CLAUSE 9.—(Advisory committee and appeal tribunal.) (Hansard, 25 January 1949)

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, after "appointed" to insert "as to half."
This is a manuscript Amendment in place of the one on the paper in line 11 which does not make sense. The next Amendment on the Paper in my name is connected with this one. It is in page 8, line 17, after "Act," insert: the remainder of the Advisory Committee to be nominated by the Postmaster-General from persons who, in his opinion, represent those who make or use the apparatus likely to be affected by the making of the regulations. That Amendment is all right and is concerned with the second half of the Advisory committee.
The manuscript Amendment, as can be seen, raises a point similar to—but not the same as—that we raised on Committee stage. We think, particularly in view of the new Clause which has been accepted by the Committee, whereby the Postmaster-General is to make regula- 802 tions with regard to manufacturers, that they should have some representation on the advisory committee, and that that representation should be in addition to that of the technical experts who will be nominated by the Institution of Electrical Engineers. It is largely for that reason that we have put these Amendments down.
I do not want to go over all the arguments again, but I think that if hon. Members will cast their minds back to the various points that have been raised in connection with manufacturers' problems, they will agree that it will be a good thing to have some other than purely technical advice upon this advisory committee, from whom the Postmaster-General is to draw a good deal of the advice and information upon which he is to base his regulations. It may, indeed, save a great deal of trouble later if the manufacturers have a voice on this committee. For this reason, as well as the last which we advanced on Committee stage, when we thought that it was as well to have a rather broader outlook on the committee than the purely technical one, since these matters touch the public, we think that the committee should be so formed. Having regard to the discussion which has taken place before, I think that this short explanation is all that is necessary now.

§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hobson
I think that we have made progress, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) will not mind my saying that there has been an appreciation by the Opposition of the committee which my right hon. Friend is to set up, and which will be a highly technical committee. It may be commissioned to deal with electromagnetic energy from certain articles and machinery that may be a source of interference. It, therefore, has to be a committee of experts. I think that it is a fair analogy to compare it with many of the committees of the British Standards Institution. The question raised by the hon. Member is whether the committee is likely to be balanced. I can assure him that when it comes to the selection of the committee to deal with a specific article 803 that may cause interference, the members of it will be drawn from those who manufacture the apparatus and from those whose interests are concerned in having no interference arising from that product. That will be the method under which the committee will be chosen.

§ Mr. Grimston
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is giving an undertaking as to what the President of the Institution is going to do. Is that not so?

§ Mr. Hobson
That is perfectly true, but I think that we can safely assume that where a particular article is being considered as likely to cause interference, the Institution, which has no vested interest in these matters, would take great care to see that on the panel there were representatives of both the user and the manufacturer. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the terms of the Amendment.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)
I beg to move in page 8, line 20, to leave out "of legal experience."
This Amendment and the next six Amendments go together, and they are designed to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in regard to the wording at present in the Bill where the words of qualification are: of legal experience. It was suggested on the Committee stage that these words might include a person who had been disbarred or struck off the roll of solicitors, or who had not yet acquired a legal qualification. We have met that point by putting in the words "barrister or solicitor," or—and this was the case which we wanted to be able to cover if need be— who has held judicial office.

§ Sir W. Darling
Advocates?

§ The Attorney-General
Or advocates.

§ Mr. Grimston
These are Amendments to meet a pledge which was given on the Committee stage and for which we are much obliged.

Mr. Paling
I beg to move in page 8, line 40, to leave out from "case," to end of line 41, and to insert: other than the Postmaster-General request the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers to appoint either one or two specially qualified. This and the followng two Amendments go together. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) moved an Amendment on the Committee stage which would have removed what he thought was the power of veto of the Postmaster-General. Certain words were suggested at that time, but they were not quite suitable, and I promised that before the Report stage I would look at this matter again 'to see if I could bring in certain words to remedy the grievance. I think that the hon. Member will agree that these three Amendments carry out my promise. The first Amendment enables specially qualified people to deal with cases which the ordinary tribunal might not deal with, or which the appellant himself may not want them to deal with because he thinks that the question is of such a highly technical nature that people of special qualifications should deal with it.

§ Mr. Grimston
As the Postmaster-General has said, he is here carrying out a pledge given on the Committee stage that his veto in the appointment of assessors should be removed, and he has gone further than we asked him to go, in as much as the question of the appointment of assessors is not left to the President of the Tribunal, but the appellant himself can demand and shall get the special assessors he requires.

§ Mr. Hollis
I should like to register my continued puzzlement as to the wording of this Subsection on which I addressed the Committee at an earlier stage. I do not see what is the point of saying other than the Postmaster-General when the Postmaster-General is bound, I understand, to be one of the parties.

Mr. Paling
There are two parties—the Postmaster-General and the other party. It was thought that if the other party was not quite satisfied with the nature of the tribunal and wanted another, the Postmaster-General had only to object in order to veto the whole busi- 805 ness and stop him from getting the specially qualified tribunal which he wanted. These words take out my veto, and if the person concerned wants a specially qualified tribunal he can have it.

§ Mr. Hollis
I appreciate that perfectly; my objection is merely connected with the puzzle of the English language.

Mr. Paling
I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after "fees" to insert "to."
This is a drafting Amendment which replaces a word taken out in error on an Opposition Amendment in Committee.