Clause 9.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL OF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT.) (Hansard, 4 March 1964)

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, to leave out from "but" to the end of line 19 and to insert: without prejudice to the bringing of civil proceedings by the Attorney-General in respect of any such contravention or failure to comply or of any apprehended contravention of such a prohibition or condition, any such prohibition or condition shall be enforcable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief. This Amendment was tabled in consequence of doubt expressed in Committee, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvin) about the words …in like manner as if the said prohibition or condition were a contractual obligation of that person to the Minister. The changes effected by this Amendment are as follows: first, it is made clear that the right of the Minister to bring civil proceedings is without prejudice to the general right of the Crown acting through the Attorney-General to bring civil proceedings to enforce obligations imposed by a Statute; and, secondly, that the remedies which can be sought by the Minister are expressed in a shorter and more comprehensive fashion in the new wording by the words proceedings…for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief. This allows the Minister to apply for any relief which is appropriate after a person has tried to undertake, or has succeeded in undertaking, a project in defiance of Clause 8.
I hope that the new form of words will meet the point made in Committee.

§ Mr. A. J. Irvine
We on this side are most grateful for the way in which this 1387 point has been dealt with. We regard the proposed wording as meeting the difficulty. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the point that occurred to some of us was that the provision that "proceedings shall be in like manner", as if the prohibition were a contractual obligation, might tend to stultify or limit the attempts to get an injunction, because it was a form of words that seemed to us almost, as it were, designed to invite attention to the question of whether damages would not be a proper and adequate alternative remedy. We think that the point is well met by the proposed wording and we are greatly obliged.

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I beg to move, in page 9, line 46, to leave out from "Scotland" to the end of line 48 and to insert: subsection (1) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the words after 'subject, but' of the words 'without prejudice to the bringing of any proceedings under section 91 of the Court of Session Act 1868 in respect of any such contravention or failure to comply or of any apprehended contravention of such a prohibition or condition, any such prohibition or condition shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an interdict or for any other appropriate remedy '. This is an Amendment to Clause 9(4), which contains the provisions applying the Clause to Scotland. The Amendment is required as a consequence of the alteration in the wording of subsection (1) of the Clause made by Amendment 25 which refers to the taking of civil proceedings for certain purposes by the Attorney General and enables the Minister to take similar proceedings for an injunction.
Proceedings in Scotland corresponding to those taken by the Lord Advocate and those taken by the Minister will be for interdict and not for injunction. This Amendment makes the necessary adaptations.

§ Mr. Hoy
We understand that the Amendment will bring the law in Scotland into line with the Amendment in page 9, line 5, but we find it a little surprising that it should be the hon. and 1388 gallant Gentleman who moved it. A few weeks ago we would have been demanding a law officer, but now that we have one and he cannot be present, we accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's word that this Amendment does no more than he claims, and we raise no objection, to it.

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I, too, thought it was rather surprising, because it seemed to me that this was essentially a Scottish Amendment. I was told that in point of fact it was not, and when I looked at the explanation given to me, I found that it was a great deal less trouble to learn what the Amendment did than to read the explanation.