§ [Nos. 19 to 38 and 40]
§ Schedule 3, page 27, line 9, column 3, leave out from "words" to end of line 11 and insert "'exact or'".
§ Schedule 3, page 27, line 9, column 3, leave out lines 26 and 27.
§ Schedule 3, page 28, leave out lines 9 to 13.
§ Schedule 3, page 28, leave out line 16, column 3, at beginning insert "In".
§ Schedule 3, page 28, leave out line 16, column 3, at end insert "the words 'demands or'".
§ Schedule 3, page 28, leave out lines 17 and 18.
§ Schedule 3, page 28, leave out line 38, column 3, leave out "Section 24"
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out lines 5 to 13.
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out line 14, column 3, at end insert "Section 61(2)".
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out leave out lines 20 to 23.
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out Page 30, leave out lines 17 and 18.
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out line 19, column 3, leave out "Section 7(1)".
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out leave out lines 21 and 22.
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out lines 41 to 44.
§ Schedule 3, page 29, leave out lines 50 to 53.
§ Schedule 3, line 55, column 3, leave out from "the" to onwards "in line 56 and insert" words "or on conviction on indictment"".
§ Schedule 3, line 55, column 3, leave out lines 57 and 58.
§ Schedule 3, line 55, column 3, line 58, at end insert—
|"1966 c. 32||The Selective Employments Payments Act 1966.||Section 8(2)(a),(b) and (d) and (ii).|
|1966 c. 34||The Industrial Development Act 1966.||Section 9.|
|1967 c. 1||The Land Commission Act 1967.||Section 81(5)(a) Section 93.|
|1967 c. 9||The General Rate Act 1967.||Section 49(8)."|
§ Page 31, line 4, at end insert—
|"1967 c. 22||The Agriculture Act 1967.||Section 69(1)(ii)"|
§ Page 32, leave out lines 26 and 27
§ leave out lines 53 and 541411
§ LORD STONHAM
I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 38 and 40. This is the final group. These Amendments make changes in Schedule 3 (Repeals). The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will remember that late at night we had a number of very interesting and useful discussions on these repeals. Some of those discussions were inconclusive, but I assured him that the most careful attention would be given to everything that he had said—and, indeed, it has been—in order that we could make sure that they were fully covered by Clauses 14 and 15.
As a result of the examination of the Schedule—and I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for all the time he took and for the help he gave to us—and further research into possible repeals in recent legislation, Amendments Nos. 19, 26, 28, 35, 38 and 40 delete or limit certain repeals, and Amendments Nos. 27 36 and 37 add further repeals. Information can be given about any particular repeal or group of repeals if required.
Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will forgive me if I mention the principle behind the changes in these repeals. I think it may be said that generally the Bill sets out to repeal enactments which are clearly superseded by the new offences, and, in addition, in order to simplify the law and reduce the size of the Statute Book, repeals are proposed where the enactments, although not completely superseded, can for practical purposes be dispensed with as a result of the new provisions. The application of this principle to particular enactments is sometimes difficult, and depends on the subject matter of the enactments and the extent to which prosecutions are brought under it in practice, so that in some cases an enactment may be proposed for repeal in whole or in part, notwithstanding that a similar enactment is to be repealed to a different extent or not at all. But no difficulty can, in our view, result from the existence of a little overlapping and the general effect will be greatly to reduce this. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Stonham.)1412
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I wish it was not just Section 81(5)(a) and Section 93 of the Land Commission Act which we were repealing. The whole Act would be so much better out of the way. But perhaps this is not quite the context for a discussion on that subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I have looked at most of the deletions that he has suggested in the Repeal Schedule, as well as some of the additions. I think that in this case it is wise to have been a little cautious. For instance, in the context of gain and loss, about which we had such interminable arguments earlier on, I was never satisfied that the repeals in the Law of Property Act and the Land Registration Act 1925 were anywhere near covered by the Bill, and I am very glad that these have now been taken out. I am sure that they are the most incredibly uncommon things to happen. They do not get covered by the wording, either of Clauses 14 and 15 or of the subsequent clauses, and if there is any doubt on this matter I feel sure it is better to wait until we have the other offence—that is, forgery—considered by some committee and produced as a Bill. If at that stage we can get rid of even more of these old and "bitty" offences in old Acts, so much the better.
In the meantime, I am delighted that the noble Lord has cut down the extent —although he has added other perfectly proper instances of repeals in modern legislation—of some of the more dubious ones that were originally there. I thank the Government for honouring their undertaking to examine this matter, and I myself very much approve of the results.
§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I shall look forward with the keenest pleasure to the next encounter. I am sure he will agree with me that as we were together on this subject at the beginning, it is very pleasant to be together at the end, and that a useful piece of work has been done by your Lordships' House.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.