New Clause No. 12.—(ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN MATTER.) (Hansard, 12 July 1967)

§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
We are taking, at the same time, Amendment No. 276, to Clause 105, in page 83, line 28, at end insert: () A statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement imposed by virtue of this section may be used in evidence against him.

§ Mr. Jay
The purpose of the new Clause and the Amendment is to give the Board of Trade additional power to carry out inspections of companies when fraud or other abuses are suspected. It has been the experience during recent years that some inspections of companies have taken an extremely long time. In particular, it has been necessary, first, for the investigation by the Board of Trade inspector to be held and, secondly, for a further police investigation to be made. In some cases a period of years has elapsed and there has been a very natural public demand that the process should be speeded up. We came to the conclusion that that was justified and that is why certain additional provisions have been proposed for the Bill.
We are making it explicit that in the case of investigations under Section 167 of the principal Companies Act state- 830 ments made by persons who are being questioned about the affairs of the company may be used as evidence against them. As the law stands, there are circumstances in which it is explicitly stated that statements made may be used as evidence. In other cases it is not stated one way or the other.
When it is not stated the presumption is that such statements may not be used as evidence.
The new Clause provides that An answer given by a person to a question put to him in exercise of powers conferred by—

(a) section 167 of the principal Act … or

(b) general rules made under section 365 (1) "—
of that Act— may be used in evidence against him, and a statement required by section 235 of the principal Act … may be used in evidence against any person making or concurring in making it. Clause 105 empowers the Board of Trade to require the production of the books or papers of a body corporate and to require statements in relation to them. Amendment No. 276 provides that a statement made by a person when complying with a requirement imposed by virtue of that Clause may be used in evidence against him.
The purpose of these proposals is to enable investigations to be more expeditiously and efficiently made.

§ Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)
On a point of order. I should like to consult you, Mr. Speaker, on the question of the progress of the Report stage of the Bill. I ask this question as a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill for between three and four months. I notice that we begin the Report stage with 75 pages of new Clauses and Amendments. It would be for the convenience of hon. Members, and would perhaps make better sense of our proceedings in view of other events which have taken place in this Palace during this and last week, if we could be told by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, or the Leader of the House, how much progress the Government wish to make with the Bill today.
I give due notice, I hope with respect to you, Sir, in the Chair, and to all my colleagues, and with no disrespect to anyone, that I have no intention of sitting 831 here all night on this Bill after what has been happening during recent days.

§ Mr. Speaker
It seems as though I was allowing the hon. Member almost to move the Motion, That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned. I cannot answer the question he has raised, but I think that both sides of the House will at some time come to some sort of agreement as to how long to go on today.

§ Sir John Foster (Northwich)
My first comment is in line with the intervention of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), although it is a little late in the day to make it.
I have rather heretical views about this kind of provision and I welcome any breach of the law that no man must be made to incriminate himself. Writers of crime suggest that this is a protection which criminals have in not being able to incriminate themselves, but in this Clause it is a matter of drafting which I rather regret. The words are: a statement required by Section 235 of the principal Act may be used in evidence against any person making or concurring in making it. It is a mistake which detective writers make when they say, "The police said, 'Anything you say may be used in evidence against you'." This phrase may come from some ether Act, but it does not make it better to again use the wrong words. The phrase should be, "used in evidence". Does the President of the Board of Trade pretend that the evidence cannot be used in a person's favour? Expressio unius exclusio alterius.
I suggest that an Amendment should be made to the Clause to take out the words, "in evidence against him". I welcome the provision, but I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could alter the rule that no man must be made to incriminate himself, in all branches of our law.

§ Mr. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South)
I endorse the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) to the extent that I think new Clause No. 12 purports to amend the principal Act. If we refer to Section 167(2) we find that inspectors have power to examine people on oath. I should have thought that if one 832 examined someone on oath and could not use the proceedings afterwards even though the examination had been on oath, that would be a nonsense.
This is an example of the Board of Trade legislating and not doing it properly. I would much have preferred to have seen some power to examine on oath put in the Bill and I would have preferred that we should leave out the really ludicrous expression "against him". As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, it is important that the answer can be used in evidence. It may be that the wording as it stands has restricted the use of these statements beyond what is desirable or what is the intention of the Board of Trade.
Once again—this ties up with what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said—this is an example of really bad legislation which results from bringing in something like eight new Government Clauses at this stage, a stage at which we have to add about 23 extra Clauses to the Bill following statements by the Lord Chancellor in another place that the Bill was not to be allowed to get any longer, anyway. Catching the eye of the Minister of State, I see that he accuses us of adding to the Bill, but this is at his invitation, because he has made such a nonsense of it that unless we added to it we should have a terrible Bill.