§ The Attorney-GeneralI beg to move, in page 18, line 43, to leave out "publication," and to insert "giving."
This Amendment serves two purposes. It was suggested on the Committee stage that we should have as little publicity as possible. I quite agree that the Bill as drafted did make it mandatory that notice should be published. I think that is unnecessary in itself. One must see that notice is given to the people concerned, but it is quite unnecessary in all cases to publish it.
§ Mr. Garro Jones (Aberdeen, North)While concurring with what the Attorney-General has said, it seems to me that some further practical difficulty may arise in giving effect to the giving of notice. Is the debtor's list of his debts to be taken, as it were, on his ipse dixit? What if creditors are omitted?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI think one must leave it to be dealt with as circumstances arise. There will be some cases where it is quite clear that the debtor will put all his cards on the table. There may be only a difficulty with the landlord, but there may be other cases of complexity where it might be necessary to put a notice in the paper.
§ Mr. WoodburnI think there is a contradiction. The thing cannot be settled unless there is an assurance that everybody concerned will receive notification.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere is a provision in an earlier Clause of the Bill whereby anybody left out can come to the court and say, "The thing ought to be reconsidered, because I am concerned."
§ Amendment agreed to.