HL Deb 17 May 1949 vol 162 cc723-39

2.39 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Directions by Ministers to boards as respects certain matters

(5) The Minister may at any time, after consultation with the board concerned, by order revoke or vary any order in force under the said subsection (2) so as either—

  1. (a) to withdraw the whole or any part of the directions in force thereunder; or
  2. (b) to vary or add to those directions in any manner which he thinks necessary or expedient in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given.

LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (5) to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: On Report stage in another place the Government substituted for the existing subsections (5) and (6) of this clause the subsection (5) which now appears in the Bill. I do not think that this was a change for the better. The new subsection gives the Minister rather more power than I think it right he should have. Perhaps the better way of explaining the reasons for this Amendment is to take a concrete, if rather far-fetched, example, of how this clause might work in practice. Suppose, for example, that a Tomato Board determined that tomatoes should be sold at a price not less than 5s. a pound, and that the Minister took the view that this price was too high; he would then give notice to the Board that he intended to make an order under subsection (2) of this clause. The Board would then have the power to ask that this matter be referred to a committee of investigation. Suppose, further, that the committee of investigation agreed with the Minister that the price was too high; the Minister could make an order fixing the price at, say, 2s. 6d. a pound. Under subsection (5) (b) of this clause, the Minister, having gone through the whole procedure, may at any time vary the order or vary the directions, provided that he considers it is essential in the public interest.

To go back for a moment to my example, the Minister may at any time after the price has been fixed at 2s. 6d. vary the order and, in effect, fix the price at 1s. 6d. a pound, without reference to the committee of investigation and subject only to a negative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I think that this newt power is wholly unnecessary, and that if the Minister wants to vary a direction the proper course is to start afresh, serve a new order and go through the whole procedure again. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Carrington.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

I think that the noble Lord in moving this Amendment has perhaps not quite appreciated the intention behind the clause or, at any rate, paragraph (b) of it. If your Lordships will look at that paragraph, you will see that it reads: to vary or add to those directions in any manner which he thinks necessary or expedient"— and these are the important words— in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given. The only way this subsection would be used would be as follows. As the noble Lord has ably pointed out, the procedure under the Bill will be that the Minister may object to some action of the Board and give notice that he intends to serve an order upon them. They might ask him that the matter should be sent to a committee of investigation. The committee determine whether the Minister is right or wrong, whether or not the point at issue will be against the public interest. But from then on, your Lordships will notice, the Minister is completely free to make what regulation he likes. The regulation which he makes is not for a moment to be considered by the committee of investigation. We may think the regulation is adequate but, after all, Ministers or draftsmen are not infallible, and it might be that a regulation would be drawn up leaving a loophole of escape so that the intention of the Minister was not actually achieved.

To give a possible example of that, one might say the Minister considered it against the public interest to increase the price of straw berries up to 10s. a pound, and an order might be made saying that any strawberries sold by the pound must not exceed 5s. per pound in price. Then some rather clever dealer thinks that, if he sells them by the kilogramme, he will escape the ruling of the order. The Minister could then on his own initiative alter the regulation to block that particular loophole. I think that the safeguards preventing the Minister abusing this power are considerable. First, the subsection is very clearly drawn. It can be used only in order better to attain the purposes.… Secondly, if there is any abuse, this variation of the order can be annulled by Resolution of either House of Parliament. I suggest that those are strong safeguards in view of which this Amendment is unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am not sure that the noble Earl has quite met the point put to him by my noble friend Lord Carrington. First, he quotes the last two lines of paragraph (b) of subsection (5): in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given. In whose opinion will the variation help to attain the purposes? In the Minister's. Therefore, the paragraph leaves the Minister in a supreme position with regard to this point. What is the purpose of Clause 2? As I see it, it is to give the Minister certain powers of public interest over the actions of the marketing board, but also to limit those powers, and to say that he can take a decision only after a complaint has been referred to the committee of investigation. As I see it, paragraph (b) enables the Minister completely to evade the purpose of the whole clause, which is that he should act, not on the recommendations of the committee of investigation—because I recognise that the committee of investigation do not make recommendations on policy—but as a result of the consideration by the committee of investigation of a particular set of circumstances. That means that the Minister can go at once to the committee of investigation for their views on the question before them; and thereafter his hands are completely free to take decision after decision, without any further reference of the problem involved to the committee of investigation.

To suggest that this clause is meant purely to deal with evasions such as selling by the kilogramme rather than by the pound is quite beside the point. Either we want a different provision for dealing with a matter such as that or, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has already said, the obvious thing, if it is a point of substance, is to start afresh and refer the matter back to the committee of investigation. I ask the noble Earl to realise that it is not just a question of varying the formalities of this or that regulation. These may be questions which involve hundreds of thousands of pounds to the marketing board, certainly thousands of pounds to the individual growers. These are points of substance, and I would ask the noble Earl to meet us on this point in our endeavour reasonably to restrict the powers of the Minister to those powers which he needs for the proper safeguard of the public.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I feel that there is a misconception about the intention and the powers of this clause. When the noble Earl who has just spoken refers to the Minister having complete rights, I would point out that the Minister in that sense already has complete power, long before we come to paragraph (b), to do what he wants under the clause. All that the committee of investigation have to decide is the rights and wrongs of the case. They have to decide whether any act of the board would restrict the purposes, would limit the quantity of the product, would regulate the price and so forth. Moreover (and this is the important and, to my mind, fundamental point), they have to decide whether the Minister was right in taking the view that the board's act was against the public interest. Once the committee of investigation have decided on that and agreed with the Minister—and it is only in such cases that the Minister can go forward and make an order—the Minister is then absolutely free to bring out what order he likes. I do not see that policy making can be limited by a committee of investigation.

LORD CARRINGTON

That is what the board are for; they are the policy-making body.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Upon that I join issue with the noble Lord. The board propose a plan, but it is the Minister who decides whether or not it is against the public interest. I think you must allow that the Minister is the final person to say whether a particular action is against the public interest. The board cannot say that.

LORD CARRINGTON

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. Of course the Minister has the final say, but surely it is the board who make the propositon. If the Minister disagrees with it, it is up to the committee of investigation to say whether he is right or wrong, and either he takes their advice or he does not.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Again, I think there is a misconception here. All that the committee of investigation can say is whether the Minister is right in his opinion that the matter is against public policy. They cannot say what steps the Minister should take, or whether those steps are right or wrong: all they do is to say whether the Minister is right in thinking that the board are acting against public interest. That is the one function of the committee of investigation. Admitting that that is their only function, the Minister then makes whatsoever order he likes, being that which he thinks is the best kind of order to make, to stop the damage being done. All paragraph (b) does is to say that, after an order has been made, if it is discovered that there is a loophole, or if it is discovered that it is not working in the way the Minister intended it to work, then he has power to alter the wording of the order.

The noble Earl did not like my example, which perhaps was a little farfetched. A more serious kind of case which might arise would be if a board were accustomed to sell a particular product through fifty or sixty dealers in the North of England and suddenly the board brought in a regulation saying that in future they would deal with only one person. In such a case the Minister may say that the board's action is against the public interest, and therefore he may make an order requiring the board to sell as before, through all the registered dealers. If the board continued to deal with only one person, it might be necessary to alter the order so that in fact all the registered dealers succeeded in getting their produce. That is merely and entirely to stop a loophole. I submit to your Lordships that the wording of this clause would stop the Minister going outside his powers and not, as the noble Earl has suggested, allow him to bring up different cases again and again. I am sorry if I have been rather long in this explanation, but it is rather a difficult technical point.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having a Parliamentary Secretary who has such an extraordinary capacity for glossing over important matters. He talks about regulations and the channels through which products are sold; but that is really not the point. We are dealing here mainly with horticulturists. They have to earn their living, and they are concerned primarily with prices. What we are particularly concerned about is this variation of price. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave a good example. He asked us to suppose that a tomato board have announced that they are going to sell their tomatoes at 5s. a pound and, after the matter has been referred to the committee of investigation, the committee decide that 5s. is excessive. And on their report the Minister reduces the price to 2s. 6d. Then why should he ever after have power to vary that decision and bring the price down to 2s. 3d., 2s., or whatever it may be? Thereafter, he is completely freed from going to the committee of investigation. I suggest that this clause goes a great deal further than the noble Earl himself appreciates. I am sure he would not try to evade this problem in any way, and it must be the case that this subsection goes a great deal further than he thinks. Therefore I do ask him to look at this matter again, and see whether he cannot meet us upon it.

LORD O'HAGAN

I would suggest that the whole object of this Bill is to encourage the producers of these various products; but, instead of giving them confidence in the success of the working of these various boards, the powers that have been indicated by the noble Earl are likely to run the grave risk of discouraging these people, and therefore may defeat the object which I am sure the noble Earl has in mind. I add my voice to that of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in asking that this matter should be considered further. I believe that there is more in it than would readily appear from what the noble Earl opposite accepts. Therefore I add my voice in the appeal for reconsideration.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I would like to point out one thing particularly to the noble Earl—namely, that in the beginning of subsection (5) there is this very important provision, that the Minister can do this only after consultation with the board. The idea that the Minister can go on reducing the price, supposing that he has reduced the original price from 10s. 6d. to 2s. 6d., because he thinks it is in the public interest so to do, is not feasible under this subsection. He cannot do that. That would be a matter which would have to come up again before the committee of investigation.

EARL DE LA WARR

Where is that stated? This is a very important point. Would the noble Earl explain that?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

In paragraph (b), which says: in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given. Those original directions might bring the price down to 2s. 6d. If there were new directions, a new case would arise, and the Minister would have to consult the committee of investigation. We are dealing only with the original directions and if, for example, we find people evading the directions we may wish to alter the wording of the order.

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not quite follow the noble Earl there. Surely, if the Minister reduces the price from 5s. to 2s. 6d., and then after three months, he thinks 2s. 6d. is too high, there is nothing to prevent him reducing it to 1s. 6d.?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not see that it can possibly be done because it would not be in the original order. This refers only to the original order. The Minister makes an order if the board put up the price to 10s. 6d. when it is in the public interest that it should not go above 5s. It is only where someone can find a loophole in that order that the Minister will have to alter the wording so that the board still cannot go up to the 10s. 6d.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we have advanced somewhat, as a result of this discussion. The noble Earl has said quite definitely that in his view the interpretation of this subsection is that if there is a further price variation it will have to be the subject of renewed consultation with the committee of investigation, and that there will be a fresh start. We are without the facilities at his disposal, and we rather doubt that interpretation of the subsection. May we take his statement as an assurance that that is what the subsection is intended to mean? And if, between now and Report stage, after suitable inquiries between the two parties, we find that he is wrong, will the appropriate words be inserted to carry out what the noble Earl himself suggests that the subsection now means?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I shall be happy to agree with the noble Earl in that respect.

EARL DE LA WARR

That is a definite undertaking?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Yes, that is a definite undertaking. I would also point out, however, that the Minister can make an order under this subsection only in relation to the original act of omission of the board. Any other matter would have to go to a committee of investigation.

LORD CARRINGTON

The noble Earl has said that we have some misconceptions on this subject. At any rate, I do not misconceive his intentions; I am sure they are of the best. But I would ask him to bear in mind that until such time as some Government or other tackle this question of marketing, in the future, this measure will be in force as an Act of Parliament. I still believe that the powers which subsection (5) (b) give the Minister are greater than the noble Earl says, but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Saving for, and amendments of, s. 9 of the principal Act.]:

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Although this is rather long it is really a drafting Amendment, and is consequential on an Amendment moved in another place. I do not suppose noble Lords will wish me to say any more about it than that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, leave out lines 1 to 18 and insert— ("(2) So much of subsection (4) of the last preceding section as requires the Minister to publish the conclusions of a committee of investigation shall apply in relation to reports of a committee of investigation under the said section nine as it applies in relation to reports under the last preceding section. (3) Subsection (5) of the last preceding section, and, so far as concerns orders under the said subsection (5), subsection (6) of the last preceding section, shall apply in relation to orders under paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of the said section nine as they apply in relation to orders under subsection (2) of the last preceding section.").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

3.2 p.m.

Clause 4:

Temporary directions by Ministers

4.—(1) Where—

  1. (a) the Minister serves any such notice as is provided for by subsection (3) of section two of this Act; or
  2. (b) the Minister, under subsection (3) of section nine of the principal Act, directs a committee of investigation to consider a report made by a consumers' committee or any complaint made to him as to the operation of any scheme,
the Minister, if he considers it necessary to take immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest from any change made or intended to be made by the board in their course of action in any matter which is relevant to the subject of the notice or, as the case may be, of the report or complaint, may, at or after the time of the giving of the notice or direction, make a temporary order giving to the board such directions as to their course of action in that matter as he may think necessary for that purpose, and it shall be the duty of the board to comply with the order:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising or requiring the board to do anything which they have no power to do under the scheme.

(2) A temporary order under this section made by the Minister in connection with the service of such a notice as is provided for by subsection (3) of section two of this Act shall be limited so as to expire on such date as may be specified in the order, not being later than four months from the date of the making thereof:

Provided that if there is any such reference to a committee of investigation as is provided for by the said section two and, at the date so specified in the order, not more than three months have elapsed since the publication by the Minister of the conclusions of the committee, then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the temporary order shall not expire until the expiration of the said period of three months.

(3) A temporary order under this section made in connection with a direction given by the Minister to a committee of investigation under subsection (3) of section nine of the principal Act shall be limited so as to expire not later than twenty-eight days after the date on which the Minister gives to the board such a notice of the action which he intends to take as is provided for by paragraph (iii) of the proviso to subsection (5) of that section; and where a temporary order is made under this section in connection with such a direction as aforesaid to a committee of investigation, it shall be the duty of the Minister, not later than two months after the publication by the Minister of the conclusions of the committee, either to give such a notice or to revoke the temporary order.

(4) The Minister may by order revoke or vary a temporary order under this section but not so as to extend the duration thereof beyond the periods prescribed by subsections (2) and (3) of this section.

(5) Any order under this section shall state the general nature of the reasons for the making thereof and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to omit Clause 4. The noble Earl said: Clause 4 is really an extension of the principle that started with Clause 2—the principle of the right of the Minister to give instructions to marketing boards. Clause 4 goes a great deal further than Clause 2, because it gives the Minister power to issue instructions to a marketing board while a matter of complaint is under consideration by a committee of investigation. That means, virtually, that the Minister can give instructions to a board to alter the price of a certain commodity while the question as to whether or not the price suggested by the board is excessive is still sub judice. That might mean that growers would be refused permission by the Minister to charge a certain price, and the matter would be submitted to a committee of investigation. The committee of investigation might then report that the growers were quite right in the price they proposed to charge. In such a case, many hundreds of thousands of pounds—it might be more in the case of certain commodities—would be deducted from the potential receipts of the growers and there would be no power of compensation. The result of this would be a permanent loss to the industry because of a mistaken decision by the Minister.

I think it is unusual that Ministers should take powers to themselves to issue instructions while a question is sub judice, and it is especially unfortunate in this instance. After all, some of these marketing boards have been in operation for a long time; and while I think it would be hard to justify them in theory, powers such as this clause envisages might conceivably be justified if there were a long record of misbehaviour by the marketing boards—for example, a long record of extortion on the part of the marketing boards against the public. But both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage in another place, the Minister was unable to cite a single instance it which it had been necessary to restrain the action of a marketing board. All he could say was that: "Hitherto the arrangements have proved extremely satisfactory." I would re-echo what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said. Noble Lords in all parts of the House are most anxious to see this marketing reorganisation undertaken by the agricultural industry. The industry itself is most anxious to embark on these schemes. Why then deliberately insert in this Bill powers that can have the effect only of making producers feel that, if they come under the Agricultural Marketing Acts in the future, they will be putting their heads into a noose of uncontrolled, uncontrolable and unjustifiable powers taken to himself by the Minister? I ask the noble Earl to regard this matter extremely seriously. Feeling with regard to it is very deep in the farming industry, and in my view there is complete justification for that feeling. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 4.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The last Amendment which we discussed turned rather on the meaning of words. Here, I think, we have a point of much more substance. Obvously, we wish producers to come into the boards and to do all they can to promote efficient marketing. That is one of the greatest desires of the Government. On the other hand, we have to think of the consumer and of the trader who is not the producer. I suggest that this Amendment really raises two very important questions. The first is: Are these temporary directions necessary? The second is: If they are agreed to be necessary, should compensation be paid to any producer who suffers loss as the result of that action? The real point behind it all is this. We have given, and we are giving, very large monopoly powers to these marketing boards. The public interest, I think most people will admit, makes it imperative that sufficient safeguards should be provided. If you give very big monopolistic powers you must have adequate safe guards to control those powers, and to prevent exploitation of the consumer or unfair or adverse action against other traders. In the course of his argument, the noble Earl, Lord de la Warr, said just now that the marketing boards had behaved very well, but that is a point which does not really enter into this matter. We do not make any case against the boards on the grounds of their behaviour. At the same time, as I have said, if you give the powers you must have safeguards.

Under Clause 2, which obviously provides the ideal procedure in this case, the Minister can act subject to a matter going before a committee of investigation and can restrain a board from doing some act which he thinks to be against the public interest. The difficulty which we come up against is this: that if the matter is submitted to a committee of investigation the period during which it is under examination may be a long one. There was one case, if I remember rightly, in which the Milk Marketing Board were involved, which took nine months to examine. During such a period consumers, and possibly private traders also, might be adversely affected. Therefore, it was thought desirable to allow the Minister to restrain a board from taking some new action which might be prejudicial to traders or consumers. For example, a board might suddenly abolish sales on commission, a step which could ruin a very large number of people. It is thought that if such a question were being examined by a committee of investigation we should hold the status quo until we knew wile her the proposed change was desirable. In view of the monopolistic powers given, I hope your Lordships will appreciate the essential nature of these safeguards.

The second question is more difficult. In the event of the board promoting some action and the Minister stopping it, the matter becomes the subject of a committee of investigation and a temporary direction may be served. In such a case the producer might suffer a loss. In the unlikely result that the Minister was found by the committee of investigation to be wrong, should the producer receive compensation for having suffered loss? I say "the unlikely result" because obviously the Minister has the best expert advice on this subject, and no Minister would take a step like this unless he were confident of being in the right. Moreover, he is subject to Parliamentary criticism for every action he takes. This is simply a question of principle. If we once admit that people who have suffered a loss through an error of judgment on the part of a Minister are entitled to compensation, there will be no end of it. The millions of pounds which would have to be paid out of the Treasury would be staggering beyond belief. Supposing that, in a state of international anxiety, a Minister made an order prohibiting the export of aeroplanes and aeroplane engines and parts, and it was then decided in another place that this action was unjustified and the ministerial order was annulled, could it be claimed that all firms producing aeroplanes, engines and parts, should be paid compensation for this action of the Minister? No Government could possibly accept the principle that when a Minister, acting bona fide, takes a wrong decision and causes a loss of any kind, the loser shall have claim against the Minister? That is why we cannot accept this Amendment or allow what would otherwise seem to be necessary compensation.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thank the noble Earl for his reply but he has devoted most of it to the wrong point. I did not ask for compensation. I said it was most regrettable that, if the growers were to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds, as they might well do, no compensation could be given. That is merely the blind alley into which we are driven by a clause of this kind. Why is the noble Earl afraid of compensation if he really believes in the good Socialist-Fascist doctrine that the State is always right?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I did not say anything of the kind.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

That is the noble Earl's interpretation.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am quite content to leave that to Hansard.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is a new interpretation of Socialist doctrine.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Earl said it was so extremely unlikely that the Minister could ever be wrong that this kind of case was not likely to arise. The noble Earl said it might be necessary for a quick decision to be given; but if it is possible for a Minister to act in a dispute with such lightning rapidity it means that the issue must presumably be very clear. That being so, why is it not possible for the Minister to ask for an immediate decision from the committee of investigation? I cannot see anything in that point. I would ask the noble Earl whether any other industry in this country is treated in a similar way. Some time ago we passed the Monopolies Act, dealing with industry generally. Is there any instance in that Act of the Minister taking to himself power to act while the report of a committee of inquiry set up under the Act is being considered? I do not think any other industry is being treated in this way. Why single out agriculture for saying that though a subject is sub judice, the Minister can issue an order which may cost the person concerned large sums of money.

LORD CARRINGTON

May I ask the noble Earl a question before he replies? What does he think the growers ought to do if the Minister proved to be wrong and to be acting, not in the interests of the public but in the interests of a particular political viewpoint, and the growers had suffered loss? What should they do? They have no redress at all under this scheme.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

There is always the option open to any producer, if he thinks that the Minister is acting unconstitutionally, unwisely, or unfairly, of promoting the matter in Parliament. Under Clause 4, these directions are always open to annulment by Resolution of either House of Parliament.

EARL DE LA WARR

The Minister has a majority behind him.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Not in this House. The Minister may be right, but we said that any loss which might be suffered while the committee of investigation were considering the matter might have to be considered if the Minister were in the wrong. The matter might take some time to be investigated and in the meantime the public interest might suffer a great amount of harm. That is what we want to avoid. In this Bill we are giving the producers wide powers of monopoly control, but if we give them these powers, we must have adequate safeguards against their abuse. This is part of that adequate safeguard.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

The disciplinary committee

(3) Every hearing by the disciplinary committee of a board shall be held in public unless the chairman of the committee for special reasons directs that the whole or part thereof shall not be so held.

(4) The chairman of the disciplinary committee of a board may direct that any evidence given at a hearing by the committee shall be given on oath and may for that purpose administer oaths.

EARL DE LA WARR move, in subsection (3) to omit "the chairman of." The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, who is unfortunately unable to be present to-day, has asked me to move this Amendment. It is something more than a drafting Amendment. It substitutes for the decision of the chairman; the decision of the committee.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 38, leave out ("the chairman of").—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

On the face of it this is not a very important point. But I would like to point out to the noble Earl that it seems the best thing that the chairman should have the right of declaring when proceedings are to be taken in camera. He has legal qualifications and experience, and it might be better to allow him to decide in this mater. He is more likely than other members of the board to know the appropriate time to exclude the public and the Press.

EARL DE LA WARR

I would suggest that the noble Earl should accept this Amendment if he can. I know that the chairman may have high legal qualifications, but we prefer the good democratic method of settling this matter by the committee's own decision.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

As the noble Earl feels strongly on this matter, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (4), after "any" to insert "witness who gives." The noble Earl said: This is another point which I think goes a little further dual a formal Amendment. The essence of the matter is that while we have no objection to the chairman of the disciplinary committee saying, when someone is presented to him to tender oral evidence, that the man must give his evidence on oath or it will not be accepted, we rather regret that the chairman should be able to say that the case must be proved by sworn evidence, or not presented at all. There is not a great difference, but I think the noble Earl will admit that there is a point of substance here, and I shall be grateful if he will give the point his consideration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 42, after ("any") insert ("witness who gives").—(Earl de la Warr.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I admit that there is a point of substance here, but there is a little more behind the issue than appears at first sight. The main reason why we want the chairman to have this power is in order to protect the individual producer. After all, the cases that will come before the committee are those of individual producers who are being accused by the board of having broken the rules, or something of that nature, and who may be liable to quite serious consequences. It may well be that some written evidence coming before the board would be such that it ought not to be accepted without further examination. We want the chairman to have the right to say: "No: rather than accept this written document I insist that the witness comes himself, so that we can examine him and find out if this evidence is correct." I feel that from a legal point of view this is the kind of power the chairman ought to have, and I would ask the noble Earl not to press the Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

Forward to