HL Deb 04 May 1965 vol 265 cc830-45

3.4 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 1 [The Law Commission]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "not more than". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the first Amendment on the Order Paper raises a point which I undertook to consider when the Bill was in Committee. It is a short and narrow point. The Bill provided for not more than five Commissioners, and it was suggested in Committee that it would be wiser to fix the number at five. I had said that I proposed to appoint five, that I was sure that five was the right number, and that the number ought to be five for a long time to come. I explained that the only reason the Bill had originally provided for "not more than" five was that this is not an unusual form, and I thought that the day might come when a Lord Chancellor would feel that the work could be completed with three Commissioners, or with some lesser number than five. It seemed to me to be the general view of the Committee that it would be wiser to fix the number at five. There is really little to it. Having promised to consider it, I have no objection to that course, and have therefore put down this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out ("not more than"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, it would be ungracious of me, on my own behalf and on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, who wishes me to express his regret that he is unable to be with us this afternoon, not to thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for moving this Amendment, which is in the same terms as the first Amendment I moved during the Committee stage of this Bill. That Amendment led to a considerable amount of controversy and some rather heated debate. I can assure the Lord Chancellor that the same Amendment moved by him to-day will not have the same consequences. I feel tempted to remind the noble Lord of the unkind words which were said on the Amendment when I moved it originally and of the argument he then advanced, but I propose to resist the temptation completely. I consider that the Amendment improves the Bill, and I am very glad indeed that, after further consideration, the Lord Chancellor has decided to move the Amendment himself.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert: The Chairman shall be the holder of high judicial office or a person who has held high judicial office, and". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment (which is very similar to the one moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds) because the Lord Chancellor said during Committee stage that he would think about the suggestion. The Amendment tabled by Lord Simonds provided that the Chairman of the Law Commission should be the holder of high judicial office. The proposal met with wide support—indeed, I think everyone who spoke expressed the view that that should be the case. In the course of the debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, suggested a modification of that Amendment, and that the Chairman should be the holder of, or should have held, high judicial office; and this Amendment embodies that suggestion.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he came to reply, said that he would like to think about this suggestion. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper in his name giving effect to this proposal, and I have therefore tabled this Amendment to enable him to communicate to your Lordships the results of his thoughts on this point. I do not think that there was any dispute between us as to the desirability of having as the Chairman someone who is the holder of high judicial office or has held high judicial office, and the only question, as I see it, is whether this statement should or should not be included in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert— ("The Chairman shall be the holder of high judicial office or a person who has held high judicial office, and").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have given careful consideration to this point but I think that here the Bill as printed is preferable to the proposed Amendment. Again, the point is a very short one. We are all agreed that, if practicable, the Chairman of the Commission should be one who holds or has held high judicial office. But the last thing I am sure we should all want, if the Law Commission is the success which I believe it is going to be, is that its work should come to an end because it cannot function unless its Chairman holds or has held high judicial office—and there may be more than one circumstance in which it might not be practicable to obtain such a man as Chairman.

In the first place, a High Court Judge is a man who has devoted the whole of his life to the forensic battles of the Court, and holds a very high position in his profession. He spends his time trying cases—work of great importance, of course, to all our citizens. Such a man might well feel that he did not want to spend a period of years in an office working on matters of law with other lawyers. Therefore, it might happen at some particular time (as, of course, no Judge could be ordered to do this work) that there was no Judge who was so concerned for the future development of English law that he was willing to spend a period of years in this work.

Again, as I think I pointed out in Committee, there might be circumstances in which there was an increased pressure of work, with the Lord Chief Justice complaining to the Lord Chancellor that he did not have enough Judges to try the cases, and in particular the criminal cases. That might happen at a time when there was already the maximum number of Judges provided for by Parliament, and, until a further Bill had been obtained giving powers to Parliament to increase the number of Judges, the Lord Chancellor might find great difficulty in deciding whether he could legitimately take a Judge away from his ordinary duties to do this work. There is no real difference between us in intention, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will accept that it is my intention, just as it is his, that, if practicable, the Chairman of the Law Commission should always be one who holds or has held high judicial office.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, of course the term "high judicial office" covers a much wider field than that of just a High Court Judge. I must say that I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said, as to his views about the status of the person who should be Chairman of this Commission. I find it difficult to believe that any successors of the noble and learned Lord would hold a different view. I think it is a somewhat remote possibility that the Lord Chancellor of the day would not be able to find someone, either a current holder of high judicial office or someone who has retired from it, who would take on this work and be a suitable person to do it. But, as he says, there is the possibility of the position being otherwise, although I myself regard it as a very slight one. I do not propose to press this Amendment, because I believe that our discussion has served the useful purpose of showing what is at least the present view as to the kind of person who should hold this important office. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.15 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Commissioner shall" and to insert: be appointed for such term (not exceeding five years) and subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor at the time of his appointment; but a Commissioner may at any time resign his office and a person who ceases to be a Commissioner shall be eligible for reappointment".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a good-will Amendment. I do not know whether such a thing exists as a matter of terminology. If it does not, then I have invented it. The point, again, is a fairly short one, but one which has introduced a good deal of discussion, and that is the question: should there be a maximum limit, and if so what, to the term of appointment of Law Commissioners? I confess I had thought, as one can never anticipate exactly what will happen and as circumstances may vary, that it would be wise to leave the matter entirely to the Lord Chancellor, but I had said that I did not propose to appoint any Law Commissioner for a term of more than five years, because it seemed to me that that would not be desirable in the case of first appointments.

In Committee various views were expressed and the Committee carried an Amendment, which I was unable to accept, limiting the period to three years, which as I think I then said would have reduced the number of possible Law Commissioners available in England and Wales to about half. One of your Lordships thought that there ought to be a maximum of seven years, but eventually it appeared that most of your Lordships thought that the term ought to be five years. When I say that I have accepted this as a matter of good will, I must say, if I am to be frank, that I am still inclined to think that we should have been wiser to leave it to the Lord Chancellor of the day.

Let us conceive the holder of a chair of law at the University of Oxford, whose services the Lord Chancellor might particularly want to obtain. If he is 58 and the retiring age for such holders is 67, he has nine years to go in the same position. Of course, if he goes to be a Law Commissioner for five years, he has then got four years left. He will not get another appointment in a university for those four years, so it seems to me that such a man might reasonably say, "I will split the difference with you, and I will come for a minimum period of six years, as I cannot really be left with four years". It might have been wiser to leave the matter to the Lord Chancellor, but a number of your Lordships—including the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds—took a very strong view that there ought to be a limit and that it should be five years. As I say, for the sake of good will I have accepted that view, and beg to move accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 19 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor described this Amendment as a good-will Amendment. In speaking to it, I hope that I shall not be accused of lacking a similar spirit of good will in relation to it. The Amendment, of course, is one which replaces a good deal of subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill, and it embodies, with the alteration from three years to five years, the Amendment that was moved into the Bill on a Division in Committee. As I recollect, the real controversy on that occasion was not on whether the term should be three years, four years or five years, but on whether there should be laid down in the Bill a maximum term for which any one of these people could be employed initially, while in no way restricting the power to appoint them for a further period. I am confirmed in that recollection when I look at col. 469 of Hansard of April 14, for I see that I suggested to my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, who moved the Amendment initially, that we should make a slight amendment to it and carry that into effect, and that at a later stage, if need be, an Amendment could be moved to change "three" to "four" or "five", as the case may be.

That was the question of principle. I myself take the view that it is right to put in the Bill a maximum period of employment. I think it will be of very considerable advantage to the holders of the Lord Chancellor's office. Initially, I suggested that the period should be five years, but on reflection, bearing in mind the power to reappoint, I am not at all sure that there is not something to be said for the shorter period initially put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds. I say that for this reason: that cases certainly do occur when people, without warning, age very rapidly and become, sad though it is, unfit to discharge their duties, whatever they may be—and, as I say, they become in that condition very quickly indeed. It might be convenient that their appointment should terminate automatically without steps having to be taken on the grounds of some kind of incapacity. However, I am not stressing that aspect.

I believe that we have reached a wise compromise in this Amendment, and I am very glad that the Lord Chancellor, on reflection, has thought it right to embody this Amendment in the Bill. I am also very glad that, by the Amendment that he has tabled, he has thought it right to insert it in such a place as to make it perfectly clear that, after serving a period stipulated in the Bill as being "not exceeding five years", it will be possible, in appropriate cases, to reappoint. After the Amendment had been carried into the Bill I think it might have been argued that it restricted the total employment to five years, and that in no circumstances could that period be extended. I do not think there is any room for that argument now, and I think the Amendment has been inserted in a better place. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the action he has taken.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, having taken some part in this discussion on the last occasion, I should like to add my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having so gracefully accepted what I am sure was the general feeling of the whole House. I accept it in the spirit of good will. We all have good will towards this measure; and, now that it has become an agreed measure, one in which the whole House has joined in making a better measure, I hope that the child of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will grow in grace and wisdom and in the fear of the Lord.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I do not wish to disturb the harmony of the proceedings, but the two noble Lords who have so far spoken from the other side are both advocates of having a definite term incorporated in the Bill. The good will that the noble and learned Lord has extended has been to meet their views; but I should like to place on record the fact that, apart from that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, there is another view, and that, I thought, was adequately expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when he made the point that people age rapidly and that perhaps five years was too long. It occurs to me that that is possibly an argument for not having a period at all.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I do not think that that is an argument for not having a period at all. Not having a period at all would enhance the difficulty to which I referred. But I do think it is an argument—I do not want to develop it which might have been advanced on the last occasion. I am perfectly content with five years.

LORD SILKIN

Yes, I know; we are all content with five years. I am not speaking against the Amendment, but wanted to make it clear that some of us are going a good way towards this desire for good will in respect of the Bill. I, for one, should have preferred not to have a period in at all, for the reason (in spite of what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said) that there might be circumstances in which it would be desirable that somebody should not be appointed for along period when obviously he was not able to carry on.

But I do not want to make this a controversial issue. I am merely giving one of the reasons why I should have preferred there to be no period at all. I accept the compromise, but I should like noble Lords to understand that it really is a compromise: that there are noble Lords, I hope in all parts of the House, who would have preferred not to put a fixed period in the Bill, and that there are others who would not otherwise have agreed to five years, including the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, himself, who, on reflection, thought that perhaps five years was too long. However, we are all prepared to accept the Amendment, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, says, we hope the Bill will now go forward as an agreed measure.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "high". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may discuss Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together, because they are really the same point. Your Lordships may remember that this was a point which, when it was raised on the Committee stage, I said I thought was a good point. I had contemplated Law Commissioners as being men of high standing, of rather more standing than metropolitan magistrates or county court judges, and accordingly financial provision had not been made for such people, when appointed, to maintain their office. But as I myself have been in favour throughout of leaving matters as far as possible to the good sense and discretion of the Lord Chancellor, I agree that if some future Lord Chancellor should think some metropolitan magistrate or county court judge was suitable for a Law Commissioner, who am I to say that he is not? I agreed to consider the point, and Amendments Nos. 4 and5 now have the effect of meeting that point by extending the provision to all judicial offices. The following Amendment will cover the question as to how far, in the case of a part-time Commissioner, he is to continue his other part-time activities. My Lords, I beg to move accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("high").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, again I must express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for accepting this Amendment. It is one that I think I moved on the Committee stage. Again, I think it makes an improvement in the Bill. There is just one point which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not touch upon. I said during the course of the Committee stage that if you were to appoint to the Commission the holder of a judicial office which carried a lower salary than the salary which was going to be paid to the Commissioners, I thought there ought to be provision, while he held the office of Commissioner, for paying him the difference between the two. There is no Amendment down to provide for that, and the noble and learned Lord did not touch upon it.

The reason may well be that that can be provided for in the terms of the appointment of such a judicial officer. If that is so, I shall be glad if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm that it is so: and also if he will say, as I hope he will, that he accepts the view that, if such an appointment were made, then the salary of the holder of such a judicial office should, while he is a Law Commissioner, be brought up to the salary of a Law Commissioner.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, does Clause 4(1) not deal with that? It says: …such salaries…as may be determined, with the approval of the Treasury," et cetera.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

No, I do not think so, if the noble Lord studies the effect of taking out the word "high". The holders of judicial office will go on being in receipt of their judicial salaries. I raised this point at the Committee stage, and, as I said, I think the answer may well be that there is no need for a provision in the Bill to deal with it, as it might be dealt with by the terms of appointment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, my Lords, I confirm what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said. The intention is that the judicial appointment and the judicial remuneration will continue and a sum in excess of that will then be made up. I am advised that it is not necessary that the Bill should go into any detail about it, because the financial provisions contained in Clause 4(1) are extremely fluid and leave the whole question of remuneration to be agreed by whoever is being appointed and of course, by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, we have already discussed this Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, after ("not") insert ("(unless otherwise provided by the terms of his appointment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

The Scottish Law Commission

2.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland, there shall be constituted in accordance with this section a body of Commissioners, to be known as the Scottish Law Commission, consisting of a Chairman and not more than four other Commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate.

(3) A person appointed to be a Commissioner shall hold and vacate office under the terms of the instrument by which he is appointed, but may resign his office; and a Commissioner who ceases to hold office shall be eligible for re-appointment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the words in this Amendment are the same as those moved by the Lord Chancellor under Amendment No. 1. One reason I have for moving this Amendment is to ask the noble Lord to tell us why he is not moving such an Amendment. I have no doubt that he has a good reason. The Lord Chancellor, in moving his Amendment, stated roughly what the procedure was intended to be in England. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us an idea now of what the procedure is intended to be in Scotland in setting up these Committees. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, leave out ("not more than"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl's query is simple. The objection to the Bill in relation to Clause 1, as previously before the House, was that the Bill did not agree with the terms of the White Paper. If in fact we were to alter Clause 2 as Amendment No. 6 proposes, we should be creating a situation where in Scotland the Bill, which at the present time agrees with the White Paper on the Scottish proposals, would be taken out of agreement with it. That would not be a good reason for refraining from changing if there were other good reasons for changing.

The reason why, in the first instance, there was a difference was that the magnitude of the problem South and North of the Border was quite different. In the first place, I gather that the Commission for England and Wales will be almost entirely a full-time body. The intention North of the Border is that the Commission should be very largely a part-time body with a full-time Chairman and a number of part-time Commissioners. It may be that in the beginning it would be necessary to have as many Commissioners as five, although that is not absolutely certain. What is certain is that at some time, perhaps at a time not very far away, and perhaps even immediately, it will be possible for the work to be done with a Chairman and fewer than four other Commissioners; so to have the Bill as it stands, providing for not more than five, would adequately meet the situation in Scotland and yet leave us with the complete flexibility which is desirable in matters of this kind. I believe it is more than likely that the Commission in the first instance will consist of a Chairman and three part-time members, although it might in fact be four. I hope therefore, on the assumption that I have given him the information he is seeking, that the noble Earl will find it possible in these circumstances to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I make a short point? It is that it might be of advantage to have somebody with sheriff-substitute experience in addition to the four categories mentioned in the Bill; that is: persons … qualified by the holding of judicial office"— which was previously "high judicial office"— or by experience as an advocate or solicitor or as a teacher of law in a university. I think it might be an argument for having five rather than four: but I am certain that my noble friend will not wish to insist on any lack of flexibility in this particular connection.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think the point that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn made was a true one. I take it there will be at least four Commissioners for the time being and that the fifth postwill be left vacant for the moment, at least. I am happy with the information and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.36 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "by the" and to insert "Lord Advocate after consultation with the Secretary of State." The noble Earl said: It is not only a question of appointing a Commission in Scotland and of who will make the appointments, but there has been a good deal of discussion on this and there are one or two points which I should like the noble Lord to clear up. I think the discussion has been in some measure due to our uncertainty about what is to be the scope of this Commission. At one point, one of the Scottish Ministers said it would include revision not only of the law but of social, economic and political law. If it does all that there will not be very much work for Parliament to do. I do not think it is intended to go as far as that. I am certain that a Commission of this character would be unsuited to that purpose.

There is one point I should like the noble Lord to clear up. He said this Bill makes no change. But up to this time the Secretary of State has never been responsible for the state of Law in Scotland. In going back it may be difficult to say who was responsible. But I think that since the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, of about ten years ago, it has been clear that the responsibility is with the Lord Advocate. I think, while not saying necessarily that a change is wrong, that it is important to note that a change is taking place. The noble Lord has given a reason for this. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, supported him in it. He said it gave the possibility of answering questions in Parliament when the Lord Advocate was not himself a Member of the other place. That of course is a good reason so far as it goes. I suppose, at a pinch, the Lord Advocate might be made a Member of this House if he did not wish to be a Member of the other place.

However, I think it is important to note that if this is a reason for invading the Lord Advocate's responsibilities, then if it is carried any further it will have rather wide constitutional repercussions. The Lord Advocate has certain functions in Scotland which the Secretary of State can never carry out and should never attempt to carry out. He is responsible for all criminal prosecutions of indictable offences and for the inquiry, if necessary, into sudden or suspicious death, and in so doing takes the place of the coroner in this country. If because he is not a Member of the other place it is possible to invade his responsibilities, it might precipitate a much wider constitutional change in the future. I would ask the noble Lord to try to make it clear. I think the easiest way to do so is by some Amendment such as I am proposing here (which, in fact, would not alter the say which the Secretary of State has) rather than to allow a position to be eroded away.

The noble Lord himself said the responsibilities for these matters will rest with the Secretary of State. He did not go as far as did a former Secretary of State in another place who spoke of two Ministers in one Department. That is a completely false presentation of the situation, and I should like the noble Lord to clear this matter up. I am not going to press this Amendment if the noble Lord will make it clear that he has no intention of further eroding the constitutional position of the Lord Advocate. Otherwise, I will press this Amendment which I think will not in any way impede the Secretary of State in what he has to do, but will make it clear that in this sphere the Lord Advocate's responsibility is direct and personal. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("the") to end of line 6 and insert ("Lord Advocate after consultation with the Secretary of State.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I would go further than I have been asked to do by the noble Earl. He asked me to state that there was no intention of further eroding the responsibilities of the Lord Advocate. I do not agree that the word "further" is correctly placed there. There has in fact been no erosion of the Lord Advocate's responsibilities up to this moment. In fact, the specific recognition in this Bill of his right, jointly with the Secretary of State, is in fact the first time, so far as we can trace, that it has been placed on record that the Lord Advocate has a responsibility in these matters.

Another point on which I must disagree with the noble Earl is when he says that the Secretary of State does not have responsibility for recording the law of Scotland. That is very far from the case. I think perhaps the best thing would be for me to give a number of the examples with which I have been furnished. The Franks Committee suggested that the Lord Advocate should be given functions under the legislation required to implement their recommendations, but the subsequent legislation, the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, gives responsibility in this field in Scotland to the Secretary of State and, to a much lesser degree, to the Lord President. Then there are the Legal Aid Acts. In Scotland, the responsibility for the central administration of the Legal Aid and Advice Service rests with the Secretary of State. Under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, the powers in relation to the appointment of sheriffs and their removal, and the organisation of the sheriff courts, are given to the Secretary of State. In England, the organisation of the courts is, of course, a matter for the Lord Chancellor.

Under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, the appointment of the officials of the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session is given to the Secretary of State. In some cases (the Principal Clerk of Justiciary, Accountant of Court, and Auditor of Court) the powers are exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate. The Secretary of State is responsible for executive action under the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act, 1961, while under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act, 1927, the appointment of sheriff clerks is a matter for the Secretary of State. The next example is the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. The functions of the Act in relation to the appointment of justices were transferred by Statutory Instrument, by the Transfer of Functions (Justices of the Peace) (Scotland) Order, 1955, from the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State, as a result of the recommendation to this effect of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs (1952–54).

Under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, the rule-making functions of the Lord Chancellor in Scotland were transferred to the Secretary of State by the Transfer of Functions (Justices of the Peace) (Scotland) Order, 1955, as a result of the recommendation to this effect in the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs. There are others, but I think it would be unduly boring if I were to go through them all. From 1885 to 1962 the pattern has been laid down that there is a definite responsibility on the Secretary of State in these legal matters. It does not in any way interfere with the functions which have been exercised over that period by the Lord Advocate, and I would reiterate, in as clear terms as I can, that the Lord Advocate's position is not eroded by this Bill in any degree whatever, but in fact is slightly enhanced. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord a question on this point? Has what he has been saying to-day been said after consultation with, and with the agreement of, the Lord Advocate, or has he been putting only the position of the Secretary of State?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think it would be correct to say that I have been speaking from the brief provided by the Lord Advocate.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I am grateful for the information which the noble Lord has given us, but in fact what he is dealing with is administration. What I was talking of was the law, which is rather different. I believe the Lord Advocate was represented on the Lord Chancellor's Committee, and of course that and his own Committee are the only organisations dealing specifically with this subject. I will not press this Amendment now. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making this clear-cut statement, and I hope that if necessary he or his lineal successor will be held responsible for what he has said. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.