On subsection (4), page 100, line 10, it seems to me this subsection gives us a new type of advocate. An inspector is entitled to go into court on his own and put questions to solicitors, to the solicitors for the company, which they have to answer. That seems to me to be both new and undesirable. I do not see why, in an inquiry, we should create a new class of person having the right of audience in the court.
SECTION 168.
Question proposed : " That Section 168 stand part of the Bill."
Does the provision in line 10 provide for the point you have in mind ?
Apparently. I cannot read it any other way.
It means an inspector can go into court and cross-examine. It certainly seems undesirable.
Surely that is not intended.
The 1908 Act, and existing English law, provide for that in certain cases, giving power to liquidators and inspectors to go into court.
They should be represented, by all means, but this gives them power to take part therein : " (a) the inspector may take part therein either personally or by solicitor or counsel ". That gives him the power to go in. What is the position when I take a case to court myself for a tort against someone else and decide to go ahead myself and plead my own case in a civil action. Am I competent to do that ?
Certainly.
Then the inspector would be in the same position.
But he should not be because he is an inspector.
Yes. It would be a bad thing.
Surely the scope of the examination by himself, or through his legal representative, would be limited to ascertaining from that person on oath the evidence that he ought to have given on the inquiry. He would not enter into the substance of the evidence he would give, I should imagine.
There is somebody to whom the inspector has power to administer an oath. He brings that person to court in order to exercise that power. He takes part in it then.
What I said just now is wrong He can go into the substance of the evidence if he requires.
Perhaps the intention is all right but the wording may need looking at. I have myself certain doubts about the whole procedure in the section.
Does the Minister accept the view that it is undesirable ?
No. I should like to know what the objection is.
Why should we create a new class, who may, or may not be, lawyers or barristers. An inspector may be a barrister. He may be an accountant. He may not. There is no qualification for an inspector and it is undesirable that a purely lay person should be appointed with these powers; he is not pleading his own case in the ordinary sense of the term.
I am afraid I misunderstood it. I thought Deputy Sweetman was objecting to the principle of the inspector going in or being represented.
Oh, no.
He must have the right.
He must have the right to be represented there, but I object to his going in and being in position as of right himself to cross-examine agents of the company; and agents of the company in the particular context can mean the solicitors to the company, for example.
What is this aiming at by giving him the right to do it personally ?
I suppose to save costs to the people who apply for the investigation.
That is a very touching explanation, but it is not usually characteristic of this kind of proceedings.
Definitely not.
And my memory need go back no longer than a period of the last two years.
I want to delete " either personally." There must be a limit to those who take part. Of that I am quite clear. I have no doubt that, if I put down an amendment to that effect on recommittal, the Minister will not oppose it.
I would say " and the inspector shall be a party to the application."
Or may take part therein.
I am still worrying what that means.
I was trying to amend it as little as I could.
I will leave the amendment in this case to Deputy Sweetman for recommittal
On subsection (2), let us suppose an officer objects on the grounds that it would tend to incriminate himself. This is a new section ?
No.
A great deal of it is new.
Subsection (2) is as it is at the moment.
I just want to draw attention to the point again that I think the power of inspectors under oath should be limited to the most serious actions. I have a feeling that the powers given here are a little too wide. Beyond making that point—I made the point earlier on the other sections—about the power to investigate on oath, if they are within the meaning of Section 166—I am not going to press that any further.
There does not appear to be any extension of existing law.
Subsection (4) is the only extension.
Is subsection (2) of Section 168 new?
No.
Part of it is.
Subsection (4) is new.
Is subsection (2) new ?
It is the same as the Section 109 (4) of the 1908 Act. The only addition here is " or other body corporate."
Is not subsection (4) new ?
Yes.
We are only discussing subsection (2) at present.
I beg your pardon.
Are we agreed that the section stand part of the Bill, subject to Deputy Sweetman's right of amendment on recommittal ?
My amendment is already filed.
Question put and agreed to.