HL Deb 28 June 1977 vol 384 cc1048-64

4.45 p.m.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lyell.)

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 1 [Closure of food premises, stalls or vehicles dangerous to health]:

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 13, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert ("vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the earlier discussions on the Bill we had some difficulty with the use of the phrase "places which are not premises", and the purpose of the Amendment is to clarify that phrase. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20. Those are the Amendments which stand in my name on the Marshalled List. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House for me to speak at once to all these Amendments. When we were discussing the Bill at an earlier stage, we had some difficulty with places which were not premises, and the purpose of this Amendment and all the later series of Amendments is to sweep in any activities of a food business which are carried on other than at premises, vehicles or stalls. An example would be a pavement cafe. Since these activities are covered by the Food Hygiene regulations, we hope and believe that it is right that they should also be covered by the Bill. The Amendments will have the effect of bringing "places" specifically within the ambit of the closure provisions of Clauses 1 and 2. I beg to move.

Lord GRAY

My Lords, I did raise points concerning definitions and interpretations in the Bill during the Committee stage. The Amendments before the House today do not in fact touch on what I was talking about, but I think they can be commended to the House as a distinct improvement and clarification of the interpretation clause of the Bill.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I should like, on behalf of the Government, to be associated with what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has said. We commend these Amendments to the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)

My Lords, I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 3 or 4.

4.50 p.m.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert— ("(i) food continues or is likely to continue to be exposed to the risk of contamination at those premises or on, at or from that stall, vehicle or place; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been pointed out to the House that, if this Amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be called. I should perhaps indicate that if No. 3 were to fall, this would not adversely affect Lord Lyell's series of Amendments, since the words he seeks to replace at line 19 would be similarly replaced by my Amendment No. 2. It may help t he House if I add that the seven Amendments standing in my name consist of two separate groups of linked Amendments which represent alternative courses by which my objective may be achieved. My objective is to put beyond doubt the fact that the closure order sanction which the Bill introduces can be used to stop a vehicle being used for the carriage or transport of food where such use represents a threat to public health.

The Amendment now before the House is linked with Amendments Nos. 7, 14 and 17. I believe that together they would achieve my objective. The alternative group of Amendments, to which I have just referred, comprises Nos. 4, 9 and 15. I believe that that group would also meet my point, albeit less attractively perhaps from a drafting point of view. It may be that a selective combination from the two groups would commend itself to the House and perhaps my noble friend Lord Lyell, who has indicated that he has some sympathy with my view that some sort of Amendment should be made, can indicate whether that would be a course to be preferred.

I hope that noble Lords will approve of my having explained the relationship of the Amendments. Perhaps I can now address myself in one speech to why I believe the Bill should be amended. Then, briefly, I shall demonstrate how the different groups of Amendments would achieve my purpose. If the House is agreeable, I shall then rest my decision on what course to follow until after the House has had the benefit of hearing from my noble friend Lord Lyell, then perhaps from the Front Bench opposite and maybe from any other noble Lord who may wish to intervene.

My Lords, in Committee it was established that the Bill should embrace all types and aspects of food business. As I have already said, the aspect on which my Amendment focuses attention is the transportation of food. Food businesses obviously can involve the carriage or transport of food in a variety of ways. Food can be moved by vehicle from one set of premises to another within a single business. The transport of food can be the sole activity of a food business; it can simply be the act of distributing by producers to retailers or the end-of-the-line delivery to the consumer. Perhaps I should advise noble Lords at this point that the activity of a common carrier is excluded by the terms of an exemption in Regulation 3 of the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959.

It is essential to the working of the Bill that each and all of these activities can be scrutinised at each stage of the procedure set out in the Bill, and that such scrutiny should take in not merely the premises associated with a vehicle but the vehicle itself, thus enabling prohibition of the use of that vehicle when appropriate. It is my contention that the Bill as drafted excludes from consideration a vehicle used to transport food, at a point in the sequence of provisions where it is a prerequisite that the vehicle is considered.

If I may, I should like to illustrate my point by examining the workings of Clause 1, and I invite noble Lords to examine each paragrah with me in order to determine whether transport is or is not catered for. For the purpose of this exercise let us say that a person has been convicted under the Food Hygiene Regula tions for having an insanitary vehicle. That conviction makes him a candidate for action by the Procurator Fiscal under the terms of Clause 1(1) if—and this is the point—the offence for which he was convicted included either one of the features set out in Clause 1(1)(a) or one that is caught under paragraph (b). The vehicle cannot be considered under paragraph (a) because that paragraph refers exclusively to premises which for the purpose of the Bill are a building or part thereof. So we must move to paragraph (b).

At the Committee stage I withdrew an Amendment which was designed specifically to introduce mention of transport at this stage. I argued that the context in which paragraph (b) refers to a vehicle suggests that the vehicle cited was of the mobile shop or fish and chip van type and questioned reliance of the draftsman on the word carrying a dual meaning. The case for the Bill as at present drafted is, I understand, that by employing the expression "food business", and specifically by employing it in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), all varieties of food business and all aspects of food handling in the course of a business are brought within reach of the Bill's sanctions. That contention rests on the definition of "food business" set out in Regulation 3 of the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959—a definition which is imported into the Bill by Clause 6 and from which I quoted when the Bill was in Committee; and which cites the transport of food as constituting a food business. The tidying up of Clause 6through the series of Amendments that my noble friend Lord Lyell has tabled today does not alter that.

My Lords, I am prepared to accept this general premise as providing coverage of transport under the terms of Clause 1(1)(b) and submit that my noble friend and the Government are right if they ask us to read selectively from Clause 1(1)(b) as follows: the carrying on of a food business on …a … vehicle which is insanitary …". So far so good. But at line 17 we come to the next stage in the sequence of controlling considerations. Here we must—as in his turn the sheriff must where a prosecution is involved—satisfy ourselves that the considerations spelt out in subparagraph (i), (ii) and (iii) can be used to catch the offending vehicle.

For the purposes of this exercise it is, first, best to look at sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) as these are quite simply disposed of, and it is sub-paragraph (i) that poses the problem. In the case of sub-paragraph (ii) I have already put the view that the reference to "vehicle" in the Bill covers a vehicle used for the carriage of food, so there is no difficulty there. In the case of sub-paragraph (iii), we have reference to a food business being carried on on a vehicle. In the light of what I have just said about subsection (I)(b), an offending vehicle falls to be considered here.

Now we come to the crunch. It is the wording of sub-paragraph (i) at line 17 that has prompted my Amendments. Under sub-paragraph (i) the sheriff is required to be satisfied, that food continues or is likely to continue to be prepared, stored or offered or exposed for sale at those premises or on, at or from that stall or vehicle". If he is not satisfied, then the whole process grinds to a halt and the application for a closure order fails. I take the view that the sheriff cannot be satisfied that food continues, or is likely to continue, to be stored, sold or offered or exposed for sale on that vehicle when it is neither being stored, nor sold, nor offered, nor exposed for sale in a case where the food is merely being transported by that vehicle.

As I see it, it is the draftsman's selective use of the words describing the various types of activity which the regulations cite as constituting a food business which has created our difficulty. It has been suggested to me that the draftsman is looking to the word "stored" in subparagraph (i) to be construed as embracing "transported". Not only do I suggest to the House that this is stretching the possible interpretation of the word "stored" to take on a dual meaning beyond the reach of its elasticity, but in regulation 3 of the Food Hygiene Regulations (the interpretation of the expression "food business" upon which the Bill depends for its very lifeblood) the word "stored" and the word "transported" are adjacently and separately listed. Surely if, the two terms are quoted separately in the regulation and one patently therefore does not embrace the other, then one cannot embrace the other in the Bill.

I ask noble Lords to agree that we should today put beyond question the Bill's ability to catch with its sanctions the transportation aspects of food businesses. I appreciate that I have spoken at considerable length, but I was anxious to put my case in full, the better to explain my purpose and to try and show how transport is, and is not, in the Bill as it is drafted.

Before I resume my seat I must, as I promised at the beginning, briefly state how the two groups of Amendments achieve their purpose. One group simply introduces reference to transport in the key provision 1(1) and elsewhere where it is similarly appropriate. The other group, of which this is the first, follow in the draftsman's steps by using "food business" as he has done, and importing transport through that expression into those provisions in the Bill where I feel in consequence of my arguments it is required. I am told that either group, or some Amendments from one group or the other, might be used to achieve my end, and I will follow any such course should it be suggested. I beg to move.

5.3 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, perhaps it might be helpful if I said something at this stage. The Amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, have been put down to meet his point that it needs to be put beyond doubt that the Bill extends to the transportation of food as a part of a food business. He contends (and has explained why in his speech) that either of two groups of Amendments would meet his point—either, as the noble Lord said, a group consisting of Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 14 and 17, or an alternative group comprising Nos. 4, 9 and 15.

I have discussed this with the Department this afternoon and I am advised that we accept Lord Gray's point, but we believe that the best way to achieve it, and indeed to improve the Bill, would be to accept Amendments from both groups; that is, Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 14 and 17. I would he prepared to recommend to your Lordships that these particular Amendments should be accepted, and I suggest that they be passed when we come to them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

We then pass to Amendment No. 5. The Lord Lyell.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I spoke to Amendment No. 3 when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 6.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, we have just been dealing with Amendment No. I, which has been passed. I think now the House should move to Amendment No. 2.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, had moved Amendment No. 2 and that we had accepted Amendment No. 2.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, had suggested that, in order to achieve my noble friend's purpose, with which I am entirely at one, we should reject Amendment No. 2; we should not accept Amendment No. 2, but the other parts of the noble Lord's package of Amendments—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, spelled them out as Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 14 and 17—and that we could deal with them when we come to them. I understood that we were not content to accept Amendment No. 2.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I understood that Amendment No. 2 was to be put and I put Amendment No. 2 and I think that it was agreed to. If this was a mistake let us go back and I will put Amendment No. 2 again.

Lord GRAY

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2. I am grateful for what has been said in response to my speech. In view of the offer made to accept some of my Amendments, I feel that the case is met, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 19, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

We now pass to Amendment No. 4, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 3.

Lord GRAY moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4: At end insert ("or transported on that vehicle").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments which it has been indicated to the House would be acceptable to the Promotors and to the Government. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 3, as amended, agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment earlier on when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 2, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 8 or 9.

5.10 p.m.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 8, and insert ("carrying on of a food business at those premises or on, at or from that stall, vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which, it has been indicated to the House, is acceptable to all concerned. I would reassure the House on the question of Amendment No. 8 falling that I have included in the wording of my Amendment the words which my noble friend Lord Lyell would include by his Amendment No. 8.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I am informed by revised brief that r can call Amendment No. 8.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 8, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 17, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 24, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (", vehicle or place").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Interim order for closing food premises, stalls or vehicles where imminent risk of danger to health]:

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 38, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, would it be convenient to the House if at the same time I moved Amendment No. 13?

Several noble Lords: No.

Lord LYELL

In that case, my Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 13: Page 2, line 39, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.13 p.m.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 14: Page 2, line 39, leave out from ("for") to ("involves") in line 40 and insert ("the carrying on of a food business").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third Amendment which, it has been indicated to the House, is acceptable both to the Government and to;my noble friend Lord Lyell. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 44, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (", vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand there has been an error and I think it is my fault. The noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker called Amendment No. 8; I understood that the House had accepted No. 7, which, inadvertently I believe, pre-empted No. 8. Is that the case?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly repeat that?

Earl ST. ALDWYN

Perhaps I can help, my Lords. It would appear that Amendment No. 8 was out of order and should not have been moved because No. 7 had been moved and carried. That is the advice I have received and I do not quite know how this matter can be put right. Would it be proper for the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker to put Amendment No. 8 again so that we may say "Not-Content" and negative it? Would that be in order?

Lord GRAY

My Lords, the words in my Amendment No. 7 include those desired to be inserted by my noble friend Lord Lyell. Perhaps it is I who did not make that adequately clear to the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker. If so, I apologise to the House and I hope that a simple remedy can be found.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, the position is that we have recommended that Amendment No. 7 should be accepted, and No. 8, which is consequential, we have also recommended should be accepted; one does not pre-empt the other. I under- stood that the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker put the Questions relating to those Amendments perfectly properly, but if the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, feels that she did not, then perhaps they could be put again, but both Amendments can be accepted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, my original brief was that those Amendments were pre-empted. Subsequently I received a later brief which said that Amendment No. 8 was not pre-empted. Would it be convenient to the House if I were to put No. 8 again?

Lord LYELL

My Lords, may I remove the confusion by allowing the situation to stand as it is at the moment? We have accepted Amendment No. 7 and perhaps we may leave No. 8 as it is, it having also been accepted. May we now proceed with Amendment No. 16?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, if the House is satisfied with that, the decisions will stand and I can now put Amendment No. 16.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 44, leave out ("those purposes") and insert ("that purpose").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this is the last of the Amendments which have found acceptance. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 18: Page 3, line 10, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (", vehicle or place ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 19: Page 3, line 18, leave out ("or vehicle") and insert (",vehicle or place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this; I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Interpretation]:

5.19 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 20: Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause:

Interpretation

("6. Expressions used in this Act and in the regulations mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the same meaning in this Act as in those regulations.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply an Amendment for clarification. I understand that, as drafted, Clause 6 could be unclear and might seem a little confusing. The purpose of the Amendment, along with the Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 which the House has accepted, will correct any lack of clarity. I do not think I need explain the Amendment further: the new clause removes certain ambiguities and difficulties and makes for greater clarity.

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I do not want to speak to this Amendment; I want to make matters more complicated than ever. It has taken a little time to understand what was going on regarding Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, was perfectly correct; Amendment No. 8 could not possibly be in order because it purports to take out from line 8 words which had already been taken out by Amendment No. 7 and replaced by something else. So how can there be added to the Bill something to remove words which are no longer there? There must be some way of dealing with this matter. I should have thought that there should be some administrative way of dealing with such a palpable error.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 21:

Insert the following new clause: Effect of Order in Council under Section 52 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 For the avoidance of doubt, the making of an Order in Council under section 52 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, applying regulations made under section 13 of that Act to the Crown shall not have the effect of applying the provisions of this Act to the Crown.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is a technical Amendment included to clarify that the provisions of the Bill will not apply to Crown properties. The Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, and the associated food hygiene regulations, do not apply to Crown properties either, although there is power in Section 52 of the 1956 Act whereby an Order in Council may be made so applying them. This is a longstanding power which has never been invoked, and there is no question now of it being used before the 1956 Act is updated and consolidated, as the Government intend. The provisions of this Bill would be included in that consolidation, and in the meantime it is appropriate to clarify that its provisions, like those of the 1956 Act, will not apply to the Crown. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, as there is some confusion about Amendment No. 8, with the permission of the House, I should like to call Amendment No. 8 again. The question is that Amendment No. 8 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"—

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I should explain that I have just received advice that Amendment No. 8 is not necessary, and therefore it is not moved; it is withdrawn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

Amendment No. 8 is not moved.

5.25 p.m.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord GRAY

My Lords, I am reluctant to detain the House any longer, but during our Committee stage I raised certain points: one general point, which at the time could not be answered, and one other, to which I was, inadvertently on the spur of the moment, given an answer which appears to be inaccurate. I expressed concern as to what would happen in a case where a person had his premises closed down and his food business put out of action, even where he had done nothing wrong himself and it was merely a case of the situation, or juxtaposition, of his premises in relation to other premises belonging to a third party. It was suggested at the time that the third party could he dealt with under the Bill.

In fact, the provision drawn to my attention on that occasion does not, I understand, touch it, and I would ask the Government if they would be good enough to bear in mind that it would be extremely unfair in certain circumstances that a man put in this position, who had done nothing wrong, and who had done his best to prevent something wrong happening on his premises, should be left with as his only recourse the bringing of a civil suit against the person who offended him. When I raised other points, I understand that the Government said that they might be looking at the 1956 Act, and it may be that when they do that, or when they look at the regulations being I understand, 'currently redrafted, they can deal with this point. The other point which I raised at the time, and which could not be fully answered then, was a general question as to whether the Bill's provisions as written covered aircraft, trains, and oil rigs, and I should be grateful to know whether or not any view on this has been reached.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has raised three interesting points, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for all the great trouble he has taken over the Bill, and for the various Amendments that he has suggested, some of which we have felt it useful to accept. The noble Lord asks about the question of the closure of premises resulting from the acts or default of a third party. I am advised that, for the purposes of civil law where a person whose food business is affected as a result of the fault or negligence of a third party, the ordinary civil remedies for nuisance or negligence on the part of that third party will be available to him, depending upon the circumstances.

For the purposes of criminal proceedings, Clause 4(2) of the Bill provides that Section 45(2) of the 1956 Act shall apply in relation to proceedings under this Bill as it applies in relation to proceedings under the 1956 Act. Section 45 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 provides for the acquittal of a person, who, charged with a contravention, is able to satisfy the court that he has used all due diligence to secure compliance with the requirements, and that the contravention was attributable to someone else's fault. A defence is therefore available to the operator of a food business charged with a contravention of the regulations under the criminal law, where he can show that he used his best endeavours to comply with the standards imposed, and that a third party was responsible for the breach.

The noble Lord also raised the question of aircraft. So far as aircraft are concerned, legal advice is that they are not one of the subjects within the scope of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 or the associated food hygiene regulations, and that the Bill will therefore not apply to them in any case. The need for control of food hygiene on aircraft is not pressing, since catering arrangements are based on pre-packed food supplied from establishments which are covered by statutory control, and further, the crockery and utensils are usually of the throw-away variety, but we take the point that the noble Lord has raised.

With regard to oil rigs, the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act and associated food hygiene regulations would appear to apply by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, and contraventions in the Scottish area will be governed by the law in force in Scotland under Article 2 of the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Order 1968. While it can be said, therefore, that the Bill also extends to oil rigs, again the mechanism for enforcement may present difficulties, but, as for trains, it is a separate question.

Lord ALPORT

My Lords, before the Bill passes I wonder whether I might put a point. The difficulties which have arisen, and which arose over a different Bill on a previous occasion—last week, in fact—where the instructions to the Lord Chairman or Speaker do not actually direct him or her as to the procedure to he followed, places the Speaker in a very difficult position indeed. I wonder, having listened to this part of the debate, whether it is in fact right for us to pass this Bill, in case there may be some misunderstanding still extant in the Amendments which have been made which, if the Bill is passed, we shall not have another opportunity to correct in this House. I did not follow this in any detail, but I know very well the difficulties which the noble Baroness had to face in putting the various Amendments to the House. It seems to me not only that there would be arguments for preparing the procedures rather more accurately, perhaps, than appears to have happened on this and on previous occasions, but also there may be misunderstanding with regard to the final form the Bill takes now, at Third Reading. Therefore, I wonder whether the formality of the Third Reading and of the Motion that the Bill do now pass should not he delayed, at any rate until another occasion, when it would not occupy any of the time of the House and would give an opportunity for any changes to be made which are necessary as a result of any misunderstandings.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, particularly for his kind words about the difficulties of the Deputy Speaker. I think everybody in this House recognises perfectly clearly that the difficulties we got into this afternoon were in no way the fault of the Deputy Speaker. Indeed, contradictory briefs have been raining down on her during the afternoon, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for raising that point.

As to his further point, on the best advice I have I think the Bill is now clear and correct, and that when we read it inHansardtomorrow we shall find that it would be quite correct to go on now. And if indeed we are finished with this part of it, perhaps the Question, That this Bill do now pass, can be put.

Earl ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I had in any case intended to say a word on the Motion, That this Bill do now pass, but what has happened this afternoon has to my mind made it even more important that I should say it. Yesterday we had the Report stage, on which there were no Amendments. I appreciate that this was done for the convenience of various Members of your Lordships' House, but I think I am right in saying that, although it is not strictly set out in theCompanion,the Procedure Committee has deprecated the moving of Amendments on Third Reading other than for the purpose of tidying up matters which were not entirely clear at preceding stages, particularly the Report stage. If these Amendments had been put down on Report, then, although an error had inadvertently taken place, it could have been put right on Third Reading. I hope that the House will take careful note that it is highly undesirable that Amendments should be moved on Third Reading except, and only except, for the purpose of tidying up something which is found to be wrong after Report.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may entirely endorse what the noble Earl has said. When we were discussing these matters in the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Practice and Procedure, it was agreed by everybody that business could be expedited, could be made more efficient, if only noble Lords would stick to our own rules and customs—and customs are just as important as rules. This is a perfect example: that at Third Reading we should have only corrections. If we had done all this on Report, today's business would have been very much easier for the whole House, and I am indeed grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter. I endorse what he says. Of course I agree that the business managers always consult the convenience of your Lordships, but what is to the convenience of some noble Lords is not always to the convenience of others. On that note, I think perhaps the Question might be put, That this Bill do now pass.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.