CLAUSE 26.—(Establishment of Electricity Arbitration Tribunal.) (Hansard, 25 June 1947)

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, in page 39, line 40, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert: (2) The arbitration tribunal shall, as the Lord Chancellor may direct, either sit as a single tribunal or sit in two or more divisions, and shall, for the hearing of any proceedings, be constituted as follows: —

(a) one member shall be a person of legal experience and he shall be the president of the tribunal;

(b) there shall be two other members of whom one shall be a person of experience in business and the other shall be a person of experience in finance;
Provided that, in relation to any proceedings which, under the provisions of Subsection (4) of this Section, are required to be held in Scotland, the member who is a person of legal experience shall be a person of legal experience in Scotland. 567 (3) The members of the tribunal shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, except that any member or members appointed as being a person or persons of legal experience in Scotland shall be appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and any member appointed by the Lord President shall only act in relation to proceedings which are required as aforesaid to be held in Scotland. This Amendment is designed to carry out an undertaking given during the Committee stage of the discussions when we were looking at the Clause which deals with the constitution of the Arbitration Tribunal. Hon. Members then pressed me to accept the principle that the arbitration tribunal should sit, in case of need, in two or more divisions. As the Clause reads at the moment, only one division is provided for, and the Amendment carries out the undertaking which I gave to consider whether that would be possible by providing that there shall be power vested in the Lord Chancellor to direct that the tribunal shall sit in one or more divisions according to need.

§ Mr. J. Foster
I would like to ask the hon. and learned 'Solicitor-General what he has in mind in connection with the words "legal experience." It is usual to say in such a Clause that it must be a solicitor with so many years' experience. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman in mind persons other than barristers and solicitors, such as people who have been town clerks, and so on? Perhaps the Minister has a particular definition in mind.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I am very glad that the Solicitor-General has moved this Amendment which, as he says, is in response to representations which were very strongly made in Committee. The only point I wish to make is that in resisting a very similar Amendment in Committee, he said that there would not be sufficient work to justify the tribunal sitting in two divisions. Does this change of front on the part of the Government mean that they have altered their view on that, and is there any reason now to apprehend that there will be more work than was then thought, and, if so, what will be the nature of that work?

§ Mr. Sidney Marshall (Sutton and Cheam)
When the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is making his reply about the words "legal experience," 568 perhaps he will also say what is meant by: a person of experience in business and by: a person of experience in finance I had an idea that they were closely associated. This is the first time that I have seen them so closely dissociated, and it would be interesting to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman give a definition of the two different classes.

§ The Solicitor-General
That is a real poser. In Committee today, I think I heard ah hon. Gentleman opposite, who is a member of a number of important companies, say that he had to have lessons from his accountant before he could face his shareholders with his accounts. He is a man of business with the greatest experience. The accountant, perhaps, was more experienced in finance. I think that that, perhaps is the best example I can give. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), we have no reason to apprehend that there will be more work now than we had in mind then. We have framed this Clause as an enabling Clause in case there is a sufficiency of work to occupy the tribunal sitting in one, two or more divisions. The Lord Chancellor is given power to appoint it in two or more divisions. As to the question about "legal experience," it is proposed that those appointed should be, at any rate, barristers or solicitors.

§ Mr. R. S. Hudson
I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for this Amendment, which goes a considerable way towards meeting one of the points which we raised in Committee. I do not know whether it would save time, although I might be slightly out of Order, if I referred to one other point on this Clause to which we took exception in Committee, and that was in relation to Subsection (6). The Solicitor-General will remember that we said we thought the solution would be to give the Government or the Lord Chancellor power to set up a tribunal with sub-tribunals in order to get over the difficulty of entrusting the work to a single tribunal. They have met us to the extent of taking power to set up additional or sub-tribunals, and I am wondering if it has been due to an oversight that Subsection 569 (6) has been left in, or whether the Solicitor - General would consider at another stage omitting that Subsection.

§ The Solicitor-General
Unless my recollection plays me false, in the Committee I suggested that a good way out of the difficulty would be if we accepted the proposal that we made by hon. Members opposite that there should be power to appoint the tribunal in two or more divisions, and if, at the same time, we retained Subsection (6) which gives power to refer, because it might often be extremely convenient to use the power to refer particular matters to referees. If my memory does not play me false, the solution that I proposed, and which I understood was accepted by hon. Members opposite, was that we should have both— that we should have the power for a tribunal to be appointed to sit in two divisions, and, in case we wanted to use it, we should retain the power to refer matters under Subsection (6). However, I intend to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to see if my recollection is wrong, although I do not think it is.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
If the Solicitor-General will look at column 840 in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the r8th day's proceedings, he will see that he submitted the procedure under Subsection (6) as an alternative to the proposal which we moved, and which is substantially the same as the Amendment which the Government are now moving.

§ Mr. R. S. Hudson
Perhaps I might be allowed to quote what the Solicitor-General said. He said at column 840: What we have done is to try to adopt an alternative system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 1st May, 1947; c. 840.] He regarded Subsection (6) as an alternative to our proposal. I do not wish to press the matter now, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will look into it and arrange for the necessary alteration to be made in another place.