LORDS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 24 June 1930)

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do insist upon the first of these Amendments and, if I may, I will indicate in a very few words why I regard it as important. Your Lordships will remember that by an earlier clause—Clause 2—a central board is set up. By Clause 3 district boards are set up and provision is made that any coal owner in one case or any district in the other case which feels aggrieved by a scheme shall have the right of going to arbitration. Clause 5 is a clause which purports to give protection to the consumer and it is the only clause which gives any protection to the consumer. Under Clause 5 protection is afforded by setting up a committee of investigation in each district—I dealing with the districts for convenience of illustration—consisting of five people, two representing the industry, two representing the consumer and the fifth being an independent Chairman all five are to be nominated by the Board of Trade. These persons are charged with the duty of investigating consumers' complaints. But when we come to look at subsection (6), which is the one with which we are immediately concerned, we find that although the committee of investigation are charged with the duty of investigating the complaints 78 of consumers, they have no power even to report that a complaint is well founded unless the complaint is one that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests.
I ventured to point out to your Lordships' House when the Bill was before your Lordships on a former occasion that there might be a great many cases where there was grave injustice to art individual consumer, or even with regard to a class of consumers, with regard to which it could not be said that any public interest was involved, but where there was real unfairness or inequity or injustice to the individual consumer. Under the Bill as it stands there is no power for the committee of investigation even to report that such a complaint is well founded. The Amendment with which we are immediately concerned gives to the committee of investigation the power and the duty, if they find that a complaint that a particular scheme is unfair or inequitable is made out, so to report to the Board of Trade in order that the Board of Trade, if they agree with that view, may take steps to remove the injustice.
I entirely fail to understand on what principle it can be said that that is an unreasonable Amendment. The reason which the other House gives I hold in my hand. It says that:— … they consider that the duties of committees of investigation should be confined to the protection of public interests. If any other protection had been afforded to persons who were inequitably affected and who were treated with injustice by these schemes, if any other means were afforded for investigating or redressing injustice, I should accept the proposal at once. But as the clause stands the committee of investigation, which is the only body which the Government have seen fit 79 to set up with any power to investigate such an injustice, are confined to the protection of public interests. In other words, in any case of individual hardship there is to be no right even to get an investigation or report. It is because of that that I ask your Lordships to insist upon this Amendment and I do hope that the Government, who when this was discussed on an earlier occasion seemed not unsympathetic, will soften their hard hearts and agree with the Motion which I now make.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
To the operation of a scheme really.

§ LORD THOMSON
Subsection (8) applies to the operation and subsection (6) to the provisions. If the noble and learned Viscount will refer to subsection (6) he will see it says:— If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme. … that is the distinction that I wish to draw. Therefore my olive branch consists in offering an Amendment to subsection (8). The Amendment is as on the Paper. Under that Amendment when schemes become operative and prices are fixed among other things, any injustice inflicted on an individual can be redressed. I submit that that really covers the point of the consumer. I trust that your Lordships will accept my Amendment at least as a half-way house towards meeting the wishes of the noble and learned Viscount.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I can only speak a second time with the leave of the House, but as an invitation has been addressed to me by the noble and gallant Lord perhaps I may be allowed to explain why I cannot accept the olive branch. It is not from any distrust of the offer, but because really it does not meet the case. So far as subsection (6) is concerned it is quite true that it deals only with any provision of the scheme which is contrary to the public interest. Subsection (8) deals with the acts or omissions of persons in respect of their functions. When we are dealing with the provisions of a scheme which inflicts hardships on the individual, no redress is given by subsection (8) and no redress is given anywhere else unless this Amendment is insisted upon. When I come to subsection (8), I hope to indicate to your Lordships why the limitations inserted in the proposed Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord really render the Amendment quite nugatory in its effect, but I do not deal with that point now because it obviously arises later.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I now come to the Amendment on page 13, line 24. This raises the point that I mentioned just now in regard to subsection (8), as to which the noble and gallant Lord offers an olive branch. The reason why I do not feel that the olive branch is of any real effect is that it is so prickly that it will be impossible for anybody to grasp it. The proposal of the noble and gallant Lord is that the committee of investigation may report that the act or omission of any person in respect of their functions under the scheme is "unfair or inequitable" and that it is a matter which can be rectified without detriment to the public interest or to the proper and efficient operation of the scheme. I agree, of course, that the public interest has to prevail, and I agree that, if in the public interest it is essential to do something which would be unfair or unjust to the individual, in the last resort the individual interest must be subordinated to the public good; but I submit that there can be no reason why, in that case, the invariable practice should not be followed and why the indi- 81 vidual who is being unjustly treated for the public good should not be compensated by the public.
As the noble and gallant Lord's Amendment stands, no such provision is inserted. If provision were made that, where there is an injustice to the individual which is essential for the proper operation of the scheme, then compensation should be given to the individual, to be assessed by arbitration, I should be content. Under his Amendment as it stands, if the committee were to come to the conclusion that the particular injustice was essential for the public interest, then the individual would not only have to suffer the injustice but would receive no sort of compensation in respect of it. That has never been the practice of Parliament, so far as I know. Where it is necessary for the public good to take land or injuriously to affect property by interfering with private rights, then, of course, the public interest prevails, the private right has to be subordinated to the public good, but the individual who is being injured for the public good is compensated by the public Exchequer. In the absence of some such provision as this it seems to me that the noble and gallant Lord's Amendment does not really assist the particular cases that I have indicated, and for that reason I have to ask your Lordships to insist upon the Amendment.