§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the following issues in relation to the circumstances leading up to the cessation of trading by the Vehicle and General Insurance Company Limited—
§ 3.44 p.m.
§ Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two, and not at all on the generality of the matter, but on one specific point of public interest and of particular importance to the newspapers and people who are engaged in broadcasting, television and the like. For the avoidance of doubt, I warmly welcome the setting up of the Tribunal, and respectfully endorse the advice given to the House yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that it is best to avoid any general debate at this stage. I shall certainly be within the spirit of that, because I propose to make no observations relating to the merits of the matter or to any factual issues. I am concerned solely with the ancillary but important matter of the position of commentators in regard to the application of the law of contempt to proceedings of a tribunal.
I sought to make reference to this matter at Question Time yesterday, and referred to the Report of the Committee on the Law of Contempt as it affects 431 Tribunals of Inquiry, and my Question was correctly reported in The Times of this morning. Unfortunately, and quite naturally in the context, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister misunderstood my reference and thought I was referring to the earlier and much more widely ranging Royal Commission on Tribunals. I make no criticism of the misunderstanding because, in the nature of things, he was not and could not be on notice of my Question. As a result, some impression may have appeared that I was in some way seeking to criticise the conduct of the Aberfan Inquiry and, in particular, possibly of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), the former Attorney-General. That I certainly was not doing. I hold him in very high professional and personal regard. Equally, I should have great confidence in any approach which my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General decides to adopt in the course of the coming proceedings.
The reference which I made yesterday to doubts and difficulties which had arisen was solely in the context of the controversy which the House may recall arose at the time of the Aberfan Inquiry about the application of the law of contempt to these proceedings, and to the questions that arose about the proper interpretation of Section 1(2)(c) of the Act of 1921 which, on the face of it, applies to these proceedings the full rigours of the law of contempt as applied to the normal processes of law in the courts of the land.
The position at that time was acknowledged to be unclear and unsatisfactory, and was the subject of extensive criticism. As a result, the inter-departmental committee to which I have referred was set up on 25th July, 1968, two years after the report of the main Royal Commission, and it was charged with inquiring into the law of contempt as it affects comments or statements about matters referred to a tribunal of inquiry. Amongst its members were the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is, I am glad to see, in his place, and myself.
The Committee reported on 12th May, 1969, and our conclusions included a recommendation that the law of con- 432 tempt in its application to tribunals of inquiry should not prohibit or curtail any comments about the subject matter of the inquiry. The reasons for that are set out in extenso in paragraph 26 of the Report. A distinction is there drawn between the possible prejudice which can arise from comment in a jury case or criminal case and what the report regarded as the remote risk of the tribunal being improperly influenced by such comment. The Committee said:
We have no doubt but that the solid advantages of freedom to comment greatly outweigh the remote risk of the tribunal being improperly influenced by such comment.In consequence the report proposed an amendment of Section 1(2) of the 1921 Act to establish this position. In fact we did more. We set out the suggested terms in a draft so as to facilitate the work of government in giving effect to the recommendation.Alas, in accordance with a practice which of recent years has become increasingly frequent the report so far has suffered the all-too-familiar fate that its recommendations have not been acted upon. This has resulted in a position which is unsatisfactory, particularly from the point of view of the communications media. It is true that what is said in this report will help them in the clarification of their position, but I need not remind the House that no report of any Committee or Royal Commission has the force of law. Nothing which has not statutory effect can have such force.
I conclude by expressing some disappointment that we are now, after nearly two years, about to embark on another tribunal of inquiry without having had the advantage of the desirable clarification, and in some respects the liberalisation, of the law which was recommended in that report.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)I should like to make a few comments on this Motion. Although it is true that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Government gave notice yesterday that a Motion of some sort was to be put on the Order Paper, the first opportunity given to back benchers to consider this matter was this morning when they received the Order Paper. I believe it to be the usual 433 custom when hon. Members are in this situation for the Chair to consider accepting manuscript Amendments.
I am not against the Motion as such, in fact am in favour of it, but I feel that it does not go far enough. I should like to see the Motion amended, and I shall give my reasons for wishing to do so. I think the Prime Minister has some knowledge of some of these reasons, which I am about to adduce.
I should like to see the Motion apply not only to Vehicle and General but also to a large number of other companies, the full details of which are in the possession of the Department of Trade and Industry. I know for a fact—and the Prime Minister can find out that this is a fact—that for years the Department has had in its possession details of similar cases where the Department has deliberately evaded its responsibilities under the Companies Acts when it could—and should—have taken action.
I will quote some of the examples of where this has happened. There was the case of the Real Estate Company; there was the Pinnock fiasco in which many constituents lost their savings; and there was the Dollar Land Holdings case. Also—dare I mention it—there was Rolls Razor, where for four years the Department was asked to take action and then reluctantly, after most of the evidence had been swept under the mat, it was forced to take somewhat belated action. This is not good enough.
It may be necessary for the Tribunal to inquire into this one particular case, but surely what should be examined is whether the Department has carried out its legal obligations in these other cases. I can assure the Prime Minister that Mr. Martin Moir, who has given evidence about the Vehicle and General case to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), has a pile of cases which he has submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry in which chartered accountants have requested investigation. However, the Department has deliberately refused to carry out its statutory obligations.
Some of these companies have not published their company reports for three or four years, which is illegal. When a body of shareholders, chartered 434 accountants and ex-directors of the company go to the Department of Trade and Industry under the provisions of the Companies Acts and say, "Here are a whole string of illegalities and irregularities where the Department has not carried out its statutory responsibility, will you take action?", we know that in no single case has the Department taken any action whatever. What happens is that the Department waits and, having allowed all the evidence to be got rid of and to be swept under the carpet, it says, "Now we will have an investigation".
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have allowed the hon. Member to make his point and to go quite a long way, but what he is now saying is beyond the scope of this Motion. This Motion relates to a Tribunal that is to be set up to look into a specific matter. The idea that the Tribunal should inquire into all these other matters is a quite different issue.
§ Mr. LewisI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I must point out that the first time that I and many other back benchers saw the terms of this Motion was this morning. I am suggesting that I cannot support the Motion because it is not drawn widely enough. I am suggesting that had I know this earlier I would have proposed an amendment in line 4 to add at the end some six or seven other companies whose names should be added. I would have suggested substituting the word "companies" for the word "company" and I would have put forward a number of amendments. However, I have not had the opportunity to do so.
I am suggesting that I am now in order in explaining why I have doubts in agreeing to this Motion because it singles out one company. It is surely in order for me to give my reasons for thinking that six or seven other companies should be included in the Motion. Should I not also be able to give evidence on which to persuade the House that this matter has not happened overnight and to give evidence of some instances where these irrgularities have taken place?
I was going on to say that the Motion would have my support if the Prime Minister gave the assurance that he will take firm action now that he has knowledge of the situation. He has told us that he did not know what was going on about Vehicle and General, and that 435 he was told only a couple of days ago. He has now been told, because I have written to him, and I tell him again in the hearing of all those right hon. and hon. Members who are present, that there are certainly half a dozen similar cases where the Department of Trade has consistently and persistently refused to carry out its legal obligations under the Companies Act.
It is difficult to understand why a tribunal is necessary. In my view, instead, the Minister and the Department concerned with these companies should demand to know why they have not published reports for three or four years in accordance with the Companies Act, why companies have not had directors, why companies have not had secretaries, and why they have not had the legal enfranchisement laid down in the Companies Act. The House should also be told why it is that when an hon. Member takes these matters up with the Department in question nothing is done, why it is that when he puts down Questions nothing is done, and why it is that when he discusses such matters with the Minister concerned nothing is done.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State or his civil servants are responsible. Whoever is responsible should be kicked in the pants by the Prime Minister and told to get cracking with their inquiries into these six or seven other companies which perhaps in the next few weeks or months will be in the same situation as Vehicle and General.
§ 4.2 p.m.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath)As there has not been a general debate, perhaps I might reply to the specific points which have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
First, on the procedure for putting the Motion on the Order Paper, we have followed precedent in these matters, except in the case of the Aberfan Tribunal, which was of a rather different nature from those normally set up under the 1921 Act.
I read out the terms of reference yesterday in my statement to the House, which 436 was a breach with precedent, because it has not been the normal practice to give the terms of reference straight away.
As for the point about widening this inquiry, as I explained yesterday, it was a firm recommendation of the Salmon Commission that such an inquiry should not be wide-ranging but should concentrate on specific matters. That is so with the terms of reference that we have put on the Order Paper.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North wrote to me at the beginning of this week citing a number of cases, such as those that he has mentioned today. He also has a Question to me on the Order Paper about these matters. He will receive an answer to his Question and, should he be present when it is given, no doubt he will be entitled to ask a supplementary. I shall answer the point that he has raised in his letter. One of the cases occurred seven years ago. At the time I was President of the Board of Trade. I instituted immediate inquiries, and a prosecution followed. I shall deal with the other cases in replying to the hon. Gentleman's letter.
I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding yesterday on the point that my right hon. and learned Friend put to me. I hope that it has not led to other misunderstandings as a result of reports in the Press today.
The position is exactly as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated it. The recommendation of the other inquiry presided over by Lord Justice Salmon was as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated, and, since the report was issued in 1969, no amendment of the law has followed. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend will hold the present Administration entirely responsible for that. But the situation remains the same as it was at the time of the Aberfan Tribunal.
The Inter-Departmental Committee on the law of contempt, as it affects tribunals of inquiry, concluded that the law of contempt now applies and should continue to apply to tribunals of inquiry. The Committee recommended that, as under the present law, the law of contempt should apply from the date that the tribunal is appointed. That, therefore, is the position. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to announce the 437 members of the Tribunal tomorrow and, from that date, the law will apply.
As for the proposed amendment, as I have stated, that has not been put to the House. I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend said in quoting the Report, that it may well be that further evidence will come to light as a result of the publicity given to the establishment of the Tribunal.
Whether any action is taken about a possible offence of contempt depends on the chairman of the Tribunal. Any chairman of this kind, who is himself a judge, will obviously take all the circumstances into account in deciding whether it is a matter of contempt which deserves to be referred to the High Court. At the same time, I think that one can have confidence in the president of the Tribunal and in his judgment about whether any comment which might be made is one which is of a nature which should be referred to the High Court because it will imperil the work of the Tribunal.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the following issues in relation to the circumstances leading up to the cessation of trading by the Vehicle and General Insurance Company Limited—