HC Deb 18 November 1948 vol 458 cc625-43
Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, line 11, to leave out from the beginning, to "to," in line 12.

I think it would be convenient to the Committee if I discussed this Amendment together with following three Amendments—those in lines 12, 15 and 17. I can best cover these Amendments, which raise a point of considerable importance, by first indicating what is in Subsection (2) of the Bill as it stands, and summarising the changes we desire to see in the Subsection. Subsection (2) deals with the Advisory Committee to be appointed under this Bill; and it says that: The advisory committee shall be appointed from a panel consisting of such number of persons as the Postmaster-General may direct. … The first point that strikes one is that it is rather odd that the Postmaster-General should seek to retain power to himself to limit the number of persons who are to be upon the panel. It might be that he might limit the number in such a way that, in fact, all those upon the panel would have to be appointed to the Advisory Committee.

The first of the group of Amendments seeks to leave out the words consisting of such number of persons as the Postmaster-General may direct. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will concede that the omission of those words is an improvement upon the Bill as it now stands. The Bill goes on to say that the panel is to be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers with the approval of the Council thereof. and is to consist of persons who, in the opinion of the President of the said Institution"— and the Council is not brought in there— either possess expert knowledge of the matters falling to be dealt with by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act or represent person: whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof. It may well be—and I would not challenge it for a moment—that the President and the Council of the Institution of Electrical Engineers are the right people to draw up a list of those possessing expert knowledge of the matters falling to be dealt with by the regulations. However, as the Bill now stands, the President of the Institution has the right of selecting those who are to represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof. Why should it be left to the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers to nominate to this panel persons representative of those affected? Why should he seek, for instance, to select a representative of the Housewives' League who may be affected because of the use of electric irons? That seems wrong, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman cannot really desire it.

Perhaps I can cover these Amendments most clearly if I read the Subsection as it would be if they were accepted. The Subsection would then read: The advisory committee shall be appointed from a panel half to be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers with the approval of the Council thereof, being persons who, in the opinion of the President of the said Institution, possess expert knowledge of the matters falling to be dealt with by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act. Half the Advisory Committee will consist of experts, those experts being picked in the same way as is proposed in the Bill. The other half would be picked, as suggested in the last Amendment, which says: The remainder of the advisory committee to be nominated by the Postmaster-General from lists submitted by organisations which represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act and in particular organisations representing users of any vessels, aircraft, vehicles or apparatus to which this Act refers. I can appreciate the desirability of having on the advisory committee, for instance, representatives of the motor industry. It may be necessary to have representatives of the Royal Automobile Club or the Automobile Association, as well as representatives of motor manufacturers. A wide variety of representation may be necessary. Under these Amendments half of the advisory committee would be experts and the other half would be persons selected by the Postmaster-General from lists submitted by organisations. We have not limited, or sought to limit, the number of organisations which could submit lists to the Postmaster-General for this purpose, it being for him to select the persons most suitable.

The other change which these Amendments make to Subsection (2) is that they prescribe the proportions of experts and non-experts on the advisory committee. At present, to comply with the Bill, the Committee could consist entirely of experts without any representation of the user interest. It would be right to say that the committee should consist half of experts and half of people who are not experts. That would be achieved by our Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles)

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt at the same time with the Amendment in line 18, at the end, to insert: Provided that not less than one-fifth of the members of the advisory committee shall be women.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I agree. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about that. This Amendment seeks to provide that ladies should be represented to the extent of one-fifth of the total number of the committee. This is obviously a case where women who use electric irons, cleaners and other electrical implements in domestic life should be represented upon the committee which may have a great part to play in seeing to the extent to which housewives can lawfully use their electric irons.

Mr. Erroll

Before dealing with the general question of the recomposition of the Advisory Committee, it would be only fair to point out that, as the Clause is now worded, the size of the Advisory Committee is not limited in any way. The only limitation is on the size of the panels which may be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. It is rather illogical to limit in the Bill the number of persons who may be put on panels and not to limit the size of the committee. In our Amendments we have eliminated the limitation on the size of the panel because, of course, it does not matter how large the panels are when the Postmaster-General has complete freedom to decide the total size of the Advisory Committee.

As a member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, I welcome the inclusion of that body in work of this character. The members of the Institution, and the President in particular, are most gratified at the way in which the Government have co-operated with that body in securing their advice and assistance. They regard it as a compliment and as an honour to be invited to co-operate. I must say, however, that I am sure that they only expected to be called in to advise on the technical aspect of the Bill and its consequences. I have not had an opportunity to re-read the Charter of the Institution, but I am almost certain that it would preclude them from advising extensively on the persons to be appointed to give user and domestic views on these matters. I am sure that members of the Institution would be the first to agree that they were only able to appoint technical advisers to the panel. They would shrink from attempting to nominate to the panel representatives of non-technical users such as housewives, although they might be able to make useful suggestions in regard to other categories, such as industrialists and shipping people.

Therefore, it is extremely important, as a matter of principle, that the Government should accept our Amendment which widens the scope of the committee without in any way limiting its opportunities. It may be argued that to enlarge the committee in this way would be to make it too cumbersome. We shall have to choose between complete representation and large size, on the one hand, and the small committee which will reach decisions and conclusions quickly but which will not be sufficiently representative. I am sure that the work of a committee of this sort is bound to result in the creation of a number of sub-committees. Obviously, one does not want to have representatives of the users of aircraft present when the suppression of household equipment is being considered. Such a committee should have a number of sub-committees. Therefore, the main committee can properly consist of a considerable number of people who normally will only work on separate sectional sub-committees. I hope that the size of the committee which we propose will not be used as an argument against our suggestion.

6.30 p.m.

We were disappointed to see so little reference to the users of electrical apparatus. The users or consumers receive all too little attention nowadays, particularly from the nationalised industries, and this omission—and one can only hope that it is unwitting—is to be deplored. That is why we stress, in the Amendment to line 17, the importance of bringing in organisations representing the users. In the case of motor cars, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club are well fitted to represent the users. Some aircraft and vehicle owners, and the owners of industrial X-ray apparatus, could well be representative of other users.

There may appear to be greater difficulty in adequately representing the interests of domestic users of household equipment, but there are a number of reputable associations, I am told, many of which would be glad to submit suitable lists. There is, for example, the Electrical Association for Women, the Rural Institution in Scotland and the Women's Institutes in England, as well as a number of others. There is no need to drag into this discussion the more controversial group known as the Housewives' League. There are plenty of other organisations which could serve the purpose as well, and I hope the Amendment will not be rejected on that account.

It is particularly important to see that the household is properly represented. A great deal of electrical apparatus liable to cause interference is domestic, and we are grateful indeed to the anonymous radio manufacturer who staged an exhibition for the benefit of those interested, and made available to us in London yesterday and today a demonstration of the effect on wireless sets of apparatus which had not been suppressed, and the effect of the fitting of simple suppressors. I am sure that, had housewives been afforded an opportunity of seeing that exhibition, they could have made some useful and pungent suggestions on the location of suppressors, particularly in regard to electric irons and vacuum cleaners. I think that a non-technical woman who is also a very practical housewife could make a very useful contribution to this Advisory Committee, particularly in regard to the size and location of suppressors on domestic equipment. I hope, therefore, that the Postmaster-General will see his way to accept our Amendment in full, and agree to a proper representation of women on what can be a most important and valuable Advisory Committee.

Mr. Cobb

I should like to mention one small point. I see that the proposed Amendment makes reference to the "users of any vessels." My legal friends always tell me that, when an Act provides for an Appeal Tribunal and states that one person has to have legal experience, it always means a barrister. Whenever I see that there is to be a representation of the users of any vessels, I find that it generally means that it is somebody from the Royal Navy. If the Minister is going to accept this Amendment, and agree to a widening of this panel for representatives of these users, I suggest that he might, for a change, perhaps, choose them from retired shipmasters from the Merchant Navy, instead of from the Royal Navy.

Mr. C. Williams

I would like to say a word on the matter of shipping. I fully support my hon. Friend's remark that the women of this country who run their households should have some say on this committee, but I want to bring out the point concerning the interests of the fishermen in this matter. I am glad to see that I have the approval of the hon. Gentleman opposite—

Mr. Cobb

I was concerned only to make sure that, if anybody was to represent the users of vessels, they should be people who spent their time at sea, instead of in port.

Mr. Williams

That is exactly what I want, and, although it may not always be practicable, the advantage of the Royal Navy is that it spends more time at sea than any other Navy in the world. The fishing fleets today are becoming more and more dependent on wireless, and this great new advancement can immensely add to their value and to the amount of fish which they can catch. It is a scientific development which is still comparatively in its infancy, and, for that reason I submit that there should be special representation on the Advisory Committee—that the Government should give the fullest consideration to the fishermen who are scattered round our coasts, in order that they may be represented in this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to make quite sure that the interests of fishermen will be properly looked after in this new development in the use of wireless in the fishing industry?

Mr. Hobson

The Amendment is certainly one with a very popular appeal, and with which, under circumstances other than those contained in this Bill, we should have a great deal of sympathy, but the duty of this Advisory Committee will be to advise the Postmaster-General on what apparatus is likely to cause interference. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said, it will have to be a very highly technical committee. The Opposition have already agreed that there must be at least half of its members appointed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which shows that they appreciate the technical considerations which the Advisory Committee will have to bear in mind.

When it comes to consulting other interests, however, I think that one hon. Member has answered his own case by pointing out that the committee would become too cumbersome. Mention has been made of the Housewives' League and the motor manufacturers, and one could carry that further to include the trade unions who are involved in making the apparatus. We feel that, because it is a technical committee, it is absolutely essential that it should be composed solely of experts from the panel appointed by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

If that be so, why has the Minister included in the Bill the phrase— or represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof?

Mr. Hobson

They can be electrical experts as well as users of the apparatus. Their interests may not be diametrically opposed. The point is that, when the regulations are made, as the result of consultations with the experts on this committee, these regulations will have to be presented to the House, and one can readily see that the House of Commons itself is representative of users' interests. There is this further point. We are not concerned about the design of the particular domestic apparatus, but about the emission of electrical magnetic energy, which is a problem for the experts. That does not mean that non-experts will have no say at all in whether the regulations are suitable or not. The danger of large cumbersome committees has already been pointed out, and we think that it would be far better to leave the provisions as they are in the Bill.

Mr. W. Shepherd

I am afraid that the answer given by the Assistant Postmaster-General is most disappointing. It seems to me that he has contradicted his own argument. First, he says that it is wrong to have users' interests represented, because it is a technical committee, and then he said that those interests will have representation through this House. If it is wrong that user interests should be represented in any way, surely there is no point in their being represented in this House, and if user interests have any bearing upon the problem at all, they should have an opportunity of making representations right at the start.

I am not an expert in anything. The world has suffered much at the hands of experts of all sorts. I want to see the ordinary man and woman have some say. It is very easy, for experts when given their head, to go absolutely mad, and to concentrate upon their very close and narrow viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. Surely, if the Postmaster-General is going to make regulations which admittedly affect the life of almost every person in the country, it is only right and proper that considerations of general public interest should weigh with him in coming to a decision, as much as considerations are purely technical interest. It is fundamental that, in an issue of this kind, where the whole life of the community is going to be affected, the ordinary person should be represented.

Any argument about the Advisory Committee becoming too large is, of course, superfluous. It is perfectly possible to regulate the size of this committee. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be very ill-advised to pursue the idea of an all-technical committee, because everyone would be suspicious of it. If he brings into the fold those who have no specific trade or technical interest, and he has to put into operation things which are not very pleasing, I am sure he will find that they will be more readily accepted. Therefore, we hope that he will very carefully reconsider the Amendment which, I am sure, is in accordance with the wishes of the House and the people outside who will be affected by the regulations.

Mr. Grimston

I desire to add my remarks to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd). First, we must consider this Advisory Committee in relation to the powers which the Postmaster-General is certain, in the later stages of this Bill, to minimise. But let it be remembered that he is seeking enormous powers in interfering with the public, not only at large, but in their homes as well.

I would remind the Assistant Postmaster-General that he said that this committee was only to offer technical advice about instruments which would cause interference, but flowing from that

advice, the Postmaster-General is going to take power to prohibit the use, if necessary, of many domestic articles. I think that, in these circumstances, we must have wider advice than that given by a purely technical committee. There is not the slightest doubt about it. I do not wish to belittle the procedure of this House, but we all know that with the negative Prayer procedure, a Minister getting advice from a technical committee may be extremely impressed by what they say—almost overborne by them—and may come down to this House very late at night with a set of regulations which will, very likely, not get the attention they deserve.

Having regard to the powers which the Minister is proposing to take in interfering with people in their ordinary domestic pursuits, and so on, I consider it wrong to rely merely on the advice of a technical committee, because the better it is technically, probably the less regard it will have to other considerations which are equally important. Therefore, we really must press this matter strongly. Unless the Postmaster-General can tell us that he will take this provision back and think again, we shall have to take this matter to a Division, because it is one which we consider extremely important, in view of the later provisions of the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 99.

Division No. 8.] AYES [6.45 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Bruce, Maj. D. W T. Dodds, N N
Adams, Richard (Balham) Burden, T. W. Donovan, T.
Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South) Carmichael, James Driberg, T. E. N.
Albu, A. H. Castle, Mrs. B A Dumpleton, C. W.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Champion, A J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Attewell, H. C. Chater, D. Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Austin, H. Lewis Cobb, F. A. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Awbery, S. S. Cocks, F. S Ewart, R.
Ayles, W. H. Collick, P. Fernyhough, E
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Collindridge, F Follick, M.
Bacon, Miss A Collins, V. J. Foot, M M.
Balfour, A Colman, Miss G. M. Forman, J. C.
Barton, C. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Battley, J. R. Corlett, Dr. J. Freeman, J. (Watford)
Bechervaise, A. E. Cove, W. G. Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Crossman, R. H S Gibbins, J.
Blyton, W. R. Cullen, Mrs. A. Gibson, C. W
Boardman, H. Daines, P. Gilzean, A
Bowdon, Fig. Offr. H. W. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl. Exch'ge) Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S W.) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Deer, G. Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Brook, D. (Halifax) de Freitas, Geoffrey Grey, C. F.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Delargy, H. J Grierson, E.
Brown, George (Belper) Dobbie, W. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) McLeavy, F Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) MacPherson, M. (Stirling) Simmons, C. J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Macpherson, T. (Romford) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Gunter, R. J. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Skinnard, F. W.
Guy, W. H. Mann, Mrs. J Smith, C. (Colchester)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Hale, Leslie Marquand, H. A. Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Messer, F. Steele, T.
Harden, J. R. E. Middleton, Mrs. L. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hardy, E. A. Monslow, W. Stross, Dr. B.
Haworth, J. Moody, A. S. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Hobson, C. R. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Sylvester, G. D.
Holman, P. Moyle, A. Symonds, A. L
Horabin, T. L Murray, J. D. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Hoy, J. Nally, W. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Hubbard, T. Naylor, T. E. Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Neal, H. (Claycross) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Thomas, John R (Dover)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Oliver, G. H. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Orbach. M. Thurtle, Ernest
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Tiffany, S.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Timmons, J
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Palmer, A. M. F. Titterington, M. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pargiter, G. A. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Janner, B. Parkin, B. T. Turner-Samuels, M
Johnston, Douglas Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Paton, J. (Norwich) Vernon, Maj W. F
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Pearson, A. Viant, S. P
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Peart, T, F. Walker, G. H
Keenan, W Perrins, W. Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Kenyon, C Platts-Mills, J. F. F Warbey, W N
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Popplewell, E. Watkins, T E.
Kinley, J. Porter, E. (Warrington) Weitzman, D.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D Proctor, W. T. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Lavers, S Pursey, Comdr. H. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J Randall, H. E. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Lee, F. (Hulme) Ranger, J. Wilkins, W A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Rankin, J. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Levy, B. W. Reid, T. (Swindon) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Rhodes. H. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Lewis, J. (Bolton) Richards, R. Willis, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wills, Mrs. E. A
Longdon, F. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyne, A. W Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Woods, G. S.
McAdam, W Royle, C Wyatt, W.
McAllister, G. Scott-Elliot, W. Yates, V. F.
McEntee, V La T. Segal, Dr. S. Zilliacus, K.
Mack, J. D. Sharp, Granville
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Shurmer, P. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Maclean, N. (Govan) Silken, Rt. Hon. L Mr. Snow.
NOES
Astor, Hon. M. Drewe, C. Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Beamish Maj. T. V H. Erroll, F. J. Maclean, F. H. R (Lancaster)
Birch, Nigel Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Bower, N. Gammans, L. D. Maitland, Comdr J W
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke) Manningham-Buller, R. E
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Marples, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Gridley, Sir A. Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Grimston, R. V. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Mellor, Sir J
Butcher, H. W Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Byers, Frank Head, Brig. A. H. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Channon, H. Hollis, M. C. Nicholson, G.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Hope, Lord J. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Conant, Maj. R. J. E Howard, Hon. A. Nutting, Anthony
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lambert Hon. G.
Crowder, Capt. John E. Law, Rt Hon. R. K. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Darling, Sir W. Y. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Davidson, Viscountess Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Rayner, Brig. R.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Linstead, H. N. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Digby, S. W. Lloyd, Serwyn (Wirral) Sanderson, Sir F.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Low A. R. W. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Donner, P. W. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Scott, Lord W.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) McCallum, Maj. D. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Drayson, G. B. McFarlane, C. S. Strass, Henry (English Universities)
Sutcliffe, H. Ward, Hon. G. R. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Taylor, C, S. (Eastbourne) Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) White, J B. (Canterbury) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Williams, C. (Torquay) Commander Agnew and
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Mr. Studholme.
Turton, R. H. York, C.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out "of legal experience," and to insert who is a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. I understand it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the proposed similar Amendments to lines 24 and 28.

These three Amendments all raise the same point and I can deal with it quite shortly. The Bill says that the Appeal Tribunal shall consist of "one person of legal experience." The Appeal Tribunal is a tribunal of great importance. It will have considerable power because it is to that tribunal that the ordinary consumer, who has a notice served upon her to stop using her electric iron in 28 days' time, can appeal. It is to that tribunal that the owner of some big industrial premises with electrical machinery upon them can also appeal for permission to continue to use his electrical plant.

The Bill takes what is, I think, rather an unusual form in merely saying, "one person of legal experience." The normal practice, surely, is to designate a person who is a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than so many years' standing. This form was used in the Pension Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, and also, I think, in the National Health Act, where the period was one of not less than 10 years' standing. I do not attach very much importance to the difference between 7 and 10 in this connection, but I do suggest that the Bill would be improved by the inclusion of a definition of this character which, I think I am right in saying, is the normal description in Acts of Parliament of "one person of legal experience."

The Attorney-General

Whilst not committing myself in any way, either favourably or unfavourably, to any view on the matter in the industrial field, I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) of the importance of maintaining the principle of the "closed shop" in the legal profession and I welcome his adherence to this important principle of trade unionism.

It is certainly not the intention to appoint anybody to preside over this Appeal Tribunal who does not possess legal qualifications; but some of the persons who are pre-eminently fitted to occupy the post of president of the tribunal are not practising barristers or solicitors. I refer in particular to retired persons who have held judicial offices, such as, for example, Indian and Colonial judges and, possibly—I am not making any indication of policy about this—persons who at present hold judicial office. It is because we recognise the importance of this tribunal that we contemplate that it may be desirable to appoint such persons to it. I give the hon. and learned Member the assurance that nobody will be appointed who is not or has not been a barrister or solicitor in practice and that if the person appointed is, in fact, a practising barrister or solicitor, he will be one with some degree of experience.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In view of what the Attorney-General has told us, will he consider putting into the Bill words embodying exactly what he has just said: that a person shall not be appointed as chairman of this tribunal unless he has, in fact, practised either as a barrister or a solicitor for 7 or, it may be, 10 years. I think that such a definition will cover the particular categories to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The insertion of the words, "practising or has practised" would cover men who had in the years gone by practised for seven years before being appointed to, for instance, the bench in India.

One does not really like to see the words "of legal experience" undefined in a Bill because they do not really mean anything. Such an expression would include, I imagine, a bar student who had been reading for many years without ever succeeding in passing any examination but who had been an enthusiastic attender at the back of the courts in hearing cases conducted. It might even be said that such a person although without legal experience, might possess legal skill. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, to tidy up this position by saying that he will include the wording I have suggested. This is not a big matter but it would cover the categories he has mentioned and would be very useful as a precedent.

The Attorney-General

We will certainly look at this point. I do not think a bar student would be covered by the existing wording. He might be described as a person of "extra legal experience" but I do not think he would come within the meaning of the words contained in the Clause as it stands. I will, however, look into the point regarding years of experience.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.0 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The next four Amendments could be considered together: In page 8, line 40, leave out from "the," to "appoint," in line 41, and insert: circumstances of any particular case require in his opinion that he should. In line 42, leave out "Institution of Electrical Engineers," and insert "tribunal."

In line 43, at end, insert: of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. In line 44, leave out "thereof."

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, to leave out from "the," to "appoint," in line 41, and to insert: circumstances of any particular case require in his opinion that he should. The point raised by these Amendments is who should decide whether or not special assessors are to be appointed in a particular case. As the Clause reads, the parties in a particular case, presumably the Postmaster-General and some other party, have to concur in suggesting that an assessor be appointed. That gives to either one or the other a veto, which seems undesirable. If our Amendments were accepted, the Clause would then read: Provided that if the circumstances of any particular case require in his opinion that he should appoint a special assessor or two special assessors, under this proviso, the President of the Tribunal shall, with the approval of the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and with the approval of the Council, appoint an assessor. The effect of that would be that, where one or more special assessors are required in an appeal case, the decision would rest with the president of the tribunal. In practice it would mean that if either of the parties think a special assessor is needed he can make representations to the president of the tribunal who will decide in his judicial capacity whether or not that is necessary. We consider that a better procedure than that land down in the Bill, which provides that if either of the parties think a special assessor or two assessors are necessary, they have to agree. It would be open to the Postmaster-General to object to a special assessor wanted by a person opposing him, or vice versa. To my lay mind it seems much more in accordance with the principles of justice that the decision should rest with the president of the tribunal. That is the effect of the Amendments, which I hope will be looked upon favourably.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

I thought possibly that was the idea in the minds of those putting forward the Amendments, but I am not sure that the Amendments would effect that object. I have prepared an Amendment which, I think, would secure what hon. Members desire. It is shorter and simpler than the one now proposed and would read as follows:

In page 8, line 40, leave out 'concur in requesting him' and insert: other than the Postmaster-General, request the President of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. That would take away my veto. If this suggested Amendment is acceptable, should be glad to have it inserted.

Mr. Grimston

The suggestion certainly goes some way to meet our point. It deals with the veto of the Postmaster-General, but still leaves the decision of whether or not there should be special assessors appointed entirely in the hands of the person appealing. That is not a bad thing, I suppose, from his point of view and, if the Postmaster-General is prepared to put it forward then, without having had time to give it more than a moment's consideration, I would say it goes a good way towards meeting us. I am still not quite satisfied that the best way would not be for the president of the tribunal to make the decision.

Mr. Hollis

I am not quite sure how we stand in regard to this matter. Originally it was provided "if the parties concur." Then the Postmaster-General has to make concessions, if the parties "other than the Postmaster-General" concur. Is not the Postmaster-General always to be one of the parties in all these cases? Does that not mean that the decision rests with the other party alone? Would there be a case in which there were more than two parties?

Mr. Paling

That was the trouble, that there would be two parties, of whom the Postmaster-General was one and he could put on a veto. Because of that, I a m taking out the power of veto.

Mr. Hollis

I wish to be clear on what we are doing. Would not if the parties to any particular case other than the Postmaster-General concur be precisely the same as saying provided that the party being prosecuted by the Postmaster-General demanded"?

Mr. Paling

I should not like to say that at a moment's notice. We looked at this series of Amendments very closely and came to the conclusion that the Postmaster-General's veto was the trouble and that these Amendments had been put down in order to get rid of the veto. I have suggested an Amendment which will do that.

Mr. Hollis

The Postmaster-General may be making a concession, but we wish to be clear where we stand.

Mr. H. Strauss

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the actual words?

Mr. Paling

In page 8, line 40, leave out "concur in requesting him," and insert: other than the Postmaster-General, request the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers.

Mr. Hollis

I do not see what is the meaning of the words "the parties" now, but it does not matter. Perhaps the Attorney-General could help us.

Mr. Turton

There is another point in our Amendment, but not in the suggested Amendment. We took the view that the special assessor should be appointed by the president of the tribunal and not by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, although he should be nominated by the Council of the Institution. The Postmaster-General has not accepted that and has not explained his reasons for not accepting it. Normally in a tribunal the presiding judge appoints an assessor to sit with him, rather than an outside body, who really have no connection with the tribunal. We may be wrong, but we should have some reply from the Postmaster-General on that point.

Mr. Paling

In a case before the tribunal, when there is some doubt about assessors, it is probable that the case will be one which is highly technical and in which an assessor with highly technical qualifications and probably specialised qualifications will be required. That being so, we think the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers would probably be the best person to choose such assessors.

Mr. Grimston

May I put the position at which I think we have arrived, and then see if I am right? Any action here must arise from an appeal by somebody against a decision or the giving of a notice by the Postmaster-General. It seems to me that the Postmaster-General has to be one of the two parties. If somebody brings an appeal against the Postmaster-General and that person wants a special assessor, he can apply for a special assessor and a special assessor must be appointed. It will not rest with the president of the tribunal; it will be the person who is appealing against something which the Postmaster-General has done. Is that the position?

Mr. Paling

Yes.

Mr. Grimston

I speak subject to anything that my legal friends may say, but it seems to me that such a person is in a very good position. That being so, I am inclined to think that the Postmaster-General has gone even further than we have gone in our Amendment. However, I think perhaps it would be as well if we gave a little further consideration to this point between now and the Report stage, and perhaps the Postmaster-General could give an undertaking that this matter will be brought up again on the Report stage. He has had time to consider it fully, and we have not. At first sight, it seems that he has more than met us, but perhaps we could leave the position like that.

Mr. Paling

I think that is probably the best course.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, to leave out from "fees," to "and."

This Amendment raises a small point, and I move it in order to obtain an explanation. It will be noticed that Subsection (5) deals with the expenses of the Advisory Committee and the Tribunal, and in the case of the tribunal, such sums by way of fees or other remuneration to, and in respect of the expenses of … It would seem to us that "fees" and "expenses" are sufficient to enable anyone to know what the Postmaster-General has in mind in relation to remuneration other than remuneration under those two heads.

Mr. Paling

What we had in mind was the question whether "fees" or "salaries" might be better. However, we have no objection to this Amendment. We have had no experience of the Tribunal; we do not know how much work it will have. It is highly hypothetical, and we are prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.