HC Deb 26 March 1958 vol 585 cc464-71
Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, to leave out: local authority, public undertaker, or".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This Amendment and the next Amendment in line 29 go together. What about the Amendment in line 33? Does the hon. Gentleman wish that to be taken separately, or does it also go with the Amendments in line 29?

Mr. Willis

I think that we can take the three together, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

This Amendment deals with the powers of the Secretary of State to obtain certain information to enable him to perform his functions under the Bill. We had some discussion about this in Committee, I think, and we considered which were the bodies or people from whom the Secretary of State ought to be empowered to obtain information. We thought that it was unnecessary for him to demand the information from others than persons who actually owned the land, and they, of course, would include local authorities and public undertakers if they owned the land. I think that that was the point. I am sorry to have been a while getting at it, but it is rather difficult to fly from one Amendment to another. If a local authority or public undertaker did, in fact, own the land, they would be covered by the word "person". That is right, is it not? There is, therefore, no particular reason for the Secretary of State putting these words in the Bill.

Mr. Lawson

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Before we proceed, I should like to tell the House that I have had further inquiries made. The Amendment in page 7, line 37, does increase the charge, and that is why it is out of order.

Lord John Hope

The provision in its proposed amended form would not, I am afraid, be wide enough to cover all the information of the relevant kind which might be required from local authorities and public undertakers. There might be a local authority sewer or water main sited within an area of proposed drainage works for which no wayleave was granted. Authorities, of course, have statutory power to lay mains and sewers without obtaining wayleaves for them and, in the circumstances, they would technically have no interest in the land. That is an example of the difficulty we should be up against if we accepted the Amendment. I think that the words should be included.

Mr. Willis

Would that not he covered by the words: … may require the owner or occupier of any land to state in writing the nature of his own interest in such land and the name and address of any other person known to him as having an interest therein and to furnish the Secretary of State with a particular description of the land. Surely, those words would include the local authority and public undertaker.

Lord John Hope

I think that there is a little doubt about that. I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that it could be held to be as certain as it now is with the words in, if I may put it like that. It helps to have the words in.

Mr. Willis

I would prefer to have had the Lord Advocate's opinion about it, but, on the understanding that the words are legally necessary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lawson

I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, to leave out "fails" and insert: refuses without good reason". This Amendment is proposed in an effort to be less exacting. Time after time in Committee the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that this was a purely voluntary Bill; he emphasised the voluntary nature of it. In Clause 10(2) we have a penal provision providing for punishment if a person fails to comply with the requirement to give information. Fairly elaborate information is to be asked for by the Secretary of State, and there is the consequence here that any person who fails to comply with a requirement under the Clause shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds". 5.0 p.m.

There may be many occasions when, for very good reason, a person fails to comply. We wish to be more tolerant. If a person refuses without good reason to comply, the penalties can be evoked, but the Clause is much too strongly drafted with the words "If any person fails to comply". I hope that for this reason the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willis

I beg to second the Amendment.

We had a lot of discussion about this in Committee, when we pointed out to the Government, who claim to be setting the people free, that they are always introducing legislation piling up the offences for which a person is liable to be punished. They are not setting the people at all free. They are increasing the number of offences for which a person is liable to be charged and fined £5 for a first conviction or £20 later. We pointed out to the Government that they might at least modify this procedure.

We suggest the addition of the words "refuses without good reason". Subsection (1) gives wide powers to the Secretary of State. He can require an owner or occupier of land to state in writing the nature of his own interest in such land and the name and address of any other person known to him as having an interest therein. That is a big demand to make upon an owner of land. He may not know all the people who have an interest in the land. Furthermore, he has to furnish the Secretary of State with a description of the land. How can such a person possibly know what may be the interests of a local authority, perhaps five miles further down the river, in the land in question?

This is a very wide provision. The person who is liable to be convicted under the Clause should have some safeguards written into the Bill. The Amendment proposes to provide the safeguard that If any person refuses without good reason to comply … In other words, if the person has a good reason for not giving the information, he should not be liable to these penalties. I do not think that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) would object to that. I know that he is greatly concerned to preserve the freedom and rights of the individual and for that reason, he should vote for the Amendment.

As it stands, the Clause simply states: If any person fails to comply with a requirement of the Secretary of State under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence … There may be all sorts of reasons why a person fails to comply with a request of the Secretary of State. One of them might be ignorance. He might not know some of the information which he is asked to provide under subsection (1). Surely, it is not asking too much that the rights of the individual should be preserved and the Amendment accepted. If a person has a good reason for not giving the information, he should not be guilty of this offence.

We are making a just request. I ask the Government to look at the Amendment in a reasonable frame of mind and to say that they have pleasure in accepting it, if only so that their deeds might measure up to their words. They have a lot to say about these things in Scotland when they get free at weekends and at other times. At dinners of the Faculty of Advocates and things like that, they have a lot to say about the rights and freedom of the individual and how they will protect them. We want the Government's deeds to measure up to their words, and we suggest that they should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mackie

I rise only because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), when making his moving appeal to the Government, referred to myself and indicated his belief that, as an individual, I was anxious to preserve the rights and, if possible, to increase the liberties of the subject. I certainly accept that. I certainly accept it as the philosophy of my party. I do not for one moment accept what the hon. Member said about the lack of response from the Government during nearly seven years of office under three successive Prime Ministers. The Government have been responsible for doing a good deal in this direction, and I do not accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

I have no knowledge of what the Government will say in reply to the Amendment, but I do not think that the Clause does anything inimical or prejudicial to the rights of the individual. The Bill, after all, grants public money. I know that the Opposition regard it as a mean, paltry Bill which will not do very much in the way of improvement of land that needs draining in Scotland. They must, however, agree that we are granting sums of public money, even though they may regard them as insufficient. If an individual accepts public money for land drainage grants, why should he or she not be called upon to provide reasonable information?

Mr. Willis

Many of these people who will be accepting public money will be compelled to accept it. If they were left to themselves, they would not accept it.

Mr. Mackie

It is public money accepted in the interest of the State as a whole.

Mr. Willis

It is forced upon them.

Mr. Mackie

I know that there is lurking among nearly all hon. Members opposite the desire to end private ownership of land. No doubt, that lies at the back of their opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Willis

Hear, hear.

Mr. Mackie

At least we know where the hon. Member stands. When he interrupted me, I was about to say that I do not regard £5 for the first offence as at all unreasonable. The individual concerned will be accepting public money. Therefore, why should he not be called upon by the Secretary of State for Scotland to furnish reasonable information? If there is a second conviction, I do not think that the sum of £20 is in any way too much.

Mr. Woodburn

When the Lord Advocate replies, can he say exactly how this process of law will work? Will the Secretary of State report such a case to the fiscal, or who will arrange for the prosecution in a case of a failure to comply? What kind of proof is necessary? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I think, agree with the intention behind my hon. Friend's Amendment that if we are making a criminal offence we should be very careful to specify clearly what the offence is and exactly how the retribution comes upon the offender.

Mr. Hoy

May I put one more point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The Clause does not carry the interpretation that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has attributed to it. It states that the Secretary of State may require the owner or occupier of any land to state in writing … It is quite possible that the land may not be attracting a subsidy from the State. It is only because the person does not give information about somebody else's land that he is to be liable for this offence. The person concerned might quite well not have within his knowledge the information which the Secretary of State desires. It may be that he is held up to ridicule for it and even summoned before the court and fined.

I should have expected the hon. Member for Galloway to want to defend the liberty of the subject. In fact, we know from the hon. Gentleman's record that he even has to defend his own political liberty against the Conservative Party, and so we would have thought that on this occasion he would have been prepared to fight for this poor individual who is likely to be prosecuted and fined for an offence of which he is not guilty. Certainly, that is my interpretation of it, but I should like the Lord Advocate to confirm whether that is correct or not.

The Lord Advocate

I do not wish to take sides as between the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), but, on the whole. I rather support the hon. Member for Leith on this particular point.

May I turn to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)? He asked me exactly what procedure would take place. In the normal case, if there was the type of failure referred to in subsection (2), it would be reported to the Procurator-Fiscal, and the person responsible would be liable to summary conviction. Any proceedings would be in the Sheriff Court, and that would be the normal procedure.

May I now turn to the Amendment? One is naturally drawn, in the course of the stages of a Bill in Committee and on Report, to consider whether certain words should be put in or not. I have already been told this afternoon that I have put too many words into the Bill, and now I am being asked to put some more into it.

Mr. Willis

It does not matter if they are the right ones.

The Lord Advocate

If these words were necessary for the purpose which the hon. Member for Leith mentioned, certainly I should be delighted to accept the Amendment, but quite candidly I do not think the words in the Amendment are necessary. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire referred to procedure, and obviously before proceedings are taken the Procurator-Fiscal will make inquiries to find out whether there are any special circumstances. For example, a person may be abroad, he may be ill or something of that kind, and proceedings would not be taken. At the end of the day, the judge would not convict, if he was perfectly satisfied that there was not a failure, and one does not fail to do something if one cannot do it. That would be the normal meaning of a failure.

I appreciate the points made by hon. Members opposite, but I do not think it is necessary in this context that these words should go in the Clause. I am advised that the subsection is in common form—I know that that is not a complete answer—and I do not think that a case has been shown for the inclusion of these extra words.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Lawson

No, Sir Charles; I cannot withdraw it on the explanation which has just been given.

May I point out that, on the Lord Advocate's own interpretation, a person may very well be taken to court, and only after the matter has been judged in court would it be decided that he should not, in fact, be punished? What we are trying to do here is to make it clear that the circumstances must be such that, unless he refuses to comply without good reason, he cannot be taken to court at all. As the Clause is worded at present, he may on very little provocation be taken to court and a judgment given, either in his favour or against him. We need to have the position clearly safeguarded. It is not clearly safeguarded as the Clause is at present worded, and for this reason I cannot agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.