HC Deb 18 March 1932 vol 263 cc642-9
Mr. D. GRENFELL

I beg to move, in page 20, line 1, after the word "notice," to insert the words "in writing."

Our intention is to make quite certain that the notice to be served shall specify in writing the kind of information that will be required. We think it very important that no person shall be subject to penalties or even to proceedings which may lead to penalties unless he has been given full warning of what the Minister requires. The penalties that may be imposed are very heavy. Under Sub-section (1, d) the person will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine. Will the Minister say what kind of information he has in mind? Paragraph (d) says that a person is liable to penalties if he, being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, knowingly furnishes false information, or being so required as aforesaid produce any accounts, books or other documents, knowingly produces any false accounts, books or other documents. 1.30 p.m.

We should like to know whether there is a possibility that a person may produce information of a general kind and not the sort of information required, not having been told specifically what was required, and that he may be held to have been guilty of giving false information. The danger could be easily obviated if the person from whom the information was required was given protection by the notice served upon him stating exactly the kind of information required. If a simple notice were served upon him and there was no clear indication that accounts, books or any documents were required, the person might be put in a very dangerous position. The farmer who will be liable to penalty may not keep books. He is not usually a methodical book-keeper. He trusts to the ordinary methods of dealing between himself and those with whom he does business, and very often he lacks even the simplest form of business method. The Minister will protect the farmer and any other person concerned by making quite sure that there is no possibility of mistake being made in the form of the notice or the response which the person may make.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)

I think the hon. Member can rest fully assured that his point is covered. Paragraph (d) relates entirely to Clause 10 (1.b), which begins with the words by notice in writing. … There is nothing in the Sub-section which we are now discussing which enlarges the Commissioner's power in this respect. The use of the word "served", in paragraph (d) covers the point raised by the hon. Member, because you cannot serve orally; you must serve in writing.

Mr. GRENFELL

After the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GEORGE HALL

I do not rise to oppose the Clause. We think that this penalty Clause is necessary. The first line of the Clause reads: If any person with intent to deceive— We had expected from the attitude of the Minister, as expressed in various debates, that he could trust the parties to the various agreements whom he has consulted, but according to this Clause we find that it is necessary to protect the consumers who will make the contributions to meet the quota payments. These powers are necessary in order that proceedings may be taken against those who are guilty of forgery, or who withhold the quota payment. Yesterday when we asked the Minister of Agriculture that the undertaking given by the millers and farmers that very little would be added to the price other than was customary in oases of this kind, and the undertaking with regard to the export of offal, should be embodied in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that the millers and farmers could be trusted to carry out the undertakings which they had given. It is evident, however, from this Clause that the right hon. Gentleman does not altogether trust the farmers and the millers. There may be some black sheep amongst them. The first part of the Clause deals with the issue or withholding of any certificate. This might possibly lead to abuse. In paragraph (a) we are told that if any person with intent to deceive— forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used by any other person any certificate, receipt or other document issued under this Act or under the byelaws of the Wheat Commission;"— and not only that, or makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a certificate, receipt or other document as to be calculated to deceive; or knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining any such certificate, receipt, or other document or any payment payable under this Act or under the byelaws of the Wheat Commission; or being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, knowingly furnishes false information, or being so required as aforesaid to produce any accounts, books or other documents, knowingly produces any false accounts, books or other documents; he shall, unless indicted for the offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine. We feel that these powers are very necessary. Then we pass to the question of the avoidance of quota payments. The Bill says: If any miller or importer of flour, with intent to avoid payment of quota payments or otherwise with intent to deceive, contravenes or fails to comply with the byelaws of the Wheat Commission as to the time at which or the manner in which such payments are to he made, he shall be guilty of an offence. There is a penalty for this offence. We are not complaining. The only question I want to put is why the penalties vary so much in this Clause. In the first Subsection the person who contravenes any of the provisions of the Clause is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or three months imprisonment or to both such fine and imprisonment, but in Sub-section (3) the miller or importer of flour who intends to avoid payment of the quota payments is to be liable to a fine on summary conviction of an amount not exceeding three times the amount due as quota payment, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment, and the flour is to be forfeited to the Wheat Commission who may dispose of it as they think fit. In Subsection (4) the person who is guilty of making a false return is to be liable to a fine not exceeding £5 in the first case and in the second case to a fine not ex- ceeding £50. Then we come to Subsection (5) which deals with the body corporate, and if the offence has been proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. It is strange that there should be this variety of punishment for offences under this Clause, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman why the penalties vary so much.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY

I notice that under Sub-section (1) the penalties provided are subject to the words "on summary conviction." I should like to ask what the penalties are if proceedings are taken on indictment. There is only one penalty for offences under the first three paragraphs dealt with on summary conviction, although they are offences very different in character and degree. I can only assume that if the proceedings are on indictment it is left to the general law. So far as the general law is concerned, for the offence of forgery there are very severe penalties indeed. These other offences under the Bill would be misdemeanours and subject to a much less penalty. I should like to know why there is one maximum penalty provided for offences under the Bill on summary proceedings whereas if you proceed by indictment there is such an extreme difference in the penalties. I take it that the answer to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) is that as the offences are of a varying character the penalties also vary.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

We rather welcome what we regard as a first step in the direction of controlling agriculture in some form or other. I am sure that the Minister's party would never permit a Labour Government to introduce into any Bill a Clause which appeared to be so repressive of their agricultural friends. This happens to be the first step permitted by the National Government, and we welcome it because there is no knowing where is may ultimately lead. I agree that many of the penalties seem somewhat stringent and severe. The fact that the Government are starting now to control agriculture, compelling farmers to produce books, documents and certificates and to keep accounts of their transactions, and that if they fail to do these things very heavy penalties can be inflicted, is perhaps a step in the right direction that may be improved upon by a later Government. I notice that when the farmer forges, uses or deals with any certificate or other document he is liable to three months' hard labour. That ought to be a very salutary warning to the farmer.

If the farmer makes use of or has in his possession any document which even resembles a certificate, he is liable to a very heavy fine and three months' imprisonment. If he makes a false statement knowingly again he is liable to very heavy punishment. If he fails to furnish information or furnishes false information, or if he fails to produce accounts, books and other documents, the poor fellow has to go to the courts, and his housing problem will be solved for him for three months. The inspiration seems to be to persuade the farmers by these means to produce books, documents, accounts and that kind of thing. It is a step in the right direction. We hope that no farmer will ever be removed from his farm and placed in prison as a result of his clerical ignorance or incapacity to provide the necessary accounts and that sort of thing. We would be the first to sympathise with him in such a case. But, since the warning is here, there is real hope that in future farmers may keep accounts, so that they will know which of their transactions have been sound and which have been unsound, and that this repressive Clause, with all its dangerous consequences, may ultimately lead to good.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

If I may use a common phrase, I think the hon. Member has rather over-egged the pudding. This is the sort of penal Clause that is found in many Bills to make sure that real evasions of the law and real criminal acts are not done. Obviously the Clause has to be rather widely and vaguely worded, because the circumstances vary so much. The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) was the point made by the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion. In Sub-section (1, a) you have the words: forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used. These words cover a very wide possible range of offences. I think it is clear that if there was a gross forgery the procedure would be by an indictment, and the offender would get a very heavy sentence, very much heavier than the sentences set out in detail in the Clause for offences that would be dealt with by a summary jurisdiction court. We hope that it will never happen, but it is quite possible that if a man deliberately set out to forge certificates there would have to be a procedure by indictment. Equally there may be cases—I will not say due to something more than negligence, because the whole of this first Sub-section is governed by the words "with intent to deceive"—which will go to summary jurisdiction courts, where the magistrate will have discretion to inflict punishment up to a £100 fine or three months' imprisonment. In the later Sub-sections of the Clause there are various penalties imposed having regard to the kind of offence committed under any one of these Subsections.

The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion drew special attention to Subsection (5). As I understand it, the whole meaning of Sub-section (5) is that an individual as well as a body corporate, that is a servant of a body corporate, if he commits any of the offences under the earlier part of this Clause, shall be dealt with either as well as the body corporate or individually, and can be punished in accordance with the degree of offence under the previous Sub-sections of the Clause. That is all that Sub-section (5) means. This is the kind of penalty Clause inevitably found in all these Acts in case there are black sheep in any fold. It is intended to make the thing watertight and to prevent any new Act of Parliament like this being exploited by evilly-disposed persons, and so bringing not only themselves but the whole scheme into discredit by doing an anti-social act which would be an injustice to other people.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

In Sub-section (1, a) the first words deal with the offence of forgery. The rest of the Clause does not deal with forgery. Is it a proper thing to include in one Clause two offences where one is a felony and the other a misdemeanour? I suggest to the Minister that before the Report stage he should consult with his legal advisers on the matter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I shall certainly consult the drafters of the Bill and our legal advisers on that point between now and the Report stage. The object of putting these words in here is to bring together the offences dealing with certificates and documents, either the forging of a document or the committing of some misdemeanour much less than forgery.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will succeed in making watertight the fold in which the black sheep are to be placed.