HC Deb 05 June 1947 vol 438 cc505-12
Colonel Clarke

I beg to move, in page 59, line it, at the end, to insert: Provided that a copy of such report shall, at the request of any person who was a party to such reference, be supplied by the Tribunal to that, person The land tribunal, in a sense, passes judgment on a man. Therefore, we think it is desirable that there should be available to all the parties appearing before it a copy of the judgment. We realise that it may be the intention of the Government to provide for this by orders for the procedure of tribunals, and, if so, perhaps the Minister will give an assurance to that effect? We feel that anybody who comes before a tribunal, and receives a judgment, should have a copy of it as he would have in any other court of law.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I beg to second Amendment.

The point about which I am afraid in regard to these tribunals, from which appeal is refused, is that there is a certain amount of question as to the privacy with which they are to be conducted. The one thing one has to avoid is any appearance of their being a kind of Star Chamber. When the appellant goes to the tribunal, he should have the right to know exactly what report is made. It would be only fair, open and aboveboard. He is entitled to know on what basis the Minister takes such action as he may pursue as a result of the tribunal's consideration.

Mr. T. Williams

I rather think that a provision of this kind would be undesirable. After all, the tribunal's report is to the Minister, and the contents must be regarded as confidential. All that the applicant requires to know is what decision the tribunal has reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That decision is conveyed to him. Hon. Members will recall that they were anxious that the decision of appeal tribunals should be final and binding upon the Minister. They are final and binding upon the Minister. Therefore, the decision of the tribunal is final. There is no appeal against it. If the Minister had to send a copy of the detailed report of the tribunal to the applicant, it would, I feel, influence the tribunal when they were sending their report to the Minister. I repeat, since the appeal is final and binding upon both the applicant and the Minister, that the report of the tribunal must remain a confidential matter.

Major Mott-Radclyffe

The right hon. Gentleman's argument is astounding. The right hon. Gentleman has already refused an Amendment from this side proposing appeal to a court of law after a case has been turned down by the tribunal. He is now asking us to accept the extraordinary position that where a dispossession order is made and an appeal goes to a tribunal, the report shall not be published but shall be confidential to the Minister, to use his own words. The unfortunate individual, whether he be landowner or tenant, concerned in the appeal is merely to be told by the Minister whether the answer is "Yes" or "No," according to the way in which the tribunal has decided, upon the evidence before it.

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman—I should not have thought it necessary for him to be reminded—of the fact that in any other court of law all the evidence is published. If an appeal goes to a county court or to the House of Lords, all the evidence is printed for the public to read so that everybody can know every item of the evidence that has been submitted. The ultimate sanction of dispossession is a very serious one to inflict upon an individual, and we are now told that the proceedings may not be published but are to be sent confidentially to the Minister. The unfortunate individual concerned has to be satisfied with knowing the result. No one who is concerned with the case is to have any opportunity of reading the evidence or to have any idea of the basis, whether legal or factual, upon which the decision was taken. This is a most astonishing performance, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I support this Amendment. In my opinion, a very important principle is involved here. Here we have tile submission of a question, which may be of the greatest importance to the parties involved, to an agricultural land tribunal, a properly constituted judicial body. It is perfectly possible for this tribunal in coming to its decision to act on an entirely wrong principle, or to make a mistake. If that occurs, the decision it has given is given behind closed doors. The person who is a party to it does not get to know the grounds of the decision, and if some wrong principle has been pursued, or some grievous mistake has been made, he has no right to raise the matter, or challenge it in any way. That seems to me to be so utterly contrary to every legal principle and judicial practice that I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. It cannot be right to come to decisions of this kind behind closed doors.

Why cannot this be done in the open? The party concerned is entitled to know why the decision has been arrived at. There is no need to go into detail. If there is something of a private nature, that has nothing to do with this report. The idea that this should be a confidential report to the Minister shocks all my ideas of judicial practice. I cannot help feeling that the Minister has not looked into this matter very thoroughly, because it is quite contrary to what the Clause should be. I ask him to look at it again, and to alter it so that the party concerned will know the grounds on which the decision has been made.

Captain Crookshank

I hope we shall not get into too much of a tangle over this. I do not know that we have all thought of this tribunal exactly as the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has thought of it, as a judicial inquiry. The Minister said on a previous Amendment that these hearings were to be in public. Therefore, to that extent, anyone interested will know what goes on. In order that we should not get into a tangle, I would like the Minister to tell us what he anticipates would happen under Clause 71. The Bill says that the tribunal shall determine whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled, and whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed. Having determined that, they report to the Minister, and the Minister has no option but to act in accordance with what they have decided. There is no question of appeal here. In the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, we discussed the question of appeal to a court of law. Unfortunately, we were defeated. I have no doubt he would have supported us on that occasion.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I was not here.

Captain Crookshank

A grave dereliction of duty. Having, had the hearing, which the Minister has told us is to be public, the tribunal has to decide whether it is satisfied that certain conditions about which the Minister has to be satisfied have been fulfilled, and whether what the Minister proposes to do should or should not be done. The Minister must know the sort of ideas that he would like the land tribunal to carry out. Is it his idea that there should be an enormously long report on every case from the tribunal, or might it be a case of Question A, "Yes" or "No"; question B, "Yes" or "No"? If it is as short as that, I do not think that the question of a copy going to anybody makes so very much difference, because as the Minister, under the Bill, has to carry out the instructions of the tribunal, the short answer "Yes" or "No" will obviously be conveyed to the person who has made the reference to the tribunal.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has understood the point.

Captain Crookshank

I am asking the Minister for his point of view. If I am wrong, he will tell me so. I do not want two people to tell me that I am wrong. I am asking the Minister whether, in fact, he thinks there will be a long report on these cases from the tribunal, or whether he merely expects "Yes" or "No," because on the answer to that turns the importance of this Amendment. If there are to be arguments, so to speak, thrashed out like a judgment from the House of Lords, with everybody giving his views, that is one thing. If it is a case of a short answer being given that the Minister is right or wrong, I do not think it is frightfully important that the persons concerned should have a copy. If a long report is to come from the tribunal, I should be inclined to say that my hon. Friends have got on to a good point in this Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams

The appeal tribunal is a perfectly independent body. It will, therefore, decide whether to send a very formal report, which means "Yes" or "No," to the Minister, or whether the report should be more detailed. There are no instructions to them, and, consequently, it is left entirely within their authority. Therefore, I do not see the substance of sending reports to the appellant. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) said that his judicial ideas were all shocked; they are frequently shocked. If I were taken to court either for driving too fast, which is not too likely, or consuming too much liquor, which again is not very likely, and if I were fined£5 and costs, I should know all about it, and that would be the only report I should have.

Mr. Byers

Some of these decisions by the agricultural land tribunals will deal with dispossession, which is a much bigger matter than the Minister has suggested. I understand that in certain cases reasons will be given, but given secretly. I quite accept the argument about the formal decisions, but if reasons are given, has not the appellant the right to know?

Mr. Williams

It makes very little difference whether he does or not. Hon. Members insisted upon the decisions of the appeal tribunals being final and binding on the Minister. The Minister, therefore, has no say once a decision has been given. Accordingly, it is only the decision that matters, and the Minister is powerless to interfere, as is the applicant.

Mr. Byers

But does not the Minister see that if reasons are to be given in secret, justice will not seem to be done? That is the point.

Mr. Williams

The hon. Member is wrong, because as I explained a few minutes ago, of the last 26 cases dealt with, 17 were dealt with in public with the approval and assent of the applicants. All the evidence was given there.

Mr. Byers

That is not a report.

Mr. Williams

But the case is dealt with and the evidence for and against is given in public. Nine of them were held in private at the request of the applicant himself, but he heard all the evidence given for and against him. Therefore, he knew all the facts and there was nothing that could interest him beyond, the final decision. I hate to detain the House at this late hour, but I could quote from a case which I have here. I sought to ascertain, case by case, how things were working out and whether the results were fair and reasonable. There was a case where a person was taken before a tribunal and, in their wisdom, the tribunal thought they ought to suspend for a time and invite the county executive committee to give that same person another direction for another short period to see how he went on. That demonstrates the informality of these appeal tribunals. There can be nothing harsh about them and nothing to shock the judicial instincts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).

Mr. Turner-Samuels

The Minister is going on the principle that the decision of the tribunal is binding upon him. That is not the point. The point is that, if reasons are stated, they may be based upon a wrong principle or upon a mistake. The party who suffers by that would then challenge that decision. That is the point. But if it is secret—

Mr. Williams

Where would it be challenged?

Mr. Turner-Samuels

In the courts.

Mr. Speaker

I would remind hon. Members that we are now on Report stage; we are not in Committee.

General Sir George Jeffreys (Petersfield)

I beg the Minister to reconsider his attitude. One point which might weigh with him is that if this Amendment were accepted and if these reports were to be made, it would not in any way weaken the position of the tribunal. It would give practically no extra trouble to anybody, but it would give great satisfaction to those immediately concerned. There is a feeling on both sides of the House in favour of the Amendment. It is a thing which would cost no money and little extra trouble. Will not the Minister consent to these reports being published and furnished to the people concerned? I think many hon. Members know that one of the weaknesses of the war agricultural committees has been the atmosphere of secrecy in which they have worked. All kinds of rumours have got about in counties and districts about the reasons which have actuated the war agricultural committees in arriving at certain decisions. It is better that the reasons should be known publicly and that there should be no doubt in the minds of those concerned.

Mr. T. Williams

I do not feel the necessity for accepting the Amendment. However, I will gladly undertake to see what is possible, after consultation with the chairmen of a few of these tribunals.

Colonel Clarke

In view of that promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.