§ Lords Amendment: in page 8, line 44. leave out "foregoing."
§ 9.34 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of a large number of drafting Amendments and arises because of the insertion of the new Clause 13, and its subsection (4).
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 3, after "made" insert "and."
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it would be of convenience to the House if we considered with this Lords Amendment the next two Lords Amendments in line 4 and line 6.
These Amendments limit the discretion to admit as evidence under the rules reference by documents only. The drafting was rather widely drawn before.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South)We think that these three Amendments make an improvement in the Bill. They make the meaning of the original Clause clearer than it was. Under the wording as it stood, it appeared that a very wide power was being given to the Lord Chancellor, whereas the new form makes quite clear what he is entitled to do. It is obviously desirable that there should be special facilities here for facilitating proof by people who are overseas.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 9, leave out "foregoing," and insert "said."
1076§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the three following Amendments are drafting Amendments to ensure that application may be made in proper circumstances on behalf of absent Service men, and that when they are so made the court, if it thinks fit, is permitted to grant the right of audience.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 9, leave out lines 27 to 31.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next Lords Amendment go together. Its purpose is to declare beyond doubt that the reference in Clause 2 (2, a) to "the levying of distress" includes the levying of distress for rates, and to provide the requisite machinery for enabling the application for the warrant and the application for permission to levy distress to be considered together. That was already covered by what it is now proposed to be left out.
The explanation is that there is already sufficient power to do this by rule, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to include it specifically in the subsection. It is merely a case of doing it by rule where there is power to do it instead of providing for it expressly in the subsection. The declaratory provision about the levying of distress for rates is still preserved. It has been thought better to insert that provision in the definition Clause, Clause 6, and the next Lords Amendment achieves that object.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI am not quite sure that I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. I quite follow that it may be convenient in the definition Clause to insert a definition to show that "distress" will include the levying of distress for rates. It does not, of course, include levying of distress for arrears of tax. As I understand Clause 5 (5) of this very complicated Bill, in its present form it is made a condition precedent to the levying of a distress for rates that notice of intention to apply for leave to levy that distress should have been served.
The effect of the proposed Amendment will. as far as I can see, be to omit that 1077 requirement from the Bill. I may be wrong about this, and no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am, but I think I am right in saying that under the Bill there is no obligation in respect of other levyings of distress to give notice of intention so to do. Am I correct in understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is not necessary to have a provision in the statute that there should be notice of intention to levy the distress for rates given first, but that will be provided fur by rule?
§ The Solicitor-Generalindicated assent.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI am interested to know that. I am also interested to know why there should be this disparity of treatment in relation to the levying of different kinds of distress. As I understand it—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, because I am very likely to be wrong on this complicated matter—that still means that it is only necessary to give this notice first where one seeks to levy distress for rates; that under the Bill and, indeed, under the regulations there will be no need to give such notice in other cases. If that is correct, it seems to me, at first sight, to be a little anomalous. This is obviously a little more than a drafting Amendment, and I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman could throw a little further light on this rather complicated branch of the Bill.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIt is a rather difficult and complicated matter, and I will try, with the leave of the House, to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. The purpose of Clause 5 as it stood was to provide the machinery to enable the application for the issue of a warrant, where a warrant was required for levying distress and the application to proceed to levy the distress to be heard together. There would be no point in applying for a warrant unless leave to levy the distress was required.
In the case of distress for rent, there is no need for a warrant for the purpose. One can, under the self-help system, proceed without having leave. The purpose of this special provision is for levying distress with regard to rates. That is why 1078 this provision was inserted in Clause 5, and why it is proposed to reserve the effect to Clause 5 not by provisions in the Bill but by provision by rule.
§ Question put, and agreed to.