§ CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT
AND EXTENT
§ Sir D. RentonI beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
Even at this late hour we now come to the most important Amendment that we have to consider this evening, but it need not take very long, because I understand that the Solicitor-General is prepared to accept it.
The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude a subsection which provides that in ascertaining the meaning of any provision of the Act regard may be had to two reports of the Law Commission. When we had this before us on Second Reading it was said that this was without 1976 precedent in our legislation. We had a very full discussion on the principles, and I do not propose to repeat the arguments which were advanced for and against the provision.
I said then that although I had serious doubts about the setting up of the Law Commission, it did a very good job of work on the Bill. I think that I was perhaps a little too generous with my praise of the Commission, because the more we went into the Bill, and the more we heard the Solicitor-General move Amendments to improve the Bill, the greater were our doubts about whether the Commission had really got the matter right.
The Commission did some valuable studies before producing a draft Bill, but, whatever may be the merits of such a provision, we have to face the fact that the Bill has now been so fully amended in both Houses that it is scarcely identifiable with the Bill which the Commission put forward originally. Indeed, I go so far as to say that when the Bill is passed into law not much more than half of it will be recognisable as having been the work of the Commission.
In those circumstances, it would be palpably absurd to invite the courts to have regard to the Law Commission's report in order to ascertain the meaning of the provisions of the Bill. It would in any event be a most fantastically complicated task in the case of many of the Clauses, in view of the various Amendments either moved or accepted by the Government.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ I am glad that the Government propose to accept the Amendment. I believe that there will be rejoicing on both sides of the Committee. I know that there will be rejoicing both at the Bar and among solicitors, as represented by the Bar Council and the Law Society respectively, and I have a shrewd suspicion that there will also be general rejoicing among the judiciary, except, perhaps, among one or two Law Lords who were originally wedded to the idea in another Bill—the Animals Bill—and put this forward as a tentative proposal that was eventually accepted.
§ In various quarters there have been second thoughts on the question whether this is a wise provision. However, we 1977 need not discuss the principles tonight. We can rejoice that the Government propose to accept the Amendment and in so doing draw attention to the fact that whether the principles are right or wrong it would not be appropriate to allow this subsection to remain in the Bill.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in this, at least—that I propose to recommend to the Committee that it should accept the Amendment. The matter to which the Amendment refers has undoubtedly given rise to a good deal of controversy and discussion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's account of the scale of rejoicing over the acceptance of the Amendment was possibly somewhat overpainted. I have always felt that the mare reflection expended upon what was proposed in the Bill's original provision in this connection the more its merit tended to be found worthy of recognition.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that it was from his own side of the House that some support, at least, was given to the concept as it appeared in the original subsection—
§ Sir D. RentonThe right hon. and learned Gentleman is presumably referring to the support given from the Opposition benches in another place and not in this place.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIt is my recollection that support was also given in this place. I have in mind the attitude taken towards it—I hope that I do him justice when I mention this— by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). That is my recollection.
Be that as it may, it is undoubtedly the case that our consideration of this controversial matter has been overtaken by events, and it is that that has made it desirable, in the view of the Government, that the proposal contained in the original subsection (2) should not be proceeded with. I make no admission about the criticism directed to the provision as it formerly appeared, but I am the first to acknowledge that in the present situation it would be wrong to pursue a matter that has, beyond question, taken on a very controversial character. It is 1978 a matter for debate and great interest to lawyers, and in future years there will no doubt be plenty of opportunities for it to be further pursued.
§ Mr. WeitzmanCan my right hon. and learned Friend tell me, as a matter of interest, whether there is any other statute in which a similar provision occurs?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThere is not, as far as I know, a statute with a specific reference to a Law Commission Report. My hon. and learned Friend will know that a parallel provision appeared in the Animals Bill, and I am sure that he will be the first to agree that novelty is not necessarily a disqualification for any provision in a Bill.
§ Mr. BishopI welcome the Solicitor-General's acceptance of the Amendment. Several of us expressed misgivings about the subsection on Second Reading. It certainly seemed to be novel. After the way in which the Bill has been drastically altered by my right hon. and learned Friend himself, after his initial pleas that we should not mess about with a Law Commission Bill, it is only logical to accept the Amendment.
To do justice to the thinking of the House as well as of the Law Commission. when considering the Bill after it became law the courts ought also to have regard to the Second Reading debates here and in the other place, and also to the Committee stages. They might well be confused by the fact that, at the first sitting of the Standing Committee, an Amendment was passed, against the wishes of the Government. giving the courts power to grant more than one lump sum, or at least not just a once-for-all lump sum, an Amendment which is not in the Bill now but which was none the less supported by a majority of the Committee.
Also, at our third sitting, a majority of the Committee were in favour of certain other principles being embodied in Clause 5. Thus, it would have been most confusing for the courts to have a clear idea of what was intended by all those who have made some contribution on these matters, whether on the Law Commission or in Parliament.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1979§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 25, line 35, after ' 31 ' insert:
(Minor corrections of Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, s. 7(3)), (Construction of references to remarriage in Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s. 26)'.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon new Clauses 5 and 8.
§ Amendment agreed to.