidential nature which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the dispute. The same argument would apply with respect to a trade union. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks this proviso is not necessary I will not press it. I move it so that he may have an opportunity of saying what would be the effect of the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment, in order that I may explain my view. I do not think the proviso is necessary, and it would be unfortunate if it was introduced. The suggestion I have made, and which the Committee was good enough to accept, is that it will be in the power of the Court to require the production of documents. I put that in the hands of the Court. The Court may make an Order, and if it makes an Order for any particular document either side may argue that that was not really germane to the inquiry, that it was a private document of a confidential nature and that the Order ought not to be made except in a modified form or in an exclusive form. There the discretion of the Court will be brought into play. If you put in the proviso you put in words which are by no means easy to interpret, namely, "confidential" and "confidential transaction," and I think it would rather fetter the discretion of the Court. In some cases they might wish to have a document produced that might be very relevant to the issue, but about which, on the other hand, a claim might be made that it was a confidential document. If the Court was so minded that documents should be produced, it would be unfortunate if they were not to be produced. If, on the other hand, you were to put in this proviso, it would defeat the object in view that all proper documents may properly be required by order of the Court, and it is better to leave the matter to the discretion and sense of justice of the tribunal rather than ourselves to introduce some words the meaning of which it would not be easy to decide.

Mr. HODGE

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. YOUNG

I beg to move, to leave out the words If any person fails to comply with any Order of the Court under this Sub-section, or furnishes any particulars which are false or misleading or gives any evidence which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. If we are asked to have confidence in those who ask for evidence, we should also have confidence that those who are asked to provide evidence will provide that evidence. There should be no compulsion attached. This is the worst form of compulsion—fining £50 or awarding imprisonment for a month. I assume that the £50 applies to the employers, and the month in gaol to the workers. We wish to keep the measure purely voluntary for every class.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I am not quite certain that the hon. Member appreciates what would be the effect if this Amendment were accepted. He was good enough to make a passing jest as to the punishment to be meted out to one side or the other, but metaphorical observations of that sort do not help us to understand the Bill. We have got to this point, that both sides have gone to a Court, and have determined to make use of the powers of that Court. It is a tribunal in which both sides have confidence, and they have determined that in older to ascertain the exact position it is right to go to this Court. There has been common consent that the Court should have power to summon witnesses, and, if it thinks right, require the production of documents, and are we then, by taking out the words indicated in this Amendment, to say that such a Court, in winch both sides have confidence, which both sides are anxious should arrive at the truth and should have facilities for arriving at the truth should not hare power to deal with persons who gave false evidence? I should have thought that the very fact that we had set up this tribunal and had invited it to act was a reason for saying we ought to safeguard it against being misled by false evidence which is false to the knowledge of the person who places it before the Court. I invite the Committee, under these circumstances, to hesitate before they vary these words, because what is worth setting up—the Court of Inquiry—is also worth protecting on both sides.

Captain W. BENN.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is a Court which has been set up with the consent of both sides, and he says that if people appear before it, it is only reasonable to penalise them if they make false statements. That is a perfect case. But I have read this Clause. It says that the Court may be set up "whether or not the dispute is reported to him." So far as I can understand it, he may set up the Court and he may say to one of the parties "you must appear," and if the party says he will not appear he can be penalised. Is that a correct statement of the case?

Mr. JOHNSTONE

I was just going to make the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. I think the learned Solicitor-General is confusing the Industrial Court with the Court of Inquiry. In the case of the Industrial Court it is provided that both parties shall assent, but in the case of the Court of Inquiry the Minister can set it up at his own discretion. He then summons persons to the Court. They have no option. There you have the element of compulsion brought into the measure—an element that is disastrous to the spirit of conciliation. Not for giving false evidence but merely for failing to appear they are liable to fine or imprisonment. After hearing the discussion I am more and more convinced that this compulsory Court of Inquiry is hostile to the whole spirit of conciliation which should animate the procedure under the Bill.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I think the hon. Member has properly called my attention to the fact that I have probably gone too far, and I am much obliged to him for his statement. On the other hand, if he will allow me to say so, I do not think he has gone far enough. He says that it is the Minister who is to hale persons before the Court of Inquiry.

Mr. JOHNSTONE

I said he sets up the Court.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Although I may have gone too far—and I apologise to the Committee at once—at the same time I do not go back on the sense of what I said, because the position is this: Here is a Court of Inquiry to which the Committee are assenting, and this Court of Inquiry is seized of this subject matter which they are to inquire into. There are also given to the Court certain powers for the purpose of ascertaining the true and accurate facts. Then an Order is made not by any Department, but by the Court under the Sub-section. In what spirit does the Court make the Order? For the purpose of making the inquiry complete. The Court, having made the Order, ought to be protected, and we ought not to allow the Order to be disobeyed or the Court to be misled by false evidence.

Mr. HENDERSON

The Solicitor-General appears to think that the only thing in this Clause is a question of false evidence. There is something more important to the vast body of the workers. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman notice that if they merely fail to carry out an Order of the Court they may be subjected to this fine? I understood the Minister was exceedingly anxious to experiment on this form of legislation of Courts of Inquiry. I said earlier I thought Courts of Inquiry properly constituted and conducted might serve a very useful purpose. I repeat that; but surely to begin this experiment by telling the trade union officials of this country if a Court, the constitution and composition of which we know nothing at the moment because it is left to the Minister to appoint whom he thinks fit, issues an Order that the trade union secretary, who cannot yet have received sanction and authority from his executive, is to be subject to a fine of £50, is surely a new method of dealing with the trade union movement in this country. I have been associated with the trade union movement for thirty-six years, and I must say I have not seen any attempt to deal with the movement in this way by any Government previous to this Government. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to see the point the Labour party apprehends in this Sub-section, and the reason for which we seek its deletion. It is not so long ago since the Government told us that no body of officials assisted so much as the trade union officials, both the country and the Government of the country during the five years of crisis through which we have passed, and now they are to have served out to them a policy dictated by fear, and in this spirit of fear, if the trade union official does not toe the line, then for the first time he has got to be the victim of a fine of £50 or imprisonment. It would be imprisonment, for, as the Mover of the deletion said, £50 fine was for the employer who could pay, and imprisonment was for the man who could not, and that was the trade union official. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to put on his beet attitude for once, and see whether he cannot accept this Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I responded once, and it is not too late to do so again. I am quite ready to see if I can meet the point. I think on the whole the observations I have made would be carried if we left out the words "fails to comply with any Order of the Court," and then the Clause would read, "If any person furnishes any particulars which are false or gives any evidence which is false in any material particular." I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether that does not exactly meet his point, because it is not a question of disobeying an Order, but only where a man wilfully furnishes false particulars or gives false evidence. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would join in deprecating that as strongly as I do. The purpose I have indicated in the Clause would be served in that way. I would ask the hon. Member to move his Amendment in that way.

Mr. R. YOUNG

In the circumstances, I should wish to withdraw my Amendment.

Major HILLS

Before that is done, and since my hon. and learned Friend has gone so far, would it not be really best to omit the whole Sub-section? I will tell the Committee why. You do not want protection against perjury or production of false documents for by the preceding Subsection the Court can compel all evidence to be taken on oath, and can compel documents to be verified on oath. That being so, does not this Clause savour of compulsion? Will not this Clause be read as a compulsory Clause? I want the Bill to be free from all suspicion of compulsion. I agree it may not be a very stringent Clause, but still, it will be so read, and the trade union official will think, if he makes a mistake in his evidence or in the documents which he puts forward, he can be sent to prison for a month or fined £50. I submit that you have got all the power you want, and I ask whether you cannot leave the whole Sub-section out?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I hope the Government will accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. If they do so they will make their own Bill very much more consistent, because if the Solicitor-General looks at Clause 5 he will see that nobody is allowed to disclose any confidential information. There is no sanction and no penalty, and in that case it is merely a pious wish, and if you do not impose any penalty on anybody for disclosing the most confidential and secret information, thereby very likely leading to the ruin of some particular firm, I do not see why you should go out of your way to impose a special penalty in the other Clause. I think we ought either to take out the penalty here or to put a penalty in the other Clause; as a matter of fact, I have handed in a manuscript Amendment putting a penalty in the other Clause to make the Bill read consistently, but I think it would be a better plan to wipe out the penalty in this Clause.

Sir R. HORNE

I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion which has just been made. It is perfectly plain, I think, that with the Sub-section cut down as proposed, there is little to be gained by its retention, and accordingly I am prepared to assent to the leaving out of the Sub-section.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR

There is nothing now to compel any person who may be required by the Court to attend. He may not turn up at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.