HL Deb 15 December 1981 vol 426 cc89-100

3.1 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are to increase public certainty and parliamentary control over possibly undesirable company and business names. I propose first to explain the regulations and then to make some comments on the Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments relative to these regulations.

The control exercised over the use of certain "sensitive words" is of long standing. The Companies Act 1929 required the consent of the Board of Trade to a name which contained the words "Royal" or "Imperial", or which suggested Royal patronage. The 1948 Act however removed such specific control, and instead gave the department discretion in Section 17 to reject any name considered to be undesirable. The department took the view that certain words and expressions were particularly "sensitive" and required careful examination. Over the years a list of some 200 such words and expressions was built up in the light of experience.

I wish to emphasise that there is nothing ipso facto undesirable about the words in question. They may be quite properly used in particular circumstances. But equally they are capable of being misapplied so as to mislead the public in cases where companies do not measure up to the status they imply. Therefore, as a matter of long-standing policy, companies have not been registered by names containing these words and expressions until inquiries have been made of the applicants or comments received from other Government departments or professional bodies about the acceptability or otherwise of the use of the name in the particular circumstances.

That list of sensitive words was an administrative tool and was not subject to parliamentary control. Your Lordships had explained during the passage of the 1981 Act the changes that are proposed in this connection, and there has been a good deal of consultation in relation to this aspect of the matter in the course of the preparation and during the parliamentary stages of the 1981 Act. In the course of that, the department's old administrative list of doubtful words has been reviewed, and those other departments or organisations which had previously indicated an interest in particular words have been consulted as to whether statutory protection is still necessary. The list published as an annex to the consultative document in 1980 already represented a distillation of the experience gained since 1948. The circulation of the consultative document to a wide range of professional bodies and other organisations naturally generated further suggestions.

The list which now appears as a schedule to these regulations, therefore, has already been subject to considerable scrutiny in the commercial and professional world and was available throughout the parliamentary proceedings on the Bill which is now enacted. The list in the regulations needs to be viewed in the context of other provisions of the principal Act, particularly Section 22(1)(d), which prohibits the registration of a name the use of which by a company would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, constitute a criminal offence. There are words or expressions the use of which is already controlled under other legislation, for example, the Banking Act. It is not necessary to bring such words within the scope of these regulations but, from the point of view of the company promoter, it is of course necessary to consider all the relevant legislation and it would be convenient to get all such words together on a single piece of paper.

The department has, therefore, prepared a list of the words in this category known to them, with details of the legislation under which they are controlled. This list will be published as an annex to the Registrar's Notes for Guidance on Incorporation of New Companies. If applications for companies to be registered by names including such words are submitted to the department, the applicant may be required to provide further evidence. I believe this will be a useful way of gathering all these various matters together. At present, some 33 words have been identified as falling within this category; that is, affected by other legislation and are subject to statutory control under legislation other than the Companies Acts. Together with those specified in the regulations to which I am speaking about 120 words will be subject to some form of control in future, compared with about 200 in the informal list which the department has used up to now for its internal guidance.

I have been speaking so far in terms of the incorporation of new companies. I should finally remind your Lordships in this connection that the regulations also cover the use of the specified words and expressions in trading or business names, whether by corporate or unincorporated firms. In these cases, too, the consent of the Secretary of State will be required before a name can be used which includes one of the words in the annex to the regulations. Without this provision there would be an easy means of evasion. Businesses which are already using such names with proper authority will not be required to re-apply.

I wish finally to refer to the Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which has raised a doubt about the vires of these regulations. The doubt consists essentially of this, that if your Lordships look at the schedule, it will be seen that in respect of a number of the sensitive words there is no relevant Government department or other body specified. The joint committee properly raised the question whether the legislation under which these regulations has been made requires that every sensitive word should have a relevant body attached to it. All I can say is that I personally and the department have carefully considered whether that is a good point and have concluded that it is not.

The main provision, Section 31(1) has two branches, the first allowing for the specification of sensitive words and the second giving the Secretary of State discretion in respect of any such word to specify a relevant body. In the whole circumstances and context, it seems to me that the principal legislation envisages that in respect of certain sensitive words no relevant body will be specified. The most obvious example is the case in which it would be the Department of Trade itself that would be regarded as the department with the closest responsibility for the particular word.

Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in his place, the word "patent" immediately suggests itself to me; it is obvious that the word "patent" is one for which the Department of Trade would certainly have responsibility. It would seem extraordinary for the Secretary of State of the Department of Trade to require an applicant to go to the Department of Trade itself in respect of that word. For that practical reason, in addition to what I have already said, I would suggest, with respect to the committee, that the doubt—and it is only a doubt—which they have raised is not well founded, and I hope that, with that explanation, your Lordships will feel that these are regulations which should be passed. I beg to move.

Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)

3.10 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having briefly taken us through the statutory instrument which is the subject of our discussion. First, I should like to congratulate the Chief Whip upon the time allowed us to read and to discuss this document. The noble Lord will recall that when we were discussing the principal Act in this House, after the first print of the amendments appeared, we were allowed three or four days to give them consideration. The House will recall that on that occasion I raised a protest that we had to consider 33 clauses, occupying 48 pages, de novo within a period of four days. We are happy to note—and we offer our felicitations to the Government Chief Whip—that in this instance this 3-page statutory instrument was published in good time for us to be able to consider it. Three times as much time has been allowed us to consider the statutory instrument as was allowed us to consider the 43 amendments to the Companies Bill as it emerged from the Commons, occupying some 48 pages. So we are making progress.

The business of the regulations is entirely detailed and is a proper subject for the making of regulations under the Act. However, I was a little worried as to whether or not the regulations themselves were ultra vires, particularly after seeing the report of the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee points out that from the wording of the Act itself it is not clear whether the qualification applied to subsection (1) of Section 31 of the Act connects readily with subsection (2) of the same section. If your Lordships will refer to the Fifth Report from the Joint Committee, you will find the following words: If the intention had been that a relevant body need be specified in relation to only some of the specified names or expressions the Committee would have expected subsection (2) to start with something like 'Where a company proposes to have as or as part of its corporate name any such word or expression in relation to which a relevant body has been specified, the appropriate person shall …'". The report then goes on from there.

The Joint Committee was at pains to point out, in regard to the ultra vires observation, that the Department of Trade memorandum did not deal specifically with that point, and the noble and learned Lord's speech today did not deal specifically with the point. What the noble and learned Lord said, probably quite legitimately, is that where in the schedule to the regulations no name at all appears—such as the Department of Health, the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries, or some such body—we ought to read into that the Department of Trade, or the Secretary of State. That I think I accept. However, the objection of the Joint Committee remains; namely, that it is not clear that subsection (2) of Section 31 should follow the same rule as subsection (1) of the section. If the noble and learned Lord looks again at the report of the Joint Committee, he will find that that is the case, that neither he nor his department has dealt with that point.

I am well acquainted with the view that the intentions of both the department and the Minister are quite clear and that if one were to read the provision within the context of the debates and the parliamentary proceedings on the Act, there would be no difficulty. But, as the Joint Committee report points out, unhappily these matters might have to be interpreted by the courts, and of course where that happens the courts are inhibited from referring to the intentions of the Minister as expressed in debates or the intentions of Parliament as emerge from a perusal of the debates. It is far better if the section is cast properly.

I do not want again to rub home the point, but this kind of observation by the Joint Committee abundantly justifies the type of stricture that I felt bound to utter regarding the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the presentation of the Bill—that insufficient time was allowed in order fully to assimilate matters of this kind. I have no doubt that if the Bill had been in this House for a fortnight longer before it was debated and before the House considered the various amendments, we might have lighted upon this particular point.

On this one point raised by the Joint Committee as to whether or not the regulations are ultra vires, I am still in doubt, but happily on this occasion the Joint Committee's report and the regulations still have to go to another place for consideration, and it might well be that those in another place will see fit to examine the question further. I remain a little dubious as to whether or not the regulations are ultra vires, but I shall allow the matter to rest there.

Turning to the schedule itself, I would say that I have read it in conjunction with the memorandum on the regulations issued by the Department of Trade, in which the department describes the various criteria which were in its mind when it selected the specific words for inclusion in the schedule. The departmental memorandum states: The sensitive words have been chosen according to one or more of the following general criteria—as

  1. (i) carrying prestigious connotations by implying association with some well recognised national institution or public body (e.g. the Royal Family, the Police, the Government),
  2. (ii) implying skill or experience in an area of public health or public safety;
  3. (iii) implying national, international or special business pre-eminence;
  4. (iv) implying particular objects or functions which have a generally high standing in the minds of the public or a significant sector of it ".
It is with those criteria in mind that we have to consider the various names in the schedule.

Nevertheless, there are some difficulties. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his speech, there is another list of names that are associated with other Acts of Parliament which, if I understood him aright, are to be published as an annexe to some guidelines which are being sent out by the department. I should have thought that it would be preferable—the House might agree with me here—to include these details as a second schedule to the regulations, if only for the purposes of information. I say that because anybody reading this schedule will of course know from what the noble and learned Lord has said that there are other words which are virtually embargoed, but it is uncertain as to which words they are. it would therefore have been far better if those other particular words had been available to us today in order that we could have considered the various names on this schedule.

With those criteria in mind, I have a few questions to ask the noble and learned Lord. I should say that the words I am putting to him are purely speculative. I do not know as of now whether or not they may be on another list. All I know is that they are not on the list which is incorporated in this schedule. Why is not "continental" a specified word, or "intercontinental"? Both these words convey a degree of prestige, a degree of coverage, which is comparable to other words here. For example, it is comparable to "European", which I see is in fact in the specified list. I observe that the word "world" is not in the specified list. The incorporation of the word "world" in a title surely implies a degree of coverage and a degree of pre-eminence which might possibly have qualified it for inclusion. I observe that the term "EEC" is not banned, either, even though "European" is, apparently.

The word "incorporated" does not appear on the list. Of course, it may appear on the other list which the noble and learned Lord still has to disclose by the addition of his guide-notes. The word "corporation", I think, conveys a degree of pre-eminence which might conceivably be misused if incorporated within a business name. The word "public" is another name which might qualify for inclusion. Even the word "citizens" might be considered undesirable; and the word "practitioner", perhaps, ought to qualify. Practitioner in what? If one starts to specify various words as being likely to mislead people, it may well be that some of the words I have suggested to your Lordships might possibly qualify for inclusion.

I see that the word "psychiatry" is out. I do not know whether that is included in any other list in the noble and learned Lord's possession, but it will be interesting to see. Then there is the word "mental". I do not know whether or not it is going to be permissible for any proposed company or any proposed partnership to incorporate the word "mental" in its title. Again, in the absence of the other schedule that the noble and learned Lord has, we do not know. Again, I should have thought, in view of the fact that it is considered in the second column of the schedule that the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries are considered to be a relevant body to whom to apply, who knows but that the word "worshipful" itself might be considered fit to be specified in the schedule.

These suggestions have not been made at all frivolously. I am well aware that some of them may be incorporated in the other list. The purpose of my questions on these particular provisions is to inquire the Government's mind as to how those four rules that I have read out may be interpreted in relation to any of the suggested names that I have put forward. One of the arguments against regulations of this kind is that they are not susceptible of amendment in this House or in another place; one either accepts them or rejects them. Therefore, my suggestions can be only for the purpose of eliciting replies as to the application of the appropriate principles.

It would be churlish of me to refrain from congratulating the Government on their promptitude in having brought out the regulations. Aside from the criticisms that I have made and the inquiries I have sought to elicit, they will of course serve a very useful and very necessary purpose, and we on this side of the House would wish to support the regulations themselves. Indeed, we shall support their approval in this House; but I still leave the possibility of veto at some later stage on the whole of the ultra vires question. On that, I would prefer that we on this side of the House should reserve our opinion, but we shall not withhold our support.

3.26 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, may I join the noble Lord who has just sat down in congratulating the noble and learned Lord on the concise way in which he has introduced these regulations; and also may I say immediately that, for once, I concur almost entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has already put forward in his speech of just over a quarter of an hour. With that prologue, it will therefore appear quite clear to your Lordships that I shall not be detaining the House very long in a speech on these regulations. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to refer to me in his speech when he was talking about vires. Indeed, at one stage I felt tempted to go more fully into this question of vires, because I have had very considerable experience in making submissions over hours, indeed days, about regulations and their vires; but I am resisting that temptation now.

However, there are two matters that I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord. They are practical matters, and they are these. What is the position of firms and organisations that are now using these words in the course of their business? I ask this question because of the way in which the noble and learned Lord dealt with that matter in his speech. It may be that there are subsections in this complicated Companies Act which will give an answer to my question, but the noble and learned Lord said that those who are using these words "with proper authority" could continue. I was not clear what "proper authority" meant. I assume that, in so far as concerns the corporate titles which are registered on the register of companies, that registration would constitute "proper authority". But now that we have no Business Names Registry—that has been abolished—if a firm is not a corporate company but is an ordinary business, what is the "proper authority" for allowing an ordinary business, which is not incorporated, to continue using that name?

The second matter is this. This regulation will impose, as it seems to me, a burden of expense and time upon small business. What kind of publicity is going to be given to this regulation? Obviously, the larger companies will be circulated by the CBI or the Institute of Directors, and so on, but I am thinking of, say, a very small business in a small Welsh village, where Ann Jones has set up a little confectioner's business and has put in her business title, "Ann Jones—Specialist in Welsh Cakes". Has she got to apply to a Secretary of State, unspecified, to know whether she is to allowed to use that name? This is not an absurd situation; there are a large number of small firms which will be using words like that in association with their business.

Take another word with which I am more familiar, perhaps, than I am with Welsh cakes, and that is the word "breeder". I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who I see in his place, would agree with me that Dan Jones in Wales would put in brackets after his name "Cattle Breeder" or "Horse Breeder". Is that going to be prohibited? Must he make application to an unspecified Secretary of State? I am sure that he would. I am sure that all the people to whom I have referred would wish to be within the law, if they knew what the law was. May I remind the noble Lord of the somewhat draconian provisions of Section 28(7) which says: Any person who contravenes subsection (2)"— that is, using a word when he ought not to, according to these regulations— shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding …", and then it goes on to specify the amount of the fine. In view of the fact that it could be a criminal offence to use these words in the course of business, then the public ought to be told so clearly. It is no good advertising it in The Times or Daily Telegraph for these small people. Will steps be taken to publish them more widely, perhaps in rural newspapers?

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I wish to make the briefest intervention and I hope that what I say will not be regarded as extraneous to the matter under discussion. The very words: "Company and Business Names Regulations" are very welcome and particularly the speech that the noble Lord has made and the excellent submission, I thought, from my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I want to come down a little from the expert remarks that we have heard to put this point: that these regulations are fine, but what about the implementation of the law? How about the enforcement of these regulations? I believe that millions of ordinary people hardly know that such regulations exist.

What can I submit to your Lordships to back up what I have said? I should like to refer to that admirable programme of the BBC, "Watchdog", where week in, week out, they give cases of where our fellow citizens are cheated, thieved from in all sorts of ways, perhaps in being sold something, even a health cure where fraud is the hallmark of the companies and businesses concerned. When ordinary people read that there is a law against this sort of thing, they are incredulous because they never hear of anyone being apprehended. The BBC programme is never short of material. It might be that the people responsible for the enforcement do not see the "Watchdog" programme. It might be possible for them to get transcripts of what goes on.

I submit, in conclusion, that what I put to your Lordships this afternoon is concerned with what I am assuming this particular measure is all about: the protection of ordinary people. Up to now, all the regulations do not seem to be having any great success in that realm, in preventing bogus firms and bogus companies who do not seem even to bother to adhere set out from the very beginning to twist, cheat, upset and cause anguish to literally thousands of ordinary people in our country. The measure that we are discussing is, I would submit, designed to prevent that sort of thing, but there does not seem to be much of a case to show that what we are discussing this afternoon can be enforced. If there is no satisfactory reply coming as to how that can be done, then, frankly, we have been wasting our time.

4.34 p.m.

Viscount Hanworth

My Lords, I understand that this statutory instrument has been through another place already and therefore at this late stage all that I can ask for is an explanation of the points that I am going to raise, or possibly for the Minister to give earnest consideration to them. In 1980, the Department of Trade issued a document, Companies Legislation and Business Names; proposals for reducing the functions of the Department of Trade, in which there was an annexe listing the sensitive words which we are now considering. This document proposed inter alia that the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain should be the body to issue a letter of non-objection to the term "chemist" in a company or business name. The Royal Society of Chemistry, as the professional qualifying body for chemists, was not included in this at the time; but, after discussions with the Government, the Government accepted that both these bodies should have roles to play regarding the term "chemist" and also certain other words which I shall mention shortly. This statutory instrument does not mention either of these bodies nor does it mention drug, druggist, pharmacist, pharmaceutical or pharmacy.

One was led to believe originally that all these would be included. The bodies which I mentioned are extremely concerned about this. Unfortunately, perhaps, they failed to realise this until the last moment and I have been able to give the noble Lord the Minister only about one hour's notice of the points I was going to raise. It may well be that he will be able to say that all this is adequately covered by other legislation. If that is not the case, I hope that he will very earnestly consider these points because I think they are of great importance and they certainly come under the criteria under which the list of sensitive names has been made.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I rise with gratitude to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for raising this matter, because he raises it in independence from his own Benches. I have to confess an interest in what he has just said. The smart red tie that I am wearing is chosen not to match the political opinion of other Benches nor even the red plush of those on which I sit. It is blazoned with the arms of the Royal Society of Chemistry, of whose fellowship I have the honour to be a member—which has provided me with a professional basis for my career while others like me have provided the nation with two giant industries, the overall industry of chemistry and the autonomous part, the pharmaceutical industry, which so often comes before your Lordships' House for other reasons. In view of the fact that they were to have been included to their knowledge, as a result of consultation, in both consultative document, on the one hand, and the drafting stage of the Bill, on the other, it seems a great pity that they were not informed that they were going to be withdrawn from the list or given the opportunity to hear at first hand why they were withdrawn.

At this late stage those who think as I do are between the horns of a dilemma. One can either waste the time of the House by dividing on an issue that one will lose, or project a constitutional crisis by dividing on an issue where conceivably one might win. For the reasons to which the noble Viscount referred, it is too late to do anything about it; but because I feel helpless in this matter I would appeal to the generosity of the Minister to undertake to give the Royal Society of Chemistry an opportunity to hear at first hand why they have been omitted from the list. If the reason is (as has been suggested) that they are already provided for by other legislation may we hear from him, perhaps in more detail than time possibly provides in an answer to the House this evening, exactly what that legislation is and, if necessary, to argue as to whether they are fully provided for or not? That is not, I think, an unreasonable undertaking to ask him to give, with the hope that he will not at this stage close his mind to the possibility of a supplementary order at a later stage if arguments which may be adduced on this point finally carry the conviction in his mind that they have a measure of validity.

3.40 p.m.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, may I speak briefly for perhaps two minutes? I should like to declare an interest on the pharmaceutical side. May I back up the expert opinion that we have heard from the Cross-Benches? It would have been better, having considered this matter, if there had been full consultation with the people in the pharmaceutical industry so that they knew exactly where they were. Obviously this has not been the case. More attention should be paid to this because tens of thousands of pounds are spent in legislation by the pharmaceutical industry in all countries to justify the foundation of research or the results of research. It is absolutely essential that clarity of declaration and the monotype on the ethical drugs that are produced is known and is in proper order. As it is now, it seems to be in vacuo. Consequently, I hope this noble House will pay particular attention to the speech of my noble friend who spoke from the Cross-Benches a moment ago.

3.41 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

My Lords, may I thank those who have welcomed these regulations. I should like to say something about what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, refers to as the "other list". The situation is—as I sought to explain in my opening remarks—that there is other legislation presently on the statute book which does affect the right to use names. The word "chemist" and the word "druggist" are examples of such other words that are controlled by Section 78 of the Medicines Act 1968 under which it is an offence to use those names in connection with a retail trade unless one is properly qualified.

I was indicating earlier that the department believe that there are some people who are not absolutely aware of every possible section in every Act of Parliament; and some of your Lordships may be among that number. It was thought that it might be helpful to gather these together into a document. That document will have no statutory authority. It will be a document compiled in order to be helpful, and that is the reason why it cannot go as a schedule to these regulations. These regulations are I believe, in spite of the doubt of the joint committee, made under statutory authority, whereas the other list would be a helpful compilation of relevant legislation.

That brings me to answer the question about publicity. The intention is to have national publicity about the matters with which we are concerned as well as the new system generally next month. It will of course continue. There will be new guidance given in response to inquiries and there will be prepared, as I hinted already, a document giving guidance on incorporation and setting out the various statutory provisions that may be relevant, including those to which I have just referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to what I said at the end of my remarks about lawful authority. The position is regulated in the other provisions of the Act. On the business aspect, rather than the companies' aspect, the provisions are in Section 28(4) and 28(5). Basically, what they say is that where a business was lawfully carried on before the change under a name, it may continue to be carried on under that name, notwithstanding that the name is on the list of sensitive words in this regulation. I hope that is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord's general question.

With regard to the specialist in Welsh cakes, that lady will be all right in any event because I do not think that the word "specialist" is referred to. The word "breeder" is referred to in the list, and the relevant body in that case is, as one might expect, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On enforcement, the situation is that the new matters that are a subject of these regulations will be dealt with in much the same way as under the old system. If the department is advised that a business is using a word without proper consent, it will follow that up. In an extreme case, a prosecution could result. As one responsible for prosecutions in part of the United Kingdom, I think that I can claim that we do our best to follow up any such matters reported to us and deal with them appropriately. I do not think that there is any likelihood, in answer to one aspect, that a company will be registered by a name of the kind listed here without proper consideration of it being made for the reasons which I have already explained.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the very lengthy list of words for consideration. All I can say is that the list that one could consider could be of almost indefinite length. A judgment has to be made of the words which in practice have been found to lead to difficulty. As I sought to explain in my opening remarks, the department has quite a long experience of administration in this field behind it, and it is in the light of that, as well as in the light of observations put in in answer to the consultation, that this list has been decided upon.

That brings me finally to say something regarding the Royal Society of Chemistry. My understanding of the position—and, has been said, I have not had very long to consider it personally—is that in the light of the consultation, it was felt that a word such as "chemist" was adequately dealt with by the statutory provisions of the Medicines Act to which I have referred, and that it was not necessary to retain its name in this particular list because, as I said, one has to look at the matter as a whole and look at all the legislation in considering whether it is necessary to put on the added burden which is required if a name is put in this list.

It is in the light of these considerations that we came to this decision. Naturally, I shall be glad to look at the situation in the light of what your Lordships have said and see whether any further steps should be taken—for example on the lines that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, indicated. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made a reference to ultra vires and the argument set out by the joint committee. In fairness to the Department of Trade, I should say that the joint committee invited them to give their observations on the possibility that this instrument was an unusual or an unexpected exercise of the statutory power rather than on the question of ultra vires. In any event, I have certainly carefully considered the full argument advanced by the joint committee in support of the view that there is a doubt about the vires of these regulations. I think that when one reads Section 31(2) in its context it refers to any such word or expression. When one reads that back in subsection (2) to its antecedent in subsection (1) its proper antecedent is paragraph (b)—that is to say, the paragraph under which a relevant body is to be specified.

Therefore while of course I have every respect for the view of the joint committee, on this occasion—having considered it carefully—I beg to disagree with it. The standing committee in another place agreed that these regulations should pass this morning. It will be subject to confirmation of course by another place later. I understand that so far as this point has been considered, that was the decision taken in Committee in another place.

On Question, Motion agreed to.