HL Deb 08 June 1971 vol 320 cc6-7

2.54 p.m.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to implement the recommendations contained in—

  1. (a) the 17th Report of the Law Reform Committee on Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence;
  2. (b) the 40th Report of the Law Commission on Civil Liability of Vendors and Lessors of Defective Premises;
  3. (c) the 42nd Report of the Law Commission on Polygamous Marriages;
and, if so, in each case when the necessary legislation is likely to be introduced.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSIIAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE)

My Lords, the Government accept in principle the majority recommendations in the 17th Report of the Law Reform Committee on Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence. Legislation will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows. The 40th Report of the Law Commission on Civil Liability for Defective Premises is still under consideration. The 42nd Report of the Law Commission on Polygamous Marriages contains a Memorandum of Dissent by one Commissioner and raises some difficult issues. The Government need time for further consideration. and would welcome public discussion of the Report before a final decision is taken.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I ask, with regard to the 40th Report of the Law Commission, whether there is any particular obstacle that prevents the Government from coming to a conclusion about this Report, which was published last year; whether he appreciates that a Written Question in January and a Written Question in, March produced the same Answers as that given to-day; and whether, refreshed by the summer, there is a reasonable prospect that if I ask the Question again in October some conclusion may have been arrived at?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the 40th Report of the Commission on Civil Liability was published in December, 1970—that is, less than a year ago. It contains four recommendations, of which two are controversial. The two controversial recommendations are Clause 1, declaring a duty on house builders to build properly; and Clause 3, the duty of care with respect to defects known on disposal of premises. There remains at least the question of Clause 3, which has come in for strong public criticism, in particular from the Law Society. Comments from the Bar Council, which may also be critical, are expected soon. I would hope soon to be in a position to consult my colleagues in the light of this public criticism, but until the comments are all in I think I should be unwise to do so. I hope to put proposals forward fairly soon after they are all in, but there is no chance of legislation this Session, at any rate.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would define public discussion in the context of polygamous marriages? Would he welcome discussion by the women's organisations as well as by the various legal authorities?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should more than welcome discussion by the women's organisations. This is not a purely legal question: it is a question of important social policies, in which there are very powerful arguments in both directions, and the more ventilation it can have among the public and the more public discussion there can be the happier I shall be. It could, of course, be made the subject of a Private Member's legislation, because at the end of the day it is something about which the Government are traditionally rather neutral.

Forward to