§ 39 and 41. Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General (1) if he will take steps to end actions for enticement and breach of promise:
(2) why the Civil Judicial Statistics do not include the number of actions for enticement and breach of promise.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe Law Commission is examining both forms of action and it would be better to await their report before making a final decision in this matter. In the circumstances I do not think this is an appropriate moment for adding to the judicial statistics by including particulars of these actions.
§ Mr. LiptonDoes not the small number of these muck-raking unsavoury cases prove that they no longer serve any useful purpose? Is it really necessary to await the ponderous deliberations of the Law Commission before deciding to end what is admittedly a very unsatisfactory state of affairs?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's views about these causes of actions. However, I would not describe the activities of the Law Commission as ponderous. They are efficient, and I think it cannot be said that they are unduly delayed. We had better wait to see what the Commission recommends.
§ Mr. CarlisleWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it would be foolish, to remove the action for enticement unless at the same time something is done about the claim in damages 32 for adultery? If it were removed, the ridiculous position could arise whereby a husband had a claim but a wife had no form of claim?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThat is precisely the kind of difficulty which needs consideration before rushing into premature action.
§ Mr. Hector HughesIf my right hon. and learned Friend is taking steps on the lines indicated in these two Questions, will he at least make the terms of the recommendation sufficiently wide to deal with other undesirable relations between the sexes, male and female?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy right hon. and learned Friend's Question intrigues me. Perhaps one of these days he will descend to particulars.