HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc188-92
Mr. Jopling

I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 22, line 33, after 'their', to insert relevant '.

I raised this subject in Committee when I received considerable support from my lion. Friends and when the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into the matter, and we got a half promise that something would be done about the problem.

Clause 21 deals with the Commission's powers to institute inquiries about its functions. I think that I should make quite clear at this stage that what I understand is intended by these inquiries is not that they should be some form of judicial inquiry into the structure of certain parts of the livestock or livestock marketing industries but perhaps rather deep inquiries into the profitability or financial structure of these industries and they would be in some ways extremely confidential.

Subsection (2) allows for anyone to be summoned to give evidence and produce documents relating to matters specified on the summons and this gives rise to the difficulty, because when the original summons is sent out by the Commission to somebody to attend an inquiry, the matters specified are clearly annotated. It is right that there should be an ability to object because the subject of an inquiry would be extremely confidential and more in the nature of academic investigations which by their nature would be of extremely private and confidential matters.

It is right that there should be a right to appeal for people summoned, against having to give evidence and produce documents. This is dealt with in subsection (4). The problem is that the appeal is heard in the High Court and can be upheld only if it can be shown that the evidence or documents demanded by the original summons are not reasonably required by the Commission, not just for the inquiry into the matters specified in the summons, but for the whole functions of the Commission.

It is apparent that the proviso is right, but the weight and value of the right of appeal will be much diluted, because subsection (4) refers to the execution of all the functions of the Commission. I feel, and I have the agreement of my hon. Friends that it would be far better if subsection (4) referred only to the relevant functions specified on the original summons under subsection (2).

This seems to me a fair safeguard for somebody who is being summoned to appear and to divulge extremely confidential and private matters, as he has to. A strong case can be made for doing this by just inserting the word "relevant" in line 33 before the word "functions".

I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it in toto this time. If he will not, one can reasonably ask him why it has become necessary to particularise in subsection (2) when subsection (4) allows the Commission to summon evidence and documents of a far wider nature than subsection (2). I do not understand why close specification has to be made under sub-section (2) while the right of appeal covers all functions of the Commission which are very broad. This is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart

The hon. Member has put his case reasonably and objectively. It is true that this matter was discussed in Committee and we have examined it again since. I am certain that this is not the best way to deal with the matter, and that the effect of the Amendment would not be satisfactory. It is probably intended to specify more closely and make more effective than does the present draft the grounds for appeal against a summons under Clause 21(2) to attend and give evidence at an inquiry.

I have looked at this very carefully, and its effect would be to confuse the issue. The advice that I have been given is that it might reduce the effectiveness of these provisions, leaving the court to choose what is meant by "relevant functions" from a number of possible meanings. I really have looked at this carefully and I am told that the insertion of this would only confuse matters.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I support my hon. Friend's concern about the language of this Bill. The Clause indicates that the Commission may hold such inquiries as it considers necessary or desirable in the discharge of any of its functions. As I read the Bill the Commission has the most enormous powers. The intention of subsection (4) of this Clause is that the farmer, when asked to provide information to the Commission, should at some stage be able to say, "No, this is none of your business. It is not relevant to the inquiry."

If the Commission is able to reply, "We are entitled to ask for any information at all that is relevant to our function and not just to the particular matter concerning an individual farmer", then the protection given under subsection (4) is no protection at all. If the Commission wishes to require him to provide any information it likes, there is no real protection, unless some particularisation is injected into the Bill, as my hon. Friend seeks to do.

Can the Minister answer two short questions? When the Commission sends out its summons it will presumably use the local policeman. Can he say if he has had any consultation with the Home Secretary on the practicalities of this matter? Policemen will have to spend a very long time going round a large number of farms finding farmers, who may not want to be found, and that could be a great problem. Has the Minister consulted the Lord Chancellor about the pressures that this could add to the High Court? Perhaps he has had these consultations, and my anxiety is unnecessary but if he should, by leave of the House, reply, I hope that he will deal with these points.

Mr. Stodart

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the insertion of this word would not be satisfactory but, alas, he has not said why. I am sure that he should because at present I am entirely on the side of my hon. Friends. As far as I can tell from the Clause the position is that, under subsection (1), the Commission can hold an inquiry, can summon witnesses and demand the production of documents. The person served can appeal to the High Court on the ground that the evidence of the documents are not reasonably required by the Commission to discharge its functions. Which functions? Any of the functions?

There are an awful lot of them. Over 20 are listed in Schedule 1. It is wholly unreasonable for the Commission to be able to insist on evidence or documents by quoting some function which may have no direct bearing upon the point at issue. It is perfectly possible that a person might be forced to give evidence over a much wider area than he was willing to do. Because of this it seems that the insertion of the word "relevant" is a perfectly satisfactory safeguard. When the Minister merely says that he has looked at the point very carefully, that is not enough. We must have some explanation before we let this matter go.

Mr. Peart

I was asked about the summons. It will be in the form of a notice served on the person concerned. With regard to consultations, I did have consultations, as one obviously has in these matters. When a matter concerns other Departments we always have the closest consultations. I have said that I had taken careful advice on this. I was anxious to be helpful.

Perhaps I could explain the effect of this Amendment. By adding the word "relevant" to Clause 21(4), it presumably invites the court, when hearing an appeal, to consider which functions are relevant. By what criteria does the court judge? To what purpose or thing is a function required to be "relevant"? The amended subsection could conceivably be interpreted as meaning relevant to—here I quote the purpose of the Clause as described in subsection (1)— …the discharge of any of their functions", or to the purposes of the particular inquiry, or to the matters specified in the summons. That is to give only three examples.

In practice, the interpretation in some of these cases would not significantly alter the meaning of the Clause from what it is at present. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, this would really only confuse the matter. For this reason, and on the advice that I have received, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peart

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 23, line 21, at the end to insert— (10) The procedure at any such inquiry shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and any direction under section 20 above, be determined by the Commission, but so that any person appearing thereat shall be entitled to representation by counsel, solicitor or any other person. This Amendment would make it clear that any person summoned to appear before an inquiry under Clause 21 may be represented by a lawyer or another person, such as an official of a trade association. This point was raised by hon. Members. I am grateful for the points which have been made, and I hope that the Amendment is satisfactory to hon. Members.

Mr. Stodart

I will do no more than thank the Minister for taking up another of our suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.