LIABILITY OF THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY FOR DEFAULTING SUBSIDIARY WHERE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE BEFORE APPOINTED DAY (Hansard, 30 April 1980)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
After the Opposition's synthetic indignation over amendment No. 1, measured by the 18 votes that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) was able to muster, which is either a reflection on his failure to draw the crowd or perhaps a lack of enthusiasm for the argument that he claimed was boiling up on the Labour Benches, I hope that even the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is purely a drafting amendment which in no way affects the purpose of clause 8.
The need to make the amendment arises because of the inclusion of the words " by execution ", which, while perfectly correct in English law, could lead to difficulties of interpretation under the law of Northern Ireland. The Government believe that the best way of avoiding that possibility is to remove the words from the Bill, together with the words or (in Scotland) by diligence ", which become redundant if the preceding words are taken out. As amended, the wording clearly encompasses enforcement under all these systems of law.
As I have said, the amendment does not change the meaning of the clause. Indeed, by avoiding ambiguity it clarifies it. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a wholly desirable aim and, 1574 because this is not a controversial point, will not seek to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

§ Mr. Cryer
Before the Minister sits down——

§ Mr. Les Huckfield
The Government always put on the Under-Secretary when they want a bit of progress made. They know that he treats the Opposition more courteously, and genuinely tries to be helpful. That is the hon. Gentleman's nature. Unfortunately, it is not the nature of his hon. Friend the Minister of State.

§ Mr. Dobson
The hon. Gentleman is not as boring either.

§ Mr. Huckfield
I agree that the Minister of State is also rather boring.
I believe that we can accept a great deal of what the Under-Secretary says. He has done a good job in trying to shed light on these matters. We always found in Committee that we made faster progress with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one day, when his hon. Friend was in Brussels, we got through two whole pages of the Bill in one sitting. That takes some doing. We knew that, with the Minister of State in Brussels, we could make that progress.
We appreciate the research that the Under-Secretary has done and the legal advice that he has received, which we hope is right on this occasion. The legal advice that the Government receive is not always right. Having said, I am not exactly in control of what happens on these Benches tonight. I have always believed in spontaneous uprisings of the people. I shall have to be guided by my hon. Friends and their reactions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) always feels strongly about all these matters and may well be moved to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, 1575 South (Mr. Dobson) has similar feelings. My hon. Friends may feel even more strongly than I do. I pay tribute to the manner in which the hon. Member has proposed this amendment Unlike the Minister of State, the Under-Secretary actually tries from time to time to be helpful.

§ Mr. Murphy
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that we should be discussing the Lords amendments to the British Aerospace Bill. While my hon. Friends and I admire the tremendous work that is done by our Ministers, we would still like to get on with the business in hand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawsbaw)
I am sure that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) was about to come to the amendment. I hesitated to intervene in case we lost the good will which seemed to have developed in the last few minutes.

§ Mr. Huckfield
I am glad that you recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was deliberately trying to develop some good will. We know that the hon Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) takes a very assiduous interest in these matters! To my knowledge, he has spoken only once on the Bill since 24 July last year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going outside the bounds of order now. I hope that he will return to the amendment.

§ Mr. Huckfield
I think I can accept the amendment, but I am not sure about my hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Cryer
May I raise one or two questions on this drafting point? First, I found it vaguely annoying that in Committee the Government accused us of trying to delay the Bill by protracted examination when in fact we merely wanted to give it detailed and scrupulous consideration. We were absolutely right to do so. Quite clearly, drafting amendments of this sort would not have been necessary if the Government had got it right in the first place.
Line 31 of page 7 of the Bill, which is altered by the amendment, includes the words or (in Scotland) by diligence ". 1576 Frankly, I am not aware what " diligence " is in Scotland—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to make comments, I am quite willing to give way, especially to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who was singularly silent in Committee and showed a distinct lack of interest, understanding or care for the Bill. [Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members express their views in their own time and with their own speeches. Many of us have shown great interest in this Bill over very many hours.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
That is why there are only 18 Opposition Members here tonight.

§ Mr. Cryer
I was speaking for myself. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) wishes to make a speech, he is entitled to do so.
Why were the words or (in Scotland) by diligence included in the first place? Now that they are to be excluded, because that seems to be the most suitable way of dealing with the word " execution " which would cause trouble in the Northern Ireland courts, what will be the effect of that deletion? I assume the words or (in Scotland) by diligence were inserted because they were designed to make it clear that a particular Scottish legal process applied. If that was a requirement when the Bill was drafted and that requirement has now been removed, what is the position in Scotland now, and will the Bill be effective? In other words, in trying to remove an area of doubt in Northern Ireland, have the Government created another area of doubt in Scotland? Or were the words superfluous, redundant, or otiose in any event?
It concerns me that this amendment should be necessary at all after the amount of time that we spent on this wretched Bill in Committee.

§ Mr. Dobson
Ordinarily, I should welcome the deletion of virtually any words from any Bill which the present Government might propose. If Government Front Bench Members were to put forward a manuscript amendment whose purpose was to delete the whole Bill, I should welcome it.
However, I am surprised at the curious wording which is to disappear. As my 1577 hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said, if the words were worth putting into the Bill in the first place, why are they being taken out, and what will be the consequence of their removal?
Presumably, the draftsman put the words into the Bill in the first place because he felt that it was necessary to make clear that the judgment or order became enforceable by execution in England and in Scotland " by diligence." If it is thought right to remove the phrase, it should not have been put into the Bill in the first place. If that is the position, it was a bit of shoddy and superfluous drafting. On the other hand, if the phrase is deleted, it will have some consequences.
I am struck by the phrase or (in Scotland) by diligence ". One normally associates the Scots with assiduousness and diligence, but I still did not understand what the phrase meant although I had a sneaking feeling that it referred to horse-drawn carriages. Sure enough, I discovered from the Oxford English Dictionary that to travel by diligence in France means travelling by a public stage coach. I cannot think that that is what it means. I had to plough a long way through the Oxford English Dictionary before I discovered a meaning which apparently had any relation to this clause from which it is sought to delete the words.
The only definition I can find which might apply is the process of law by which persons, lands or effects are attached on execution or in security for debt or "— I do not think this can be it— a warrant issued by a court to enforce the attendance of witnesses. I think that what that really means is that in Scotland " by diligence " means by execution in England. The Minister did not explain that.
Therefore, I am still not clear whether there is any difference between the words " by execution " in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and " (in Scotland) by diligence ". I still think that we have not had any explanation of why, if these words were felt to be necessary when the Bill was originally drafted, they are not necessary now. If there is some complication about what the words " by execution " might mean in Northern Ireland. 1578 I should have thought that the draftsman could have come up with something which would retain words which were apparently thought to be necessary at the outset.
I want to know whether the Government have any precedents for either including or omitting these words. If the Government cannot quote any sensible precedents, although it seems a trivial matter, we may once again have to divide the House.

§ Mr. Michael Marshall
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) opened the debate in his usual cordial vein. I shall respond in like manner. I shall try to meet some of the genuine questions which have been put to me.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was perhaps seeking to understand the basis upon which these various terminologies arose in the first place. I do not claim to enter into these legal matters with any great expertise, but the fact is that one is here referring to the practice of law under the different codes, particularly as they relate to Scotland as opposed to other parts of the United Kingdom. The change which has been brought forward here arises simply from the fact that the use of the term " by execution " is deemed to be inappropriate in the case of Northern Ireland. The House will recognise that from time to time the terminology within the legal profession itself and the way in which these matters are looked at comes under review. Those words are deemed to be inappropriate in the case of Northern Ireland. It therefore follows that, since the term " by execution " is being removed, there is no need to retain the phrase " or (in Scotland) by diligence ", which was originally included merely to allow for the different terminology in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), having parked his stagecoach, asked a perfectly fair question about the precedent. I am happy to be able to give him the precedent, because the effect of the amendment is, in fact, to revert to the situation which would apply under section 53 of the 1977 Act, which this clause reflects. We are always very happy when we find precedents set under another Administration which so happily meet the point.

§ Mr. Dobson
Presumably there are Acts of this Parliament which include the words by execution or (in Scotland) by diligence ". What do the parliamentary draftsmen do to cope with the application of those Acts to Northern Ireland in those circumstances?

§ Mr. Marshall
I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman an answer about the whole of our legislative framework, I regret to say. I think that, if this is 1580 a matter which he is keen to pursue, he may wish to consider other ways of obtaining that information. What I am concerned with in this Bill is the effect of the amendment, which is to put the words in exactly the same terms as under section 53 of the 1977 Act, which makes no mention of " diligence ". The Bill, like the 1977 Act, can work without it. I hope that the House will feel able to agree with the amendment.