3
Page 226
(c) An Independent Judicial Tribunal.-By this we have in mind a tribunal in the form of a statutory Court which would be composed of Judges of the High Court and laymen, and which would be answerable neither to the Minister nor to Parliament. But there would be an appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal and possibly thereafter to the House of Lords. A JAG
The advantages of such a tribunal would be that it would command the confidence of the public and of industry and that its decisions would be taken outside the political arena. MAR" et plagini abay ve interne vas
:
It may of course be argued that it would be constitutionally improper to entrust this jurisdiction to a Court of which Judges are members since they might consequently be involved in political controversy. It could also be argued that it would be improper for the Government to divest itself of responsibility for decisions which will affect the commercial practices of many industries and therefore the whole structure of our economy. Nevertheless if the Government is able to lay down the general lines of economic policy (which, in this field, would mean finding satisfactory general criteria by which individual restrictive practices could be judged) it may be justifiable in principle as well as politically convenient that decisions in individual cases should be taken by an independent Court.
If it is decided that jurisdiction over restrictive practices should be given to a Court of this nature the best precedent to follow would be that of the Railway and Canal Commission. That Court was a Court of Record of which Judges of the High Court were members and from which an appeal lay on points of law to the Court of Appeal. The nature of the jurisdiction of this Commission demanded a degree of judgment in economic matters not perhaps as great as would be required in relation to restrictive practices, but nevertheless greater than was regarded as suitable for the High Court as such.
The Heads of the Judiciary in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have been informally consulted, are agreed that a Court of Record analogous to the Railway and Canal Commission might properly be given a jurisdiction of this kind. It might be called the "Restrictive Practices Commission." A detailed account of how such a Commission might be constituted is contained in Annex III.
Summary
10. To proceed with the preparation of legislation to implement the general policy of the Government on restrictive practices which has already been foreshadowed, the Committee on the Monopolies Commission Report accordingly ask the Cabinet:
(i) to decide whether the definition of the justiciable issue should be that suggested in Annex I, or whether it should be on a wider basis as suggested in paragraph 8 above;
(ii) to decide whether the tribunal for judging restrictive practices should be-
(a) an administrative tribunal (Annex II), or
(b) a judicial commission (Annex III).
House of Lords, SW. 1,
9th December, 1955.
Impere forendell the in
49208 Page 226 of 321
B 2
K.
Page 226
4