HC Deb 20 May 1936 vol 312 cc1335-7

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 4, leave out other than paragraph (a) of Section two thereof.

11.30 p.m.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment merely alters the procedure of the Tribunal and the conditions under which they take evidence, requiring that an order under this Section shall be laid before Parliament and thereby increasing the control of Parliament over the whole proceedings of the Sugar Commission.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER

While welcoming the fact that this provision is put in, especially as we tried to get it in ourselves in Committee, I am at a loss to understand why the Sub-section of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act has been turned round by the Government. What is the subtle reason for not adopting the whole of the Section of the Act of 1921? I hope the Minister knows the answer. I do not.

The actual Section of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act says that they shall not refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any proceedings of the Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is expedient to do so. As the Bill is now amended by the Lords Amendment, it says that they may refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present. What is the reason for adopting this new form of procedure and not adopting the procedure in regard to the rest of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act?

11.33 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)

The reason why the original paragraph (a) of the Act of 1921 was omitted altogether was that there might be frequent occasions when information would be required by the commission of a confidential character to the trade concerned, which it would be quite reasonable should not be made public. It was suggested that when the Amendment was moved in Committee it was going too far and that the commission ought to be limited in regard to the evidence in respect of which they could exclude the public. The Act of 1921 would only entitle them to exclude the public if it was in the public interest so to do, and it was felt that many occasions would arise when it would be proper to exclude them on account of the confidential nature or the evidence given in regard to the trade concerned.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The Amendment of the Lords is much less acceptable than the form we desired to give it in Committee, and having regard to the nature of the proposed change, we object strongly to it. We object to giving any further protection to private trading interests in inquiries of this kind. I thought there was a catch in it, and that is the particular catch. It has come quite suddenly, and I almost think I ought to advise my friends to divide against it.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 8, at the end, insert: Provided that—

  1. (a) that Act in its application to the Commission shall have effect as if for paragraph (a) of Section two thereof there were substituted the following paragraph:
    1. (a) may refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the Commission only if in the opinion of the Commission it is necessary so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given;
  2. (b) any order made under this Subsection shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it resolves that the order be annulled it shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order."

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Elliot.]