HL Deb 29 November 1962 vol 244 cc1329-45

4.30 p.m.

House again in Committee.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, before I put the next two or three clauses, I should like to make one general remark: if any noble Lord or Lady at any time wishes to make a comment on the Question, "That the clause stand part", it would help the Chair enormously if he or she would notify the Chair of that fact.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Term of detention in a detention centre]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

Before moving this Amendment I should like to say that although, unfortunately, it has been found necessary to table so many Government Amendments, none of those in my noble friend's name, with the exception of Amendments Nos. 9 and 21, upon which my noble friend is going to speak, raise any new points; they are designed merely to clarify the intentions of the Bill, to correct mistakes, or to improve the drafting. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, I will move all these Amendments formally, although I shall, of course, be glad to furnish any explanation which the Committee may require. I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("or of imprisonment, as the case may be,").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Transfer between institutions]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("If") to ("amenable") in line 12 and insert ("in the case of a person who is not").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 21, leave out from ("is") to ("under").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Transfer to prison of persons over twenty-one, and maximum age for detention in young offenders institution]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Where a person has been transferred to prison under this section, he shall be treated for the purpose of his serving the unexpired part of his sentence and of his supervision on release as if the sentence of detention passed upon him were a sentence of imprisonment for a like term, and the provisions of this Act and of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 relating to the treatment and supervision of prisoners shall apply to him accordingly.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Supervision of persons released from detention centres]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 2, after ("Act") insert ("or transferred therefrom to a young offenders institution under section 32 (3) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

LORD GREENHILL

There is, I think, a printer's error in the Marshalled List of Amendments in regard to Clause 12. It reads, as you see, as at page 7, line 2 "after ('Act') insert … 'under section 32 (3) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952') ".

There is not, I think, a subsection (3) under Section 32 of the Act. I think it is just a printer's error.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.33 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "fourteen days" and insert" four weeks". The noble Lord said: In Clause 12 (2) the period for which an offender may be liable to be detained on recall is, in the Bill, fourteen days. This is precisely the period which the Advisory Committee have advised most strongly should not be adopted. They point out that if a young person is brought back to a detention centre and is kept there for only fourteen days it will just be a nuisance to everybody concerned and will not serve any useful purpose, so far as the offender is concerned. The Committee say: "We take the view that the period of recall should be a standard period of four weeks."

Reading the Report of the Committee, I think this is exceedingly sound advice. Unlike the previous Amendment, which I was happy to withdraw when it was pointed out that at this stage it was physically impossible to accept the recommendations of the Committee, this Amendment, and the recommendation in paragraph 49, do not appear to have any physical impossibility. It is merely that the Government, for some reason which appears sound to them, have decided to do the very thing which their Advisory Committee have urged most strongly should not be done. I put this Amendment forward primarily to give us an opportunity of knowing why the advice of the Advisory Committee in this matter is rejected. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 24, leave out ("fourteen days") and insert ("four weeks").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD CRAIGTON

Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain why we have departed from the recommendations of S.A.C.T.O. I have given this Amendment a great deal of thought. Your Lordships will realise that on a point such as this the decision must rest on a balance of judgment on a subject on which our practical knowledge is still quite inexact. We seek only to find the right answer, or the answer that is most likely to be right. The fourteen-day period to recall is, as the noble Lord said, contrary to S.A.C.T.O.'s recommendation, but it does follow the English Act. One must consider first whether there are any special Scottish conditions which would of themselves justify a longer period of liability to detention on recall in Scotland than in England. If there are, then that alone would, as in so many special cases, justify departure from English practice. But there are no such special conditions. So, if we accept this Amendment, the Committee must be satisfied that twenty-eight days is, on balance, right, and that England was, on balance, wrong in enacting fourteen days.

What are we looking for? Is it not the period of liability to detention that will best achieve two objects? The first object is the rehabilitation of the offender—an offender who was found by the court to be most likely to benefit from the short, sharp shock of three months in a detention centre; that is, ten weeks with full remission. If borstal or a young offenders institution was considered inappropriate when the youth was sentenced, we take the view that after ten weeks in a detention centre as much as four weeks in a young offenders institution might be just the sort of experience that the court did not wish the boy to have. Surely the period must be the shortest effective period?

But there must be some sanction—and here one comes to the second object of the period of recall. To be effective, compulsory after-care depends on the cooperation of the person under supervision with his supervising officer; and in securing that co-operation the threat of being sent back to detention is a powerful weapon. Young people especially, once they are in circulation again after their detention, particularly dislike being recalled at all. I am advised that the deterrent effect of the threat of recall in the case of such young offenders is not to be measured by the period of recall. All that really matters is the possibility of recall.

I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, for three reasons: first, because on balance it seems in the youth's best interests that he should in no circumstances be subjected for any length of time to the rêgime of the young offenders institution; secondly, because fourteen, as compared with twenty eight, days does not weaken the essential deterrent of the threat of recall; and thirdly, because there are no special Scottish conditions that override the two considerations which I have mentioned. Those are the reasons, and I only hope that the noble Lord will find them as convincing as I do.

LORD HUGHES

I am sorry, but I do not find them in the least convincing. I would remind your Lordships that earlier on, I was prevailed upon to withdraw an Amendment because in that case we were dealing with laymen and others—the sheriff versus the bailie. But now we are dealing with trained lawyers. Here is a case where a Committee presided over by a distinguished sheriff principal—Sheriff Harold Leslie—are trying to make recommendations based largely on their own experience and knowledge, and they use perhaps the strongest wording that is to be found anywhere in their Report in this particular connection. I think it is worthwhile reading what they have to say: A person under supervision after release from a detention centre who failed to observe one or more of the conditions of supervision would, on the analogy of the present statutory provision in regard to borstal licence-holders, be liable to recall to the institution for a period up to the date of termination of sentence, i.e. for a period of about two weeks, representing the maximum amount of remission on his sentence. We do not think that recall for so short a period would be an adequate consequence of non-observance of the conditions. So puny a punishment for misconduct or wilful neglect of the conditions would be of little help to those whose duty it was to supervise and encourage other released inmates who were similarly under supervision. I find it in a way disappointing that a Minister, who has been so long at the Scottish Office as the noble Lord, Lord craigton, should so regularly find something having not been done in England as a convenient reason for not doing it in Scotland. Surely, we are not sitting always on the basis that nothing good can originate in Scotland. But the Minister accepted that that is not the position: it (has not been done in England, it has not been necessary to do it in England, and therefore there is no reason why we should be pioneers in Scotland—even in a case like this where very good advice is received from a Commitee on a point on which from their experience they are well qualified to give guidance. I do not know whether this is a decision taken by the legal officers at "he Scottish Office, and we shall never have any way of knowing, so far as I can see, because they are never going to be in a position to speak for themselves in either his House or the other one. So that we must take it for granted that is their opinion, if Lord Craigton says it is.

It may be that this seems to civil servants to be a nice tidy way of just putting back on the fourteen days which were taken off in the first instance. But it seems to me—and I hope it will appear so to your Lordships—that we are really making the task of "he people who have to supervise these young offenders more difficult than it need be. What is wanted is not that anybody breaking the regulations is brought back to a young offenders' institution either for fourteen or 28 days. It is that the conditions laid down should be such as to give the maximum encouragement or otherwise to the individual to adhere to the regulations under which he goes. It seems to me, as it appeared to the Advisory Committee, that to recall him for a period of fourteen days is not going to serve any useful purpose whatsoever.

I regret very much "hat I am not in the least persuaded that the Government are right in this, because I think, quite definitely, "hat the reasons advanced are quite unsound. In these circumstances I think it would be folly to withdraw the Amendment. I would hope rather that the Government in this case would see the error of their ways.

LORD FORBES

I quite agree with the Minister that recall would be a deterrent, but I cannot really see why the only reason he has given for the period being 14 days' recall is, as I have understood it, that it is done in England. That is not a good enough reason.

LORD CRAIGTON

That is not the reason at all. I am afraid my noble friend did not hear correctly what I was saying. The reason is this. Here is a boy who has been sentenced to three months; he serves ten weeks; and, although I agree that the deterrent effect is what really matters, I personally feel strongly when the court has decided that the right treatment for the boy was the short, sharp shock of three months—or ten weeks—in a detention centre, we should not take the risk of sending him back, as part of his penalty if he does not behave himself, for as long a period as a month. I think that fourteen days is the right period. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that we do not really want to recall the boy; we want to use this threat of recall as a deterrent. But the deterrent effect of fourteen days is just as good as that of 28. Do not let the noble Lord give me horns and a tail about this. What we are trying to do is to arrive at the best balance of judgment.

The noble Lord quoted from S.A.C.T.O. I think it would be only fair if I were to quote from A.C.T.O., the English equivalent of S.A.C.T.O., on this point, because here also we quote learned gentlemen giving their best decision. A.C.T.O. says, in paragraph 70: It must be recognised that the sanction for misbehaviour during after-care would be no more then recall to a detention centre for two weeks, if the period of detention was three months, or for one. This sanction may seem to be hardly adequate, but we understand that young people very much dislike having to return prison or detention, even for such a short period. In view of this, and of the fact that it is hardly ever necessary to use the sanction of recall in cases of young prisoners released after serving sentences of three or six months' imprisonment, we think that this sanction will prove to be adequate. So there is another opinion on the same subject. I think in this case we are right to take fourteen days.

LORD HUGHES

I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that he advice given by the English Committee, because the English Committee recommende—and it is in the English Act— that they come back for fourteen days to a detention centre. The Scottish Committee pointed out that it would be wrong to bring them back to a detention centre and that they should go to a young offenders' institution. In fact, the Government have accepted that. They are going to put them into a young offenders' institution, accepting the advice of the Committee on where they should go, but rejecting their advice as to how long. The justification for reducing the period to the 28 or fourteen days that the Committee recommend is that the Government say "It is dreadful to put him into a young offenders' institution at all". If they were therefore going to disagree with the committee they should have been doing was to follow the English practice in its entirety.

It seems to me that this is a case where the Government, having a number of choices, have decided to make the worst of all possible choices. If they felt that the English Committee was the one whose guidance should be taken in this matter, then I begin to wonder why the Secretary of State went to the bother of asking the Scottish Committee to look at the matter at all, when there was so recent advice given from the Committee sitting across the Border. It is not inconceivable that the circumstances otherwise existing in England make what is suggested in this connection a reasonable thing to do there. But there are many other matters in Scotland which are quite different, and cases where it might well be fallacious to follow the English precedent. I am very sorry, but I do not feel in the least bit more persuaded to withdraw. The more the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, speaks to me on this the more convinced I am that he has nothing to convince me about.

On Question, amendment negatived.

On Question,whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?

4.49 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I should like to raise one point on this clause. Subsection (1) of Clause 12, states that a person who is released from a detention centre shall be under the supervision of such society or person as may be specified in the notice to be given to him by the Secretary of State on his release, … In Scotland by far the greatest amount of after-care and supervision is done by probation officers. During the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill, 1961, I spoke about the omission of the Scottish probation officers on this point of supervision and after-care. The Minister was kind enough to accept my Amendment and to make an alteration to the Bill, so tin after-care and supervision referred to in that Bill (now an Act), and also in this, there is reference to probation officers. I have put down an Amendment on this matter here, because I thought that I could speak to it and would ask the noble Lord to consider the point. I think that, in view of the enormous amount of work that is done by probation officers in this field, it is a great pity that they are not specified in this after-care and supervisory work, and that there is simply a vague reference to such society or person as may be specified". I should like to see the probation officers mentioned in this connection.

LORD CRAIGTON

Clause 12 is in the same form as the comparable provision in the English Act of 1961. After-care is normally made the responsibility of the society "—the After-Care council in Scotland; the Central After-Care Association in England and Wales. Probation officers are not mentioned in these provisions dealing with liability to after-care. This does not mean that they may not be used as supervising officers, and we must await the S.A.C.T.O. Report on arrangements for carrying out after-care before we decide on that point. But outside London, as the noble Lady knows, the Central After-Care Association use probation officers as agents for carrying out after-care. If the same system is to be adopted in Scotland, the Secretary of State has power under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, to make after-care a duty of probation officers. So I think we should await the S.A.C.T.O. Report.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Power to search for forfeited articles]:

LORD CRAIGTON moved to leave out Clause 35 and to insert instead:

Warrant of search for forfeited articles

"35. Where a court has made an order for the forfeiture of an article, the court or any justice of the peace may, if satisfied on information on oath that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found in any place or premises and that admission thereto has been refused or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended, issue a warrant of search which may be executed according to law; and for the purposes of this section, any reference to a justice of the peace includes a reference to the sheriff and to a magistrate."

The noble Lord said: With the Committee's approval, I should like to discuss this Amendment with No. 21. This Amendment fulfils a promise made on Second Reading, after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, had pointed out that the search provisions in the Bill were altogether too wide. Under this revised clause the police can exercise their powers of search only under judicial warrant.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 4, leave out Clause 35 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Craigton.)

LORD GUEST

I only wish to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for his thinking again about Clause 35, and that the clause in its present form entirely meets the points which I made on Second Reading.

4.54 p.m.

LORD GREENHILL

As both the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, have said, this new clause is in substitution of the original clause. My own feeling about this clause is that it is still rather ambiguous, and because I felt that, I took the liberty yesterday of discussing the matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest. He very kindly pointed out to me that on one reading you might get one impression, and on another reading you might get another impression. What I tried to bring out was that a warrant of search for forfeited articles may be issued but two conditions must first be satisfied. The first is that there is reasonable ground for believing that the article is to be found in the premises to be searched, and that admission has been refused. The second is that a refusal of admission is apprehended. It was that phrase which I thought ambiguous, because I asked myself: apprehended by whom? If it were merely those who would be acting in obtaining the forfeited goods—if it were only they who decided that refusal of permission was apprehended—then that would not alter the contents of the original clause, which really gave a carte blanche to open a locked-up place, for the reason that one wanted to get hold of what forfeited goods might be there.

But, as was explained to me by the noble and learned Lord, there is an alternative way of reading it. That is that if we assumed for a moment that, instead of a kind of mental comma appearing after the words "in any place or premises," the comma came after the word "refused", on the following line, the meaning would be rather different, because then it would not be the alternative of two things; it would be the whole thing contained in that one sentence. I assume that he probably thought I was not wholly convinced, because he said: "Well, I should not myself seriously object to the exclusion of that part of the clause—that is to say, the words 'or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended'. "I do not want to raise any difficulties about this, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would be good enough to go through this clause again. Then if after consulting with his experts, they approve of my point of view, perhaps they would bring out a form of words which would satisfy even the layman critic that I am.

LORD GUEST

Perhaps I might be allowed to intervene. It is quite true that I had a discussion yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and that we discussed the terms of this clause. I think that when the clause is read as a whole there can be no reasonable doubt about its meaning. I think what the noble Lord is doing is putting the alternative, "or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended", to the main part of the clause, and reading it in such a way that, if the court is satisfied on information that a refusal is apprehended, then it may issue a warrant. That is not how I read the clause.

I think there are two alternatives. One is that you have information on oath that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found, and admission has been refused; or you have reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found, and that a refusal of such admission is apprehended. I think that is made perfectly plain by the fact that the words are "such admission is apprehended". That, clearly, refers to the "admission" in the preceding phrase, and I do not think that the reading which the noble Lord has put upon this clause is really practicable. If the whole of the question of admission and refusal of admission were deleted from the clause, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, suggested, one would then be in the position that the liberty of the subject would be less protected, because there would have merely to be information that there was reasonable cause to believe that the article was to be found. Therefore, it is some protection to the householder that there is apprehension of refusal of admission, or that in fact admission has been refused, and I would certainly support the clause in its present form.

LORD GREENHILL

Would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to satisfy me on this point? Is the apprehension that of the court or the justice of the peace?

LORD GUEST

I should have thought that the apprehension was the apprehension of the informant on oath. I should have thought that if the informant on oath said. "Admission has been refused", or "I, the informant, apprehend that admission will be refused" then it would be for the court or the justice of the peace to consider whether that justified the issue of a warrant.

LORD HUGHES

It is quite obvious from the amended clause that, in the first instance, the court has to be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found there, and that admission has been refused. There is no doubt about that at all. These two go together. As to the doubt which my noble friend Lord Greenhill has expressed, it is quite clear that apprehension of refusal is alternative merely to the second condition and is not alternative to the first and second together. My noble friend is not seeking to alter the purport of the clause. Surely a quite simple drafting alteration could put the matter beyond any dubiety. I hesitate to suggest this, because I shall probably be shot down in flames, but it seemed to me that if there were substituted some such words as: if satisfied by information on oath—

  1. "(a) that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found in any place or premises; and
  2. "(b) that admission thereto has been refused or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended",
it would then be made perfectly clear that the second and the third are alternative to each other, and that the third is not in fact a possible alternative to one and two together. That might make the matter clear beyond any possible doubt, without in any way detracting from the Government's intentions in the matter.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and to other noble Lords who have spoken about this matter, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, for coming to the defence of the draftsman. Clearly we should have another look at this point, however. I am sure the draftsman will read the speeches made; and, if the clause can be improved, I will improve it on another occasion.

LORD GREENHILL

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 [Interpretation]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 8, leave out from beginning of line to ("in") in line 9 and insert— ("'impose detention' or 'impose imprisonment' means pass a sentence of detention or imprisonment, as the case may be, or make an order for committal").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule [Supervision of Certain Discharged Prisoners]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 3, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Amendment of Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1949]:

THE MARQUESS OFLOTHIAN

These are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 34, line 44, leave out from ("occuring,") to ("means") in line 45. Page 35, line 1, leave out from ("to") to ("or") in line 2 and insert ("proceedings Before the High Court of Justiciary, that Court,") line 4, leave out ("the appellant's") and insert ("a person's").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

THE MARQUESS OFLOTHIAN

Amendments Nos. 15 to 23 are all drafting except for No. 21, to which my noble friend spoke on Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 36, line 17, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert— ("For section 16 (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections: '(1) Where a prisoner who is serving a sentence of thirty-one days or less would, but for this subsection, be discharged on a Sunday, he shall be discharged on the immediately preceding Saturday. (1A) Where a prisoner who is serving a sentence of more than thirty-one days would, but for this subsection, be discharged on a Saturday or Sunday, he shall be discharged on the preceding Friday.'") Page 36, line 21, at end insert—("In section 28 (2), after the words 'detention centre' there shall be inserted the words 'young offenders institution'.") Page 36, line 25, after ("(4)") insert ("(other than paragraph (iv) of the proviso to subsection (4))") Page 36, line 28, at end insert (", and in the said paragraph (iv) for the words 'or detention centres' there shall be substituted the words 'detention centres or young offenders institutions'.") Page 36, line 41, at end insert ("in subsection (5), for the words 'Borstal institution' there shall be substituted the words 'young offenders institution'.") Page 36, line 43, at end insert—("In section 35— in subsection (1), after the words 'detention centres' there shall be inserted the words 'young offenders institutions'; in subsection (6), after the words 'preventive detention' there shall be inserted the words 'detention in a young offenders institution'.

In section 37— in subsection (1), after the words 'preventive detention' there shall be inserted the words 'detention in a young offenders institution'; in subsection (2), after the words 'preventive detention', there shall be inserted the words 'detention in a young offenders institution', and after the word 'prison', in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'young offenders institution'.") Page 37, line 12, at end insert— ("In section 20 (1), for the words 'such warrant' there shall be substituted the words 'warrant of apprehension or search'.") Page 39, line 13, after ("section") insert ("'court' does not include a court-martial, and") Page 39, line 31, leave out ("14, 15 and 17") and insert ("12, 13 and 15").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

On Question, Whether the Fifth Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?

4.55 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

I should like to ask a question about the Fifth Schedule. On page 36, lines 8 and 9, there is a reference to Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1961. I attempted to look that up to-day to find out just what this meant, and I am informed that there is in fact no Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1961. What is the reference supposed to be? If such an Act has been passed, it has escaped the attention of the Library, because they cannot lay their hands on it. Nor can the Printed Paper Office.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot be intelligent about this, but I can assure the noble Lord that I will look it up and write to him, or take the appropriate action.

LORD HUGHES

The noble Lord says he does not know without notice. I did look up the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, which is an English measure which applies in part to Scotland, but it did not seem to me that Section 3 very obviously fitted in there, though it may be that I was looking at the wrong Act. I should be prepared to sit here quite happily until a message comes back, for another reason—because my noble friend Lord Silkin has asked me to keep this going. He is having a cup of tea.

LORD CRAIGTON

I have certain ways of obtaining information, and these ways I see approaching me. The answer is a very simple one: that this refers to the Bill which we are now discussing.

LORD HUGHES

So it is the year which is wrong?

LORD CRAIGTON

No.

LORD HUGHES

Yes. I knew the noble Lord was frequently out of date, but the noble Lord ought to realise that we have reached the year 1962.

Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Sixth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:

THE MARQUESS OFLOTHIAN

I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.

Amendments moved— Page 40, line 44, column 3, at end insert—("Schedule 1") line 49, column 3 at end insert— ("In section 22, the second sentence.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

In the Title:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I beg to move the Amendment to the Title.

Amendment moved— In the Title, line 16, after ("Isle of Man;") insert ("to provide for the appointment of additional judges of the Court of Session;").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

LORD HUGHES

As a matter of interest, and in furtherance of my declared objective, having regard to the fact that the Government have taken such a momentous decision as to increase from sixteen to eighteen the numbers of judges in Scotland, why did they make the mistake of forgetting to put it in the Title?

LORD CRAIGTON

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who I see has just come into the Chamber, is most grateful to his noble friend. Even the best of us make mistakes.

LORD HUGHES

Thank you very much. I am sorry we could not keep it going longer, because I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Silkin has not had the relief to which he is justly entitled.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.