HL Deb 15 May 1975 vol 360 cc843-5

3.30 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill. In moving this Motion, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Fifth Report of the Joint Select Committee which is unusual in that it pointed out that certain minor anomalies remain in the Bill. In the view of the Committee, this was because the Bill is not being dealt with under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, or the Law Commissions Act 1965, whereby limited amendments could have been made. The Committee did, however, invite the draftsman to consider whether any of these anomalies could be removed. This has been done, and the result is the technical Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper. They cover some of the points made in the Committee's Minutes of Evidence. I am glad to have the assurance of the Chairman of the Joint Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the proposed Amendments can properly be made. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Supplementary regulations]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 19, leave out from ("particular") to ("with") in line 21.

The noble and learned Lord said: The words proposed to be left out would appear to add nothing to the phrase "in particular" which precedes them in the clause. On the other hand, if they are left in, they might have unwanted implications for Clause 5(1). Then, in exactly similar conditions, no such words appear, and if the words were left in Clause 6 the difference in form between the two provisions which are drawn from different sources might suggest a difference of substance that is clearly not intended. It therefore seems desirable now that the two provisions have come together in this consolidation, to bring them into line with each other by making this Amendment. The Joint Committee drew attention to this point during the proceedings on the Bill before that Committee. They left the draftsman to consider whether the discrepancy could he cured on a pure consolidation. He is of the opinion that it could, on the footing that, as I have indicated, the words add nothing to what is already in Clause 6 and therefore their omission would not involve any change in the law. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Breach of condition as to registration]:

Clause 13 agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2: Transpose Clause 13 to after Clause 15.

The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to transpose Clause 13 to after Clause 15. The penalty clauses follow the sequence of the earlier clauses in the Bill for breach of which the penalties are imposed, except that Clause 13 was placed after Clause 12 because the two are closely concerned with registration. However, the Joint Committee took the view that the sequence ought not to be broken and it is now thought that this view is the more logical. The Amendment would give effect to the Joint Committee's view accordingly. I beg to move.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 24 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3: Page 13, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment would remove paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2. "Transitional provisions and savings". The Joint Committee in the proceedings on the Bill questioned whether certain provisions of the Schedule, including this one, were necessary and asked that the question of their inclusion in the Bill be considered further. This paragraph is unnecessary because it adds nothing, at any rate so far as the Bill is concerned, to what is provided in Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889, and it is clearly desirable to eliminate the superfluous from legislation. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to meet the wishes of the Joint Committee by getting rid of a provision which covers ground already covered by the Interpretation Act.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment would remove paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 on the grounds that it is entirely unnecessary for this particular Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 14,—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.