HL Deb 21 March 1967 vol 281 cc669-79

3.6 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 14:

Levy: registration, returns and records

14.—

(3) Any person who—

(a) in furnishing any information for the purposes of a levy scheme, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, or

shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both, or on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)

My Lords, this is a technical drafting Amendment to achieve conformity with similar provisions in the Acts of 1937, 1947 and 1957. The sense of the wording is not in any way affected. There is a corresponding Amendment to bring Clause 68 into line. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 14, leave out from ("scheme") to ("or") in line 15 and insert ("knowingly").—(Lord Walston.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Inquiries by Commission]:

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection: ( ) 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 noble Lord said: My Lords, this was a point which we discussed on the Committee stage. The effect of the Amendment would be to require that, when the Meat and Livestock Commission to be set up under this Bill wish to hold an inquiry, instead of the Chairman of the Commission taking the inquiry, as the Bill now provides, the Chairman should be a qualified and experienced lawyer. Since we discussed this matter in some detail during the Committee stage, I shall not take much time over it now, except to say that, having studied Lord Walston's reply with great care during the interval since we were in Committee, I nevertheless feel that he was not convincing in telling us that the Chairman of the Commission would never find himself in the position of being both plaintiff and judge in his own cause.

The noble Lord told us that in fact at these inquiries the Chairman of the Commission would be concerned only to gather the facts in some particular situation. Certainly I accept that that would he his purpose. But, in the event of the Commission proposing a scheme of rationalisation which would later involve the closing down of businesses in some section of the industry, which of course they could do under the powers of Clause 9 of the Bill, the Chairman of the Commission would be very much involved as a party, and it would certainly not be true to say that he would not be in the position of a plaintiff. As he sits there conducting the inquiry, he would indeed be in the position of judge.

Clause 21 gives the Chairman very great powers in this respect. The inquiry has the powers of the High Court in summoning witnesses, sending for papers, requiring evidence on oath—these are formidable powers. While I understand that they are needed for the High Court in dispensing justice, I should have thought that, if they are necessary for an inquiry of this kind, the very minimum safeguard ought to be that the Chairman of the inquiry should himself be a qualified and experienced lawyer. This is the burden of the argument. Both in principle and in practice, to carry the confidence of the general public in conducting inquiries of this kind, the Commission would be better off if they had an independent Chairman as the Amendment proposes. It is quite a small point, but a point of great importance. I hope that during the interval the noble Lord may have decided that he can accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Walston.)

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not find my remarks convincing, even when he used his eyes to study them rather than his ears, because I must confess, with all due and becoming modesty, that I found my words extremely convincing in this case. Possibly because I found them convincing, I have to say that I still feel that the provision in this Amendment is completely inappropriate to the type of inquiry which is provided for in Clause 21. I do not want to go over ground which we have covered in the past, but I think this is an important matter, so if I may I should like briefly to repeat some of the things which I have already said.

First of all, these powers relate to inquiries which are essentially for the purpose of obtaining information. They are in no way disciplinary tribunals or courts of law. There would be no question whatsoever of the Commission being judge in their own cause, because in fact there would be no cause; no-one would be deciding for or against a person giving evidence. The inquiries would be solely for the purpose of enabling the Commission to obtain the information which they need in order to discharge their functions, and there is no power in Clause 21 for them to do more than this.

I am afraid it is a fact that there has been some misunderstanding about this. There are many people—and I rather think that the noble Lord may be among them—who feel that these fact-finding inquiries would put somebody in peril. Unfortunately, the very safeguards which have been written into the clause may have added to this misunderstanding. As your Lordships may know, the Bill was amended in another place to give full protection to anyone who might be in difficulty about giving information before the Commission. This protection of course brings in the right of legal representation and of appeal to a court about the validity of any summons and so on, and that may have given the impression that this is in fact a form of legal tribunal.

But this in no way alters the fact that the witness who enjoys this protection is not being accused of anything at all; nor is he being threatened with any penalty as a result of what may be disclosed in his evidence. That, I think, is something which ought to be emphasised in this case, because it puts the matter in what I consider to be its correct proportion. The question has been raised of observing proper order at an inquiry where the powers under subsections (2) and (8) of Clause 21 are involved. The fact that there are legal safeguards for potential witnesses who feel difficulty about what information to give, in no way changes the character of the inquiry, and in no way makes it into anything like a court of law. But the fact remains that under subsection (10) witnesses would at all times have the right to be legally represented if they so wished.

Some comment has been made on the possibility of using the powers of inquiry under Clause 21, in connection with the preparation of a development scheme under Clause 9, and it has been suggested that an inquiry might, therefore, put a trader out of business. It is perfectly true that there would be nothing to prevent the Commission from using the powers under Clause 21 to obtain the facts, before deciding whether or not to prepare a draft development scheme. I assume that no one would suggest that it would be better for the Commission to be ignorant of the facts before they prepared such a scheme. But this process of obtaining the facts would not in itself put anybody out of business, and there is no case on these grounds for requiring such inquiries to have a legal chairman.

Once the facts had been obtained, a development scheme might subsequently be drafted under Clause 9 which could have such an effect of putting a trader out of business. But such a scheme would then have to go through all the procedures laid down in Clause 2 and Schedule 2 for consultation with the interests concerned, publication and objections, ministerial inquiries, and approval by Ministers and Parliament, before it could become law, and no inquiries under Clause 21 could by-pass this process or be a substitute for it. If it is argued that the powers of inquiry might be used in connection with a development scheme already made, I suggest that this is a matter which would have been considered at the time such a scheme was drafted. Any development scheme would have to be considered in the context of all the Commission's other powers and duties.

This Amendment, as the noble Lord has now proposed it, would go even further than the one proposed in Committee, since in the position in which it is now proposed to insert it in the clause, after subsection (1), it would apply to all the inquiries undertaken by the Commission, whether the powers to require attendance and to take evidence on oath were used or not. I suggest to your Lordships that this would be impracticable, since the Commission are likely to hold a good many inquiries of one sort or another on an informal basis in the normal course of their activities, and it would be next to impossible to have a legal chairman for all of these.

Even if it were possible, I do not believe that it would be in the interests either of the Commission itself, which is trying to do an important job, or of the people affected by it, that this should be insisted upon. This effect no doubt results from an accident in the drafting of the Amendment, but I think it illustrates the point which I have made. Most of the Commission's inquiries—indeed probably almost all of them—are likely to be held on an informal and voluntary basis with people coming of their own free will to give information, and the provisions for a summons and for the taking of evidence on oath would be used only in very special cases where more formal proceedings were necessary.

If the Amendment were intended only to bring in an independent legal chairman specially for an inquiry in which a summons had to be issued, this would obviously interrupt the Commission's progress in gathering information. As I said last week, however eminent the independent chairman it would not be conducive to efficiency to introduce him at what would probably be quite a late stage in the course of consideration of a particular subject. He would inevitably be unfamiliar with the subject matter which, as the noble Lord himself said on an earlier occasion, is likely to be extremely complex, and it would tend to give the proceedings a legal emphasis which would be inappropriate to their purpose or circumstances.

I suggest to your Lordships, therefore, that this Amendment, although I am sure it is full of good intentions—and we know where good intentions sometimes lead us—would not be in the interests of those very people whom the noble Lord and ourselves are doing our best to help; nor would it be in the interests of the overall efficiency of the industry. For these reasons I suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press his Amendment.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, as to why this Amendment should not be accepted, but I am bound to say that I for one remain slightly unconvinced. Of course, no Party point whatever is raised here. All we are doing is trying to find the right and just way to organise the powers which the Commission are to have. The noble Lord has said that there are to be many informal courts of inquiry or aspects of inquiry—

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I did not say that there would be many; I said that the majority of them would be informal. The majority is not necessarily the same as many.

EARL FERRERS

I am sorry, my Lords. I was not seeking to find a point of difference. The fact is that the noble Lord said that there would be some informal inquiries. The whole nub of the problem is that by this clause these will not be informal courts of inquiry. They will be formal, and very formal, too, because the powers which we are giving to the Commission are of course vast. As has been stated, they are such that the result may be to put a person out of business.

The noble Lord says that it is essential that the Commission should be in posession of the right facts, and that this clause allows the facts to be ascertained. But what in fact are we doing? We are enabling the Commission to set up a court of inquiry which, in turn, will subpœna people—butchers, possibly; farmers, possibly; or possessors of abattoirs—and force them to come to the inquiry. The only way in which they can get out of it is by making an application to the High Court. Then, having come to this inquiry, the Bill makes it imperative for them to produce all the relevant facts and documents—their trading accounts, if necessary; their sources of supply; their profits; their prices. All this information has to be produced before the Commission, and then, at the end of it, the Commission ascertain the facts. Furthermore, if necessary the Commission may take all this evidence on oath.

These are very wide powers which we are giving to the Commission, very wide powers indeed, and they are powers of a legal nature. All we are saying is that if these wide powers are going to be given to the Commission, then it is right that the chairman of such an inquiry should be a wholly impartial person. But the noble Lord comes along and says, "This is all right. We must have these powers, but the chairman of the inquiry shall be a partial person and shall be a person with a loaded interest". If the decision of any inquiry were to go against an individual producer or retailer, let the noble Lord he quite clear about one thing: even though justice were done, it certainly would not have been seen to be done. What we are anxious to do is to make quite certain that if the Commission are to be vested with very wide and very sweeping powers, then the chairman of the inquiry should not be a person with a directly loaded interest, but should be an impartial person. I think this is only reasonable. As I say, this is not a Party point at all. All we want to do is to see fair play. I believe that if we had an impartial chairman we should see fair play. I do not believe that if the chairman were to be a member of the Livestock Commission this would necessarily be so.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, if I may, I should like to amplify, or possibly correct, one point in the noble Earl's remarks. He said, "if the decision were to go against one of the people who had given evidence". What I have tried to make clear to your Lordships is that at this inquiry there is to be no decision: no decision is taken. That is why I have put it to your Lordships that this Amendment is misconceived. Because the object of this inquiry will not be to reach a decision at the end of it. I should have a lot of sympathy with the Amendment if, having held the inquiry, the chairman of the inquiry or the Commission then came out with a decision and said, "This is what is to happen, and this is the penalty which will be imposed on one of the people who has given evidence". But that is not to be the case. No decision is to be taken. This is purely fact-finding. Having ascertained the facts through this inquiry, the Commission will then make their recommendations—their decision, if you like, although I should prefer to call it their recommendation—as to what should be done. Then all the due processes have to be gone through—and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them once more—before the actual decision is taken and implemented. I therefore repeat that the inquiry we have in mind is a fact-finding one, not a decision-taking inquiry.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, might I ask my noble friend why he considers it essential that the chairman of the Commission should be a member of the Livestock Commission? Most of us who have had experience of inquiries usually expect the chairman to be impartial. There may be a very good reason for it, but could he tell us why it has been decided that the chairman should be a member of the Livestock Commission?

LORD WALSTON

I will do my best to do so, my Lords. The object of this inquiry is solely to ascertain the correct facts on which the Commission will make their recommendation for implementation through all the due processes. These processes are fairly complicated and, I think we all agree, give ample protection to all the people concerned. Therefore, this is not a court of inquiry in the normal sense. If there is an aeroplane or railway accident a court of inquiry is set up at which a certain amount of blame is usually allocated to different people. This is not that form of inquiry at all. This inquiry is purely to obtain information as to profit margins, scope of business, consumer interests, agricultural interests and all the rest of it. There is a whole gamut of facts which have to be brought in and which the Commission have to acquire before they come to any decision. For this reason, I believe that it is logical and simple, and in the interests of efficiency, that it should be the Commission themselves who acquire the facts for their own use and subsequent recommendations.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the trouble he has gone to in re-arguing his case. But the truth is that this is the only public inquiry that will take place before a development scheme is brought into being. When the noble Lord referred to the procedures of Clause 2, I wondered whether my memory was at fault, so I quickly looked through Clause 2 and Schedule 2 again. All Clause 2 provides for are the specialist committees. No doubt those specialist committees would consider the facts which were gathered at a public inquiry, but the decision would then be taken by the Commission; and if they were proposing to go ahead with a rationalisation scheme, it could be a scheme which would affect the businesses of the men concerned. The only public act which would take place after that would be the Minister bringing his Affirmative Order before Parliament. There would no doubt be a debate of some kind, perhaps both in another place and here, but the Parliamentary majority of the Government of the day would ensure that they got the Order, and that would be the end of it. So the noble Lord really is not right when he says that only the facts are to be gathered here. They are facts gathered from the people summoned before the inquiry, and on these facts the future of their businesses may be at stake. This really is the point.

The noble Lord criticised the point at which I moved to insert the Amendment, following immediately after subsection (1), but that really seems to me to be the logical point at which to put it, because as it now stands subsection (2) gives the Commission power to summon witnesses and this, after all, is part of the great power which we feel should, to some extent at any rate, be controlled by having a legal chairman. I feel that the case simply has not been answered, and that both in the interests of getting fair play (because so much depends on what an inquiry of this kind elucidates) and from the point of view of the look of the thing, the Commission would be much better off by having a legal chairman. I am afraid that I must press this Amendment.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, may I just take the noble Lord up on one point? He said that this is the only public act—

LORD DERWENT

I do not wish to interrupt a debate in which I am not taking part, but this is Report stage and this is the Minister's fourth speech.

LORD WALSTON

I will, with your Lordships' permission, speak. I think three is the correct figure.

LORD DERWENT

I withdraw one.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, my noble friend has spoken twice and I have spoken twice. I am perfectly prepared to leave it now, but if the House would like further amplification on points of fact I would be glad to give it. Otherwise, I will not.

I was going to correct one factual point made by the noble Lord the former Minister, when he said that this was the only public inquiry that was to take place. Once the Commission had made its inquiry and had ascertained its facts there would then be consultation, admittedly in private, with the interests concerned. There would then be publication and objections, followed by what I described as the ministerial inquiry. Under Schedule 2 the Minister may hold such inquiries—they may be public or otherwise—as are considered necessary. I assume that if it is a hotly contested case there is no reason why the inquiry should not be in public. Finally, there is the greatest public inquiry of all, the public inquiry before both Houses of Parliament. I think that justice would appear to be done, as well as be done, under the scheme as it is set out.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his further explanation, but I do not think he has answered the substance of our points.

LORD WISE

My Lords, may I intervene? I have listened to both sides of the argument. I hope that the Government will take this matter back and have another look at it.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.