HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc185-8
Mr. Godber

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 18, line 30, to leave out 'on behalf' and to insert 'by officers'.

We discussed this matter in Committee. I raised it myself and moved the Amendment fairly briefly. I hope to do the same now. On that occasion the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave a sympathetic reply, saying, We want to do what is right … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd August. 1966; c. 482.] This was the most extensive statement we got out of the Government during the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman went on to give an assurance that he would look at this again to see if he could put down something more specific. We looked keenly for a Government Amendment, as they wished to do what was right, but we realise that the hon. Gentleman has been rushed with other things. We have, therefore, put this Amendment down again.

The issue is simple. We are dealing here with levy registration in terms of records and we feel that if they who have paid the levy are to be called upon to produce for examination books and other documents in their custody or under their control the least that can be done is to ensure that they only have to produce them to officers of the Commission. But in this subsection it is laid down that they should be produced for examination … on behalf of the Commission … The wording is unnecessarily loose. We accept the need to produce books and other documents to prevent avoidance of proper payment of the levy but we feel it right that there should be a limitation as to who should examine them. We hope that the Government, having failed to put down an Amendment of their own, will accept this one.

Mr. Hoy

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. When this Amendment was discussed in Committee I gave an undertaking that we would consider whether it was possible to specify more closely what persons, other than officers of the Commission, were empowered by Clause 14(1,b) to examine books and other documents.

We have thought about this very carefully but have had to conclude that there are sound reasons for keeping this subsection in the form which has been used in so many other Acts in the past. The problem is essentially to be able at this stage to predict all the types of person who should be given this power. That is not to say that we expect this provision to be used by the Commission to authorise any Tom, Dick or Harry to examine a firm's books. On one occasion, by the way, I had to resist considerable pressure by an hon. Member opposite to make the provision rather wide.

However, the provision could conceivably be used to authorise, say, a firm of accountants, or perhaps a legal representative, to do so. We considered confining the powers just to officers of the Commission and accountants and lawyers acting on behalf of the Commission, as was suggested in Committee, but it then occurred to us that there might be others who did not immediately spring to mind and who might nevertheless require these powers. Let me give one example which did not strike me at the time. We went into three cases which arose in the time of our predecessors where we found that in dealing with cases in Wales Welsh interpreters had to be called in to have a look at the books and had to be empowered to do so. If we had written the provision in the way we considered, that type of person would have been kept out. We have therefore had to conclude that we should leave this subsection in a form similar to that of provisions included in many other Acts dealing with this type of matter.

It is hardly necessary for me to add that we would expect the Commission to be extremely discreet about the way in which these powers were used, as other similar bodies are. We have not had any failure of trust in that respect and I hope, and this is a hope which I am sure will he fulfilled, that the Commission will act with no less responsibility in this regard than other bodies. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have given this subject much consideration.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

It is useful that the hon. Gentleman should have given the assurance that he will expect the Commission to work with the utmost circumspection in the choice of its agents to examine the books of other farmers. In a rural area the people whom the Commission might send to perform such tasks might be engaged in the same kind of business as those whose books they are to examine. I know that as a practical man the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate the embarrassment which that could cause and, above all, the suspicion which could be caused if farmers were led to believe that there would be a lot of snooping and Nosey Parkering.

I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has given this assurance, but I regret that he has been unable to specify a little more clearly who "Mr. Behalf" is to be. He said that the Commission would not use any Tom, Dick or Harry. That is all very well, but I wish that the phrasing could have been extended to include "such as authorised agents of the Commission", then clearly setting out in a Schedule who those authorised agents could be. The House is being asked to accept the widest possible phrase and I am extremely uneasy that legal language has not been found to confine the provision a little more closely.

Mr. Godber

While, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I feel a little uneasy about this provision, the assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given has been very helpful. I must admit that I had not thought about interpreters into Welsh, or Gaelic, or any other language. Certainly we would not wish the occupants of those strange countries to avoid payment, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn