HC Deb 25 July 1946 vol 426 cc357-8

Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 26, leave out from "examined" to end of line 28.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Griffiths.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller

This Amendment deals with a matter which was raised at considerable length on the Committee and Report stages with regard to the powers of inspectors to compel a person to sign a declaration of the truth of the matter in respect of which he is so examined. I think that the power of enforcing a signature to a document prepared by someone else is a novel one to British law, and I am glad that, at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Lords Amendment that it should be deleted.

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 1, leave out "fails" and insert "refuses or neglects".

Mr. Lindgren

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

This brings the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill into line with the National Insurance Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I think that we should have a word of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Law Officers, as to the precise meaning of: neglects to answer any question. One can understand the refusal to answer a question. If that refusal, in the circumstances, constitutes a criminal offence a person is liable to a fine not exceeding £10 for a first offence and not exceeding £50 in the case of a second or subsequent offence. Presumably, if one refuses to answer two questions in the course of this examination one can become liable to a penalty of £60. What is meant by "neglecting to answer a question"? Supposing a person is asked a question—and remember this is a criminal offence—and says, "I should like to have notice of that question," will that person be guilty of a criminal offence? Again, should he say, "I should like to see that question written down so that I can consider it," would that be a criminal offence? I think we should have an answer to that.

Mr. J. Griffiths

There was considerable discussion and complaint about the original words and I was pressed by hon. Members on more than one side of the Committee, and particularly hon. and learned Members, to make the position more clear. It was said that a man might fail to answer a question because there was no answer. I was asked to do something positive so I have put in these words "refuses or neglects," and I thought by so doing I would meet hon. and learned Members in this matter. I hope that they will accept the words.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

From what the right hon. Gentleman says it is not very clear to me why "refuses" is not sufficient for his purpose. As it stood, if a man refused to answer a question I think it was perfectly clear and anyone can see if he refused he was criminally liable. Why not stop there?

Mr. Griffiths

I can answer that at once. My legal advisers stated that we should not stop there.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Did they give any reason?