HC Deb 25 May 1950 vol 475 cc2271-3

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Attorney-General

We desire to omit this Clause. On reflection it seemed to me that it was open to some objection on principle. As the Clause stands it does two things. It creates a new criminal offence in the case of anyone who fails without reasonable excuse to produce books or documents or to furnish information when required by the Commission so to do; and it creates an offence punishable summarily in connection with the making of false statements in the giving of such information or the production of such documents. With the vigilance for the rights and liberties of the private subject for which His Majesty's present advisers are distinguished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we thought that was, perhaps, undesirable. New criminal offences ought not to be created unless they are really necessary; and it did not seem to me that these two offences were really necessary.

Clause 4, too, which the Committee has just adopted, as the Committee will see, enables the Commission, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to make rules requiring the attendance of particular witnesses or the production of documents. Normally, a breach of any such requirement by a witness whom the Commission wished to see would be treated as a contempt of court. This Commission, not being a court of record, would not itself have power to commit for contempt.

What we propose to do, in the new Clause I shall presently move, is to reproduce in the Bill the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, which was invoked in the course of the last Parliament, and which, in the event of a failure to comply with the lawful requirements of the tribunal to produce documents or to supply information or to give evidence, will enable the Chairman of the Commission to refer the matter to the High Court, and the High Court will then be able to deal with the case, if it thinks right, in such matters as are appropriate to a contempt of court.

As to the second part of Clause 5, that created an offence in connection with the making of false statements. That seemed to me to be objectionable because the existing law relating to perjury broadly covers this kind of matter, although it is true that it does not enable the case to be dealt with summarily in the way Clause 5 as it stands contemplated might be done. But in a Bill dealing with particular matters in relation to an ad hoc tribunal of this kind, it seemed to me that one ought not to include provisions in relation to a field which is already covered by the existing law unless the provisions of the existing law were manifestly inadequate. That is the reason why I invite the Committee to reject this Clause and, in due time to substitute a new Clause for it.

Although I took the decision some time ago that this Clause ought to be deleted, I am very glad to have had my view fortified and confirmed subsequently by a resolution passed by the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce which the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) was kind enough to bring to my notice. Accordingly, I advise the Committee to reject the Clause.

Mr. R. V. Grimston (Westbury)

I rise only to say how much we on this side of the Committee appreciate yet another instance of the Government's following the advice of the Opposition. My mind goes back over the last four and a half years and I recall the many occasion on which we have chided the Government for creating new offences. We are very glad they have followed our advice this time, and have had second thoughts about this Clause.

Question put, and negatived.

Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.