INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 16 March 1965)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)
This Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. If your Lordships permit it, I will put the Question, That Clauses 1 to 32 inclusive stand part of the Bill, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak on any of those clauses.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
moved, in subsection (1) to leave out the word "land", where it first occurs, and to insert "property". The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, it would probably be of convenience to the Committee to take the two new Amendments together. In their First Report, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills reported that they had considered the Bill, and that: No representation was received by the Committee with respect to the Memorandum setting forth the corrections and minor improvements of the law proposed in the Bill. The proposals were approved by the Committee, subject to an amendment to proposal 19. The Committee are of the opinion that the Bill consolidates the existing law with such corrections and improvements as can properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. They have made certain amendments which seem to them necessary to the improvement of the form of the Bill, and they considered that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn. 293 In these circumstances, it is somewhat unusual, though not unknown, for the Committee of the Whole House to amend a Consolidation Bill in the form in which it has been reported by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. In this case, however, there are special reasons for inviting the Committee to do so.
The Joint Committee reported on the Bill largely, of course, as a result of the draftsmen's evidence that the Bill consolidates the existing law with such corrections and improvements as can properly be authorised. It was only after the Joint Committee had reported that it was brought to the notice of the draftsmen that Clause 33 of the Bill contains an error in consolidation which would, in fact, make a change in the law which has not been authorised in pursuance of the 1949 Act. This clause deals with the discharge of a mortgage by endorsing it with a receipt for the moneys secured by it. The clause is intended to re-enact the effect of Section 43 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, as amended by Section 115(9) of the Law of Property Act, 1925, with corrections and improvements made under the 1949 Act. Clause 33, however, is in terms of a mortgage of land, whereas Sections 43 and 115 are in terms of mortgages of property. This would have the result of narrowing the scope of the provision, but excluding from the operation of Clause 33 certain mortgages—for instance, mortgages on life policies, which are covered by the existing provisions. This change was not intended and is not covered by the corrections and improvements authorised under the 1949 Act, and for that reason was not drawn to the attention of the Joint Committee. These two Amendments, therefore, are designed to correct the error in consolidation by making the Bill reproduce more accurately the effect of the existing law. I beg to move.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
The noble and learned Lord has made out an overwhelming case for this Amendment and I want to add only a few words. It is, indeed, a very rare occurrence that any slip is made by the Parliamentary Counsel which leads to Amendments such as 294 are being proposed to-day being moved after one has had the Report of the Joint Committee. Indeed, thinking back, I cannot remember in the last 22 years a previous occasion on which this has happened. The fact that it has not happened or has happened very seldom, is due to the very great care and trouble that the Parliamentary Counsel take over these matters. I wish to emphasise the rarity of this because it underlines the skill which they exercise and which they have to possess in their securing that this procedure under the 1946 Act is fully carried out. Of course, the Joint Committee also spend a great deal of time, and one ought to be grateful to them also for going through the suggested alterations in detail; and there are sometimes a great many of them. Very little escapes their notice.
I think that what has happened to-day—the noble and learned Lord having to move these two Amendments—shows, as is generally recognised, not only the importance of consolidation but the fact that if you are going to consolidate it is an extremely difficult task and must be done very carefully indeed, as it always has been. I hope the Parliamenmentary Counsel will not feel, because this Amendment has to be moved at this late stage, that this means there is any reflection on the way in which they conduct their work. I do not know how this particular defect came to light, but I know myself how thorough they are and what steps they take to try to get a Consolidation Bill absolutely right.

§ LORD PEDDIE
I am sure the Committee will join in paying tribute to the excellence and skill of the Parliamentary draftsmen. It is pleasing to learn of the infrequency of errors of this description. I am sure the Committee will appreciate also the action taken in effecting this Amendment because inaction would have meant considerable confusion where industrial provident societies are concerned.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and to the noble Lord for their observations. I agree that the rarity of the occasion is an example of the high skill and industry of the Parliamentary draftsmen.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I beg to move.