HC Deb 29 June 1948 vol 452 cc2113-7
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, to leave out from "determine," to the second "the," in line 22.

The Parliamentary Secretary has made out the case for the Amendment which I am about to move in the words which he has just used. He informed the House that it was not the desire of the Government that anything should be done by the Commission in a manner hidden from those who are particularly concerned, or indeed from anyone at all. The object of this and the following Amendment, in line 23, is to ensure that those particularly interested in the matter of inquiry by the Commission will be present. Obviously it is desirable that if the method of carrying on the business of a firm or company, or indeed an individual, is referred to the Commission, that individual or firm or company should be given the opportunity of expressing his or the company's point of view.

As the Bill stands, it is left entirely to the Commission to decide not only its procedure but the extent of representation or attendance which will be granted to those whose business is the subject of investigation. We entirely agree that the method of procedure should be a matter for the Commission. We hope, just as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague hope, that the Commission will be a high powered one whose membership will command general confidence. Therefore, we are prepared to leave to that Commission the decision as to its own procedure.

However, we feel that it is necessary to ensure in the statute that those who are directly concerned and who are the subject matter of the inquiry should be given a right to be present. In the Second Reading Debate I deprecated—and I still deprecate just as does the President of the Board of Trade—that the person whose business is being inquired into should be in any way treated as a defendant or a person in the dock. Nevertheless, they are in a position of some difficulty and the effect of the inquiry may be detrimental to their commercial and general position. Therefore, we feel that they ought to have this right of being present either by themselves or by their representatives.

When this matter was discussed in Committee there was general acceptance of the desirability of that point of view. Everyone thought that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and that proposition demanded the attendance of the person who was the subject of the inquiry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply took the practical point that one might have a vast association. I think the example he quoted was the Association of Retail Tobacconists who number rather more than the sands of the sea shore, if I remember properly what was said by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman put the question, which was very reasonable, how, if we had a larger association, it would be represented? Although I suggested that one might have something in the nature of a representation order with which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are very familiar, that method of approach did not commend itself to the Government. Therefore, we have proposed this Amendment, which clears the way by omitting the last part of the Subsection. The next Amendment, if accepted, would insert the words: Provided that— (a) a person cited in the reference"— that would refer both to a person and a company— (b) any organisation appearing to the Commission to be representative of substantial numbers of persons engaged in business in an industry concerned in the subject matter of a reference, shall be entitled to be present or represented at some stage in the investigation and to be heard and to cross examine witnesses. There must be an organisation to represent the people affected or concerned when they run into large numbers, and, if there is such an organisation, it must be given the right to appear. I suggest that this meets the practical difficulty. It is essential if the Commission is to work, that it should command the confidence of industry and of the great organised bodies on both sides of industry who may be affected by its findings. We suggest that some statutory right must be given for the persons or bodies concerned to appear. We consider that we have found words which will meet the difficulty suggested to us.

Mr. Belcher

In so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman produced these Amendments in order to assure those people affected by Commission hearings of a fair hearing, quite obviously, I am in entire sympathy with him. I do not think any of us could over-emphasise the necessity of such a tribunal going out of its way to get the whole truth of any matter before it. To this extent, I am not so sure that these Amendments, as they stand, are really necessary, particularly since we carried an Amendment this evening specifically designed to allow those who disagree with the findings of the Commission to make their point of view known. The procedure of a body of this type can be either judicial or non-judicial, but, whatever it is, it must be just, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, must not only be just, but must be patently obvious to everybody that it is just.

I think I can say that there has been general agreement throughout the discussions in this Bill that the Monopoly Commission's procedure should be as informal and non-judicial as possible. This means, that, however the reference to the Commission may have originated, whether out of a complaint to the Board of Trade by an injured person, or, as we hope will more often be the case, out of the knowledge and experience of production departments, we feel that the Commission will be playing the part of a Royal Commission rather than that of a Chancery Judge. In other words, we think that the Commission will go out and look for its own information rather than elicit it in the way in which information is elicited in the courts by the examination and cross-examination of witnesses by interested parties.

The nearest analogy, I think, to this Commission's procedure will probably turn out to be the Departmental Committee Inquiry or Royal Commission, in which the subject-matter is discussed informally with those who have an interest in the investigation on the basis of detailed written statements submitted by them. If we have any of the normal paraphernalia of judicial courts, such as a statutory right to cross-examine witnesses, the rest would have to follow, and, in this matter, there can be no half-way house. All those whose activities were under investigation would have to be informed in detail of what was said about them by others concerned, and each separate party would have to be given the right to be heard.

I recognise the effort of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in trying to meet the point of the 400,000 retail tobacconists by that organised body, but I feel sure that this procedure would result in the Commission being deprived of information which it would otherwise receive. It would rule out these informal discussions through which alone we feel it is possible to find out the real motives and attitudes in business arrangements, and it would turn the whole atmosphere into one of litigation instead of co-operation in finding out the trouble. I feel that the advantages of this non-judicial procedure are overwhelming, and, therefore, these Amendments as they stand are unacceptable.

I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, of my desire to be co-operative in this matter. I have no desire to be churlish about it and, if it is the case that the real purpose of the Amendments is simply to secure a fair hearing for those whose activities may be condemned by the Commission or prescribed by the authorities, I feel it would be wrong of me to turn them down flat without any promise of further consideration. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assure me that his purpose is only to secure a fair hearing for those people most directly concerned before the Commission, I am prepared to re-examine the question with a view to seeing if there is anything we can do to meet him in another place.

8.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If the House will grant me permission to answer the hon. Gentleman's invitation, may I say two things? First, I have always been an advocate, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of a non-legalistic procedure for this Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note with surprise that hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Hear, hear "to that remark, but, if they care to look at my speech on Second Reading, they will find that I advocated it in that speech. Therefore, with that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech I am in entire agreement, but I do not agree that a non-legalistic procedure can excuse the Commission from hearing, or us from providing for the hearing, of the person who is the subject-matter of the inquiry. Not to cast another slur on an honourable name, but simply to follow the example that I quoted this afternoon, if someone complained to the Board of Trade that Messrs. Snooks and Son are carrying on a monopoly, I think we are all agreed that Messrs. Snooks and Son ought to be given a chance of being heard.

I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. If he does, and on the basis that he will look into the best means of providing for the hypothetical delinquent being heard, then I will willingly withdraw my Amendments. I am quite prepared that he should consider that part, but the minimum which I ask him to reconsider, and on which I could in fairness to everyone withdraw the Amendment, would be that he will try to find some form of words which will ensure that the person whose business is being inquired into will be heard. If he will give me that assurance, I shall be pre pared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Belcher

I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 26, leave out "restrict," and insert "limit."—(Mr. Belcher.)