INVESTIGATIONS

HC Deb 21 June 1977 vol 933 cc1510-9

Amendment proposed: No. 75, in page 9, line 4, at end insert: '(d) to include in their report an indication as to which of the matters listed in section 2(2) of this Act they have in particular had regard in preparing that report'—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 252.

[For Division List No. 176, see c. 1661]

Question accordingly negatived.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Neubert

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 4, at end insert: '(1A) Where the relevant person notifies the Commission in writing that any statements of fact contained in the report are erroneous in a material particular or that relevant and material matters of fact have been omitted therefrom and the Commission in including any such statement or excluding such matter relied on information received from any person other than the relevant person or any servant of the Commission the Commission shall (unless a public inquiry preceded the report and the informant gave evidence thereat) within seven days of receipt of the notification inform the relevant person to that effect in writing, identifying their informant and setting out the tenor of the information given by him, and shall send a copy of the relevant person's notification and of the information sent to him in reply to the Secretary of State'. As we have now reached the half-way stage in terms of the amendments tabled and selected on this Report stage of the Bill, perhaps it would not be amiss if I explained why it is that this Report stage is so remarkably lengthy. It is because, although the Government are in a minority in the House and are, as a consequence, a minority Government, they had equality of membership in the Committee, but this was not sufficient for them to carry their point of view on all necessary occasions. In fact, on no fewer than sixteen occasions was the vote tied, and the issue with which this amendment deals is one of them.

This amendment deals with the protection against false evidence of a company subjected to investigation.

It is unfortunately a fact of business life with which we have to reckon that the Price Commission may be informed by a third person, who may have an interest in the matter, of certain facts which lead it to initiate an investigation. Inevitably this must be so, because the Price Commission would depend upon private sources of advice as well as on its own observation and facts which are publicly known.

We feel that the company investigated should have the safeguard that if the report which eventually emerges from the Price Commission to go to the Secretary of State is shown in the company's view to contain erroneous information—I hesitate to use the word "facts" because even facts are very often subjective and the word should be used in quotation marks—or to be based on false premises, and if that false information should have been supplied by a third person, the company should have the opportunity to make that known to the Commission. The Commission should then have to identify the informant and identify precisely which information has come from that source, and this should then be part of the submission which goes to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State at that stage has a power to delete parts of the report before it is made public, if he considers it proper in commercial terms and in terms of confidentiality to do so. But, as was brought out in Committee, he does not have the opportunity to vary or amend the report in any way. Therefore, we on the Conservative side of the House think that it is a proper safeguard for which to ask.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I intervene, although I have not yet taken part in this great debate—[Interruption.] If Labour Members wish me to take part in a more active sense in future amendments, I shall be delighted to satisfy their wish. I consider it to be most flattering that I should be in such great demand. I intervene at this stage because, frankly, I cannot believe my ears when I hear that this amendment will be opposed and I do not believe the evidence of my eyes when I read what the Minister said in relation to this proposed amendment in the Standing Committee.

The Government are intending to perpetrate an injustice which is so extreme that it must be apparent not only to Labour Members below the Gangway—I see very few of the accustomed faces present at the moment—but also to hon. Members above the Gangway. It is an injustice which must strike deeply into the heart not only of Socialists but of extreme Right-wing Conservatives and anybody in between, for it is a fundamental protection of our British law that a man has the right to know not only who is his accuser, but of what he is accused. This fundamental protection is being pushed aside in this legislation by the most spurious of reasoning that one has yet heard.

For example, the Minister of State said: On the question of which facts are right and which are wrong, I am not sure that a firm under investigation can be expected to be a reliable judge of what facts and reports are wrong, or what has been wrongly left out. It would probably object to anything which it found to be embarrasing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17th May 1977; col. 314.] I ask Labour Members to bear with me and to consider the same judgment, the same statement, applied to a person accused of a criminal offence. Is it to be said that he should not know what accusation is brought against him, either in general or specifically, so that he may answer it? Is it to be said that he must not know who is bringing the accusation, so that he is unable to test that witness against him to see whether that witness be truthful or untruthful, or whether the source of his information is accurate or inaccurate?

If that judgment would not be expected to apply to somebody charged with a criminal offence, why should it apply to somebody whose whole future in business may be affected as a result of tittle-tattle from a source that he may not know and the subject of which he may not know?

If Labour Members do not think that there is a parity of situation between a person accused of a criminal offence, or even with an allegation made against him in a civil law context, and a company or a firm having a right to know what accusations are made and who is making them, I beg them to consider this. Many of them have made themselves signatories to something called an Early-Day Motion to advance a freedom of information Bill. This means that hon. Members—it is not confined to hon. Members on the Government side but applies on both sides of the House—are seriously concerned about a development in our complicated society as a result of which all sorts of misinformation may too easily be held against a person. That person does not know what it is or what is the source, and there is nothing that such a person can do about it.

This applies to information compiled by computer. It applies to information about hire-purchase defaults and to other information about the instability of a person's finances. It applies also to information about our children at school, to how they misbehave, and to many other matters. Regardless of political belief, we are entitled to know who makes an allegation against us and what that allegation is, so that we can correct it if it is erroneous.

Is it really considered for a moment that our concern in this respect is not as justified where a company may be the subject of false information supplied by a computer, by somebody who has a grudge, or by somebody who, although well meaning, has got his facts wrong? All of us as Members of Parliament know what it is like to have a complaint made to us by a constituent, only to find, when it is investigated, that it has no basis, not because the constituent is dishonest but because he has got the wrong end of the stick and does not understand all the facts. We are very often able to correct the information and make sure that justice and fairness result.

In all these situations we, as Members of Parliament, are the guardians of people's fundamental rights. Whether it is criminal law, civil law or just the way in which we govern ourselves in our society, it is fundamental that we should know what anyone says about us that is evil, or about our companies, our families or our friends, and who is the person saying these things, so that he can be tested as to the accuracy and the honesty of it all.

I cannot, quite frankly, understand how there can possibly be any opposition to an amendment which merely seeks to give a company the fundamental rights to know what specifically is said against it, the basis of that accusation and, principally, from who that accusation comes, so that it can be tested. Then in due course, the Minister, the Price Commission, can weigh up the pros and cons and say whom they believe and whether the facts are true or false. A fair judgment can then be made and nobody can complain against it. But to deny the accused the right to know what is the accusation or who is the accuser is a fundamental betrayal of one of the most important rights that we are sent to this place to try to preserve.

How can it be that Labour Members, who are so concerned with fundamental rights of this sort, can be so blinded that they do not see what is confronting them? I can only conclude that it is due to the lateness of the hour, to the complicated nature of the legislation, or to the fact that most of us have had very little sleep or no sleep at all, so that our faculties are not concentrated and we are just wandering willy-nilly in and out of the Lobbies as the Whips dictate, without considering the important matters set out in this legislation.

Mr. Le Merchant

Shame!

Mr. Lawrence

I hear one of my hon. Friends, who tells me which Lobby to go into, cry "Shame". It is a shame, but it is one of the realities of parliamentary life that we cannot, at every moment of time when a matter is being debated, sit down and consider all the ramifications.

But I ask hon. Members who are present to consider the ramifications of refusing this amendment, and to consider whether they can find it in their consciences to go into the Lobby against it. I ask them to consider whether it would not be a far better contribution to justice and fairness if they were to tell one or two of their hon. Friends, before they go into the Lobby to vote against it, exactly what is at stake in this amendment, and seek to send them to this side. Then perhaps the independent conscience of hon. Members can be brought to prevail against those forces which have hitherto been so powerful as to resist an amendment as moderate; as non-party-political, as sensible and as just as this.

Mr. Maclennan

I think that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is familiar with the exchange which took place in Committee on this amendment, which was one of a number of amendments designed to give companies subject to investigation greater information about the nature of the economic evidence which was being brought forward in a consideration of their case by third parties. He will not be surprised to learn that I still see difficulties in the way of advising the House to accept this amendment. That stems principally from the problem that would face firms who have, in good conscience and in the public interest, supplied to the Price Commission information of a factual kind, much of which could, in the nature of things, be confidential and which, if revealed, to the firm under examination could positively be of disservice to that firm.

Mr. Giles Shaw

In Committee when the hon. Gentleman first raised this matter we considered it to be a most unwelcome development. I would press the Minister now to state openly why he thinks that companies will supply that information. Why should the Commission ask for it in that way? Is the Minister not starting something akin to a witch-hunt among companies by using this technique?

Mr. Maclennan

Among the considerations—I cite this only by way of illustration—which might be germane to an investigation is the extent of the market share of a company. That is a highly sophisticated question, and it is plain that it ought not to be decided upon by the Price Commission solely relying upon the view of the company under investigation.

Other companies might wish to give their view about their position in the market. It would not necessarily be desirable to have that kind of information transferred from one company to another through the medium of a public agency of this kind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see nothing sinister in this. It is a protection of commercial confidentiality.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim

The point of our amendment would not arise in the kind of case that the Minister has just described. He is talking about a company giving independent information about itself and telling the Price Commission what its share of the market was. It would not be providing information about another company in which there could be errors of fact.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Lady is a little naive if she thinks that the information about one company's share of the market does not have a bearing on the share of the market of another company. These two things sometimes tie up. There is nothing sinister in this at all. The issue here—perhaps it is revealed more in the speech made by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) than in that of the hon. Member for Romford—is a misconception of the nature of these investigations. They are not in any sense judicial or criminal proceedings, as he seemed to imply. They are investigations, and they will be based upon factual evidence provided not only by the company but by others who may have information to add.

The procedure will be highly informal and will enable companies to bring forward to explain their position such matters and facts as they consider to be relevant. In that very informality, and in the capacity of the Price Commission to tell a company its finding or its preliminary view and ask for its explanation, the company's interests are fully protected.

It would be wrong for the Price Commission to be deprived of information from third parties and to focus their information solely upon the information provided by the company itself. That would inevitably lead to less satisfactory results.

Mr. Lawrence

Is the hon. Gentleman denying that whether or not they are criminal or civil legal proceedings—I was not seeking to suggest that it was either but merely that there was parity—it is a question of fundamental justice that the company which is accused should know what the accusation is and who has made it? Would the Minister deny that? The Minister says that there is nothing sinister in his point, and I am not anxious to see anything sinister in it, but what protection is there for the suspect company against false information, whether it is dishonest or just inaccurate?

Mr. Maclennan

What I am trying to suggest to the hon. Member is that there would be some informality in an investigation, which would enable the Price Commission to be in contact continually with the company under investigation to check allegations and to make available for comment any facts which may be available.

However, in the last analysis, the Commission will produce this report, and if from the report it appears to the company that there is some mistake in it the provenance of which is not known, it would be against the public interest to force the third party which provided the information to disclose it.

The ultimate safeguard is that the company has the opportunity after the report has been made to make representations to the Secretary of State, who will then have to decide whether to act upon the recommendation of the Price Commission.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

Will there not devolve upon the Price Commission some form of duty if it becomes aware of the fact that it has been the recipient of frivolous or misleading information and has handled and processed such?

Mr. Maclennan

I think that one must rely here, as one would in a court of law but even perhaps more in a commercial matter of this kind, upon the sense and judgment of the members of the Commission. That is why my right hon. Friend has attached such importance to finding people of the right calibre for this important work. Highly paid public servants will be doing this work because it involves the exercise of judgment. It does not involve mere tests against the code, as in the previous arrangements. I hope that that reassures hon. Members opposite, although I appreciate, from the way this debate has gone and the way it went in Committee, that they are seek- ing to erect a more legalistic approach to it.

I believe that that would not be in the best interests of industry under investigation. I believe that it would lead to protraction and added expense and would get us far away from the kind of intimate relationship which I hope will develop between industry and the Price Commission.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

This is another example of what should be a straightforward, reasonable and modest amendment being rejected by the Minister, who complacently assumes that it will be all right if he merely says, "I hope that that will satisfy the House." Clearly it will not. There is much uneasiness about the powers used in the preparation of these reports. The amendment is a modest defence to what have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) as factual errors or wilfully irresponsible errors, produced by the accumulation of material about companies as a result of price increases.

The Minister should give the House its due. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) couched his speech in a low key, very sagaciously, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton was much more dramatic, introducing more of a legal note, the truth of the situation may lie somewhere between those two pitches. The Minister should respond to the anxieties and at long last reassure us in respect of our continual realisation that he is very naive on many industrial and commercial matters in respect of the ways in which information in the retail and commercial sectors is produced and exchanged.

If the Government accepted this modest amendment to deal with errors in the compilation of a report, they would do what they refused to do in Committee. There will frequently be errors in these reports. The fact that such bodies have too much to do shows that there is too much information to be compiled now. This little element of defence against errors of fact—even if "fact" may be an objective matter—is reasonable and should be accepted. If the Government do not accede to this request, I hope that we shall press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 255.

[For Division List No. 177, see c. 1665]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Fraser

I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 9, line 22, at end insert— '(3A) The Commission shall, if so required by a notice given as mentioned in the preceding subsection, give to the relevant person or to a person appointed by him an opportunity of making representations in person to a member of the Commission about the increase, price or margin in question before the investigation is completed.' This is a concession to the Opposition. It ensures that a firm under investigation has an opportunity of putting its case before a member of the Commission.

Mr. Parkinson

The Opposition are thankful for small mercies. We accept with gratitude the amendment proposed by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 10, line 7, leave out 'unrestricted' and insert: 'not restricted by virtue of the said section 4(2)(b)'.