FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Local and Appellate Tribunals.) (Hansard, 15 May 1947)

§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)
I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, to leave out: to be selected by the Minister. The point is a short but I think an important one. Those who have drafted the innumerable details of this Bill have obviously taken considerable trouble and not least in this Schedule to define the appropriate conditions and requirements for the tribunals, which are here proposed. The Schedule is mentioned, might remind the Committee, in Clause 16 (2) where it is directed that reference should be made to this Fourth Schedule instead of to the Schedule to the principal Act. In the Schedule to the principal Act there are no such words as those which are now objected to. I think those words are novel and are wrong. The previous paragraphs of this Schedule describe the persons who shall compose the tribunals, and then paragraph 4 says: Of the six other members four only, to be selected by the Minister, shall be summoned to hear any particular case. I quite understand that four may be the right number in each individual case, but that the Minister himself should select the tribunal for the particular case seems to me to be wrong in principle and a blemish on the Schedule and the Bill. I may have something more to say in reply to anything the Minister may wish to say, but I wish to be brief in view of the lateness of the hour and I think I have explained my point sufficiently to convey the intention to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I was interested to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman would have to say about his Amendment because I have been puzzled as to what he had at the back of his mind in putting it down. Briefly, the position is this. There is a panel of six. Someone must keep the roster and, of course, it must be the Minister's responsibility. He selects a certain four and I suppose he changes them; there is nothing more in it than that. A tribunal is set up in Edinburgh, for example. There are six persons on the panel. The Minister invites the first four and perhaps one cannot go, so that he must invite the fifth to take the place of the one who cannot be there. In view of that explanation I hope the hon. and 1871 learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. Strauss
It had occurred to me that some such object might be in the Minister's mind, but in that case I think the wording is unfortunate because it will be seen that the paragraph does not say that the Minister is to summon the four members. The person who is to keep the rota and to do the summoning is not stated to be the Minister. If nothing more were the intention, I do not think these words would be required. What it does say is that, whoever is to do the summoning, the particular people for each particular case shall be selected by the Minister. I fully accept the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that his intention amounts to no more than that four only shall be required for any particular case and that they should be' taken, so to speak, in rotation. If that is the case I hope that between now and the Report stage he will find a happier expression than that which he has selected. If the hon. Gentleman or the learned Attorney-General can point out an exact precedent for these particular words, then I agree that my point may seem over elaborate.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
These words are precisely the same as those contained in S.R. & 0. 1942 No. 93 passed by the Government of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a supporter.

§ Mr. Strauss
The precedent I asked for was not an example of the words in an S.R. & O. but in a Statute. A great many things go through in a S.R. & O. that we consider more carefully in a Statute. I do not want at this late hour to over elaborate the point, but I think it is of some constitutional propriety. I believe the Government desire this part of the Bill to have every appearance of fairness, and in those circumstances I hope they will consider the point between now and Report stage.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I ask the Minister in all seriousness to reconsider the wording of these particular paragraphs. They appear to give a power of selection. The hon. Gentleman does not want that and it creates the wrong impression, just as would be the case if we gave the Home Secretary the power to select which particular judge he would like to try a particular case. That is 1872 really the effect of the words as they now stand. It might be that the administration of justice might become better, I do not know, but people would not think it was quite so fair.

§ Mr. Strauss
On the understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this question and consider it before the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.