§ [No. 2]
§
Clause 21, page 22, line 35, at end insert—
( ) The Chairman at any such inquiry shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing and shall be assisted by such members of the Commission as the Commission may nominate.
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because the provision made by the Amendment would not be appropriate to the sort of inquiry which the Meat and Livestock Commission will hold.
§ 2.47 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lord-ships will remember that this Amendment would provide that all the inquiries held under Clause 21 of the Bill should be presided over by a qualified lawyer, with at least 10 years' experience, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Again we discussed this fully, and I know that noble Lords opposite were genuinely and quite properly concerned that the chairman at these inquiries should be a man who would ensure that the inquiry would be fair, which naturally we all want, and would also be seen to be fair, which is also a matter of great importance.
I do not for a moment quarrel with that desire, but I still hold to the view which I expressed at the time we discussed this Amendment, and which was expressed later in another place with great clarity and forcefulness: that the original proposals of the Government not only contained no unfairness whatsoever but were framed in such a way that there would be no appearance of unfairness, or reason for anybody to think that there 358 had been unfairness. For that reason, I suggest to your Lordships once more that this Amendment is unnecessary.
You will remember that it applies to all inquiries undertaken by the Commission, whether they be formal or informal; and this, I think, would be both unworkable and a considerable waste of time and of effort, particularly in relation to the time of the chairman, if he were indeed a senior qualified barrister. But the main objection to the Amendment is that which has come from the Commons: that it would in fact be entirely inappropriate to the types of inquiry for which Clause 21 provides. I will repeat, if I may, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, that such inquiries relate only to the acquisition of information, and could not be used in any circumstances to decide cases, or for disciplinary or any other penal purposes. That being so, this is not a matter which involves the need for a senior qualified jurist. Therefore I hope that here, too, your Lordships will agree that this is not an issue of sufficient importance to delay the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment (No. 2) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Walston.)
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for explaining the Commons Reason for disagreeing to this Amendment? I will not trouble your Lordships with repeating the arguments we used on the earlier occasion when this Amendment found favour with this House. I will only say, with regret, that I am sorry to learn that the Government do not feel able to accept the Amendment, which I thought would have helped the Commission in its public relations to look a more presentable and respectable body; but if the noble Lord prefers it to look like this, I feel that this must be a decision for the Government.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.