HL Deb 21 July 1988 vol 499 c1553

[References are to Bill 67 as first printed for the Commons.]

1 Clause 2, page 1, line 24, leave out '16 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933' and insert '5 of the Court of Session Act 1988'.

2 Clause 4, page 2, line 20, leave out 'the stage of.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These amendments may be said to approach the ideal. They are of a technical nature. They raise no new issues of substance or policy and, perhaps most importantly, they are few in number. I think that is a tribute to the very constructive debates which took place on the Bill during its consideration by your Lordships.

Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment. It is something of a coincidence that both of the Bills involved are before us this evening. The Civil Evidence Bill originally referred to Section 16(e) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. This was a power to make court procedural rules. That power is repealed and re-enacted in what is currently Clause 5 of the Court of Session Bill—a consolidating measure. If Parliament approves both these Bills and they receive Royal Assent, it is anticipated that the Court of Session Act will be in force some time before the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act. This amendment therefore ensures that correct reference is made to Section 5 of the Court of Session Act 1988 rather than the repealed provision in the 1933 Act.

So far as concerns Amendment No. 2, noble Lords opposite will no doubt be pleased to see it on the Marshalled List as it was an Opposition amendment in the other place. It is a purely drafting amendment and has the especial merit of removing unnecessary words. I commend these amendments to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.—(Lord Cameron of Lochhroom.)

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I have no intention of opposing these amendments. All I would say is that this very useful Bill—which I believe that we got more or less right in this House—has come back virtually unscathed. I think that it is a matter for congratulation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.