Auction rings (Hansard, 3 April 1969)

§ 38. Mr. A. Royle
asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has received to publish his Report on auction rings from the Society of London Art Dealers.

§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell)
My right hon. Friend has received no request for publication from this Society. They wrote to my right hon. Friend on 24th February asking whether the Report would be published.

§ Mr. Royle
Is it not true that that letter specifically agreed that the Report by the President of the Board of Trade should be published, and does the Minister agree that the Society of London Art Dealers gave the closest co-operation to his Department both before and during the inquiry?

§ Mr. Dell
The letter in question asked whether the Report would be published. The Society of London Art Dealers, as the hon. Gentleman knows, met an official of my Department on 30th September to give what information they had, and members of the Society subsequently gave evidence during the course of the inquiry.

§ 39. Mr. A. Royle
asked the President of the Board of Trade why his officials refused an offer by the Sunday Times to witness an art auction ring; and why neither Mr. Colin Simpson nor Mr. Nicholas Tomalin was interviewed during his Department's inquiry.

§ Mr. Dell
No such offer was made either before or in the course of the Board's inquiries into auction rings. Moreover if, as appears to be implied, the Sunday Times had advance information of the operation of an auction ring, it was their clear duty to bring this information to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my Answer to the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir. 644 J. Vaughan-Morgan) on 25th March—[Vol. 780, c. 267–8.]

§ Mr. Royle
Is not this a most extraordinary statement? Is the Minister aware that the Sunday Times, in a major article, detailed the operations of a ring at Aldwick Court? Is it not astonishing that neither he nor any of his officials went out of their way to take evidence or to see the people who wrote the article and to discuss the matter with them?

§ Mr. Dell
Journalists of the Sunday Times visited the Board of Trade before the inquiry was launched. During the course of the inquiry evidence was taken, as I said in my Answer to the right hon. Member for Reigate, from all those people who seemed likely to be able to give useful information about art auctions. We do not propose to disclose the names of the people who gave evidence.

§ Mr. Gibson-Watt
Yes; but the hon. Gentleman gave a very unsatisfactory Answer to my hon. Friend. We had hoped to hear a great deal more on this subject this morning. Why is it that the hon. Gentleman's Department has been totally unable to accept the help which has been forthcoming from so many quarters?

§ Mr. Dell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, an inquiry was made. In addition, a Bill is being considered by the House which I hope will be of value in this respect. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the reason why we cannot publish the Report has been explained to the House many times. Those reasons remain valid.

§ Mr. Brooks
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some contradiction here because, among the reasons given for not publishing the Board of Trade Report, was the argument that there might be statements of a defamatory character? As last week we had a Report published which had carried out investigations of such seriousness that the documents have been forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, would it not be advisable for the House of Commons to have a consistent policy applied to the publication of documents and reports of this character?

§ Mr. Dell
I do not know of any inconsistency in this matter. The problem 645 about publication—and this is the main reason why publication cannot be made—is that to do so would cause injustice to individuals who would not be able to defend themselves. I well understand and share the public interest in this matter and in the Report, but there is an even greater public interest in not doing injustice to individuals in these circumstances.

§ Mr. Royle
In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

§ 40. Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan
asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has received to publish his Report on auction rings from the British Antique Dealers' Association.

§ Mr. Dell
The Association wrote to the Board of Trade supporting publication of the Report subject to the legal difficulties.

§ Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Association wrote and stressed the legal difficulties in particular? Furthermore, does he realise that failure to produce a Report giving the general conclusions on what was found in regard not to a specific ring or auction sale but to the general matter is causing the rumours which have been spread about certain people to be given even wider circulation?

§ Mr. Dell
The British Antique Dealers' Association referred to the legal difficulties because, just before writing to me, it had read the statement that I made in Committee on the Bill.
On the general conclusions, my right hon. Friend made a statement to the House some weeks ago.

§ 41. Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan
asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has received to publish his Report on auction rings from Mr. Julius Weitzner.

§ Mr. Dell
None.

§ 42. Mr. Channon
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that he will now lay the Report on Auction Rings in response to an order for an unopposed return.

§ Mr. Dell
Such publication would not avoid possible injustice to persons named in the Report who will not be charged, and who consequently will not have the safeguards afforded to defendants at a criminal trial. In addition, while it would afford the protection of absolute privilege to my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it would give no such protection against proceedings for defamation to those persons whose statements are recorded in the Report.

§ Mr. Channon
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with astonishment by people outside this House? Since it was obvious before the inquiry was set up that no criminal proceedings could be taken in the matter, will the hon. Gentleman say why this ludicrous form of inquiry was set up and not another, as was suggested?

§ Mr. Dell
I do not think that the statement will be regarded with astonishment. It is a plain statement about the danger of causing injustice to individuals which I think this House would wish to avoid.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
Will my hon. Friend bring his Answer to the attention of the Leader of the House as an added reason why we should speedily adopt the Report of the Select Committee on Privilege which has been hanging over for so long? Quite often wrongs might be righted if we acted with more alacrity on Reports which hon. Members spend about two years preparing.

§ Mr. Dell
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note my right hon. Friend's question.

§ Mr. A. Royle
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that the Minister's statement will be received with astonishment? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government published the Bristol Siddeley Report if they are not prepared to publish this one, using the same method? The Minister's statement is extraordinary.

§ Mr. Dell
The Bristol Siddeley Report was of an entirely different character from the Board's inquiry into the possible existence of art auction rings. The Bristol Siddeley Report neither named individual witnesses nor published their statements.

§ Mr. Brooks
But the Bristol Siddeley inquiry identified individuals against whom the most serious allegations were made and it would have been possible to put names to those individuals. Will my hon. Friend agree that there are close parallels between the two cases?

§ Mr. Dell
The main difference is that in the Bristol Siddeley Report no statements by individuals were published. I must again emphasise that the great danger in publishing this Report is that of doing injustice to individuals, and I am surprised that the House seems to pay so little attention to that.

§ Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), but I, too, was on the Committee which dealt with the Bristol Siddeley matter, and that what he has just said in his reply is not factually true?

§ Mr. Dell
I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) is referring not to the Report of the P.A.C. but to the Report of the Wilson Committee.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Is it not a fact that subsequent to the publication of the Wilson Committee's Report the Government identified two of the individuals concerned by inflicting heavy penalties on them?

§ Mr. Dell
That is so. As a matter of fact, as the House knows, there was criticism even of the publication of the Bristol Siddeley Report. I think that publication of the Report under discussion would be a good deal more susceptible of criticism.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
Will my hon. Friend accept that the House is fully cognisant of the difficulties of protecting the rights of individuals? Will he accept, too, that this reply leaves the House and the country in a most unsatisfactory position at the end of what is regarded by many people, both inside the House and outside, as a very smelly operation? Will my hon. Friend therefore keep it in mind that it is not good enough to try to teach us about the rights of individuals? It is up to the Government to make sure that, with great speed, an inquiry is conducted to see to it that our art market in London has its reputation fully restored.

§ Mr. Dell
I do not say that the situation is satisfactory, but it is important that the House should have regard to the importance of not doing injustice to individuals. We have had an inquiry into the operation of auction rings in this country. As my hon. Friend knows, nothing arising out of that inquiry was of a character which it would have been useful to refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

§ Mr. Channon
The hon. Gentleman has been talking about causing injustice to individuals. Is he not aware that he is doing the greatest possible injustice to the whole of the reputable art trade in this country by not clearing up this matter and removing the mess of suspicion that is surrounding all its operations?

§ Mr. Dell
In his statement to the House my right hon. Friend made it clear that there was no reason why the reputation of the London art market should be in any way reduced by anything produced during the course of the inquiry. It seems to me that it is these continual questions on this point by hon. Gentlemen opposite that brings in the question of that reputation, which we wish to maintain.