HL Deb 14 January 1991 vol 524 cc1045-57

7.24 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Maintenance orders in the High Court and county courts: means of payment, attachment of earnings and revocation, variation, etc.]:

Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (6) and insert: ("(6) In any case where the court proposes to exercise its power under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above it shall, when making an order to that effect, specify the period of time during which the debtor shall be deemed to have an opportunity of opening an account in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6A) below. (6A) In any case where—

  1. (a) the court proposes to exercise its power under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above, and
  2. (b) having given the debtor an opportunity of opening an account from which payments under the order may be made in accordance with the method of payment proposed to be ordered under that paragraph, the court is satisfied that the debtor has failed without reasonable excuse to open such an account during the period of time provided for so doing in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) above,
the court in exercising its power under that paragraph may order that the debtor opens such an account.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first of all I should like to say how sorry I am that I am not facing across this Dispatch Box the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I gather that his absence is owing to the fact that he has been in hospital and is recovering from an operation. On behalf of all of us on these Benches perhaps I may say how much we hope that he will soon make a complete and happy recovery. I look forward to welcoming him back in his place. I notice that meanwhile he has been replaced at short notice and in quick time by a noble Lord who is of equal height and equal stature though perhaps not of equal build.

In moving this amendment I should like to link with it Amendment No. 6 which is its mirror image and concerned also with the question of defining opportunity within the Bill. The effect of the present amendment would be that the court would be able to specify the period of time during which the debtor will have an opportunity to open an account from which payments may be made. If the debtor fails to open an account during the time specified by the court, then the court will be able to order him to do so.

Your Lordships may remember that at Committee stage I tabled an amendment which sought to provide that if a debtor had not opened an account within 14 days of the hearing he would have been deemed not to have taken up his opportunity to do so. The court would then have been able to order him to open an account. That amendment was designed to ensure that the court could proceed to make an order forcing the debtor to open an account with the minimum of delay. Delay lies at the centre of this amendment. Delay all too frequently can be the debtor's device to avoid responsibility and delay is always the creditor's enemy.

The earlier amendment also sought to prevent potential litigation over the meaning of the word "opportunity". Your Lordships may recall that although they expressed sympathy for the proposed amendment, the Government rejected it on the basis that it failed to take account of the circumstances of each case and would amount to a fetter on the court's discretion. On 13th December last the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said: I believe the provisions of Amendment No. 5 would impose an unnecessary and possibly undesirable timetable on the exercise of the court's discretion". He went on to say: While we sympathise with the aim of the amendment, we believe that the better course would be not to attempt to fetter the discretion of the court to decide for itself how long to adjourn proceedings in order to allow a debtor to take steps to open an account".—[Official Report, 13/12/90; col. 590.]

The current amendment again seeks to provide a period of time during which the debtor shall be deemed to have an opportunity to open an account. However it differs from the amendment which I originally tabled as it leaves to the court the decision over the period of time during which the debtor shall have an opportunity to open an account. That will mean that, as before, the court will if necessary be able to proceed to make an order that the debtor open an account with the minimum of delay. But there will be the added advantage that the system will be more flexible and the court will be able to come to a decision on the time to be allowed for a debtor to open an account, having taken account of all the circumstances of each case and of the representations made to the court by the parties. The court will not be bound to give the debtor the opportunity of opening a bank account within the period of 14 days following the hearing but will be able to decide for itself for how long it considers that a debtor should have the opportunity to open an account. I beg to move.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, I must apologise to the House first of all for not being in my place at Committee stage and secondly for arriving rather late this evening. I feel strongly about subsection (6A) (a). It is absolutely wrong for it to be possible for a court of any jurisdiction to be able by law to force a person to open a bank account. It is wrong in principle. It is wrong also in that it takes away the individual's freedom, which all of us hold dear.

Whether or not the reasoning behind the proposal is right is immaterial to me. I do not believe that anybody should be forced to do something that does not in any way make sense. For instance, it is possible, and it was done by my grandson at the age of 10, to open a bank account with £1. A bank manager will accept that amount of money when a client opens an account. When a debtor is told by a court that he must pay maintenance to his ex-wife through a bank account he will deposit only £1. In my view there is no method of forcing him to deposit any more money.

Had I been present in Committee I should have tried to persuade your Lordships to throw out Clause 1(6) (a). I feel so strongly that this is not the way to get a debtor to pay maintenance to his wife that I had to come to the House this evening to say so. I have had 30 years' experience of dealing with people in such difficulties. As was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in Committee, the Bill allows the debtor to pay maintenance to the creditor in four different ways, but surely this is not one of them. I know that it is now too late to ask your Lordships to delete the subsection but I hope that when the Bill comes before the other place that will be done.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his kind words of welcome and for his good wishes to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for a speedy recovery from the effect of his operation. My noble friend will be grateful for those comments. I can assure the House that he is making good progress after a successful operation. These amendments are similar to two amendments which the noble Lord moved during Committee and with which the Government expressed some sympathy. The Government could not accept them because it was feared that to do so would impose an unnecessary and potentially undesirable timetable on the exercise of the court's discretion.

These amendments do not impose any particular time period. However I assure the House that they are unnecessary. If a maintenance debtor has an account out of which standing orders can be made the court may order payments to be made by that method to begin on a certain date. If the maintenance debtor does not have such an account the court which is considering ordering that payments be made by standing order will adjourn the case until another date which will be fixed by the court at the time of the adjournment. The adjournment period in this instance is to give the debtor an opportunity to open an account. The matter must return to the court at the end of the adjournment in order for the method of payment to be decided. The court, therefore, under its usual adjournment procedures automatically specifies a period during which the maintenance debtor must open an account.

I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I have great sympathy with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, after 30 years' experience in these matters. I have the greatest respect for her because no one has been more concerned with such issues than she.

I agree that no one should be forced to do anything which does not make sense. In Committee I stressed the problem of someone opening a bank account and refusing to deposit funds into it. However, the Government set their face against that point. I hope that they will now pay heed to the noble Baroness as well as to me and will listen to the wisdom of her words.

I remain of the belief that it would be better if the requirement were specified and spelt out. The date of an adjournment is frequently decided as being a matter for the court's convenience rather than anyone else's. My proposed amendment would helpfully direct the court's consideration to the special interests of the debtor and, even more, of the creditor. Typically, it is the creditor who must buy the groceries and pay the bills week by week. The creditor does not have the luxury of being able to adjourn during pleasure payment to the girl at the supermarket checkout. However, I perceive that the Government present a flinty bosom to my best arguments and that even though I too speak with the tongues of men and of angels I shall not convince the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 2, after ("question") insert ("having (if practicable) given every interested party an opportunity to make representations").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, tabled two amendments during the Committee stage to ensure that all interested parties were aware of the proceedings. The requirement that a court must have regard to any representations made by the debtor, the creditor and the applicant, if different from the creditor, as to the method of payment is worthless is one or more of those parties is unaware of the proceedings.

The Government had considerable sympathy with the noble Lord's amendments, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said. Accordingly, we asked to consider the matter further and we have now come forward with these amendments. They are drafted along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Their effect is to impose an obligation on a court to give notice to all the parties in order that they may make representations on the method of payment.

The noble Lord has also tabled similar amendments which have the same purpose. The Government prefer the version drafted by parliamentary counsel for two reasons. First, the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 1 refers to an "application". The higher courts may, of course, act on their own motion and may not have an application before them. Therefore, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord to Clause 1 is inaccurate. Secondly, the word "application" does not actually appear in the paragraphs which are to be amended and, therefore, the reader must search to find the word "application" earlier in the clauses. Parliamentary counsel in his draft has agreed with the principle expressed in the noble Lord's amendments but has drafted amendments which we consider are more appropriate in the context in which they are situated. The Government have also thought it best to include in the amendments the proviso "if practicable"; otherwise we may be requiring a court to do the impossible.

I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will agree that the amendment fulfils the need that he recognised.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The provision is vitally important for past and future family relationships. Anyone connected with a case under consideration should have an opportunity to speak. I prefer the Government's amendment because it includes the words 'if applicable". It may be that some of the parties concerned are abroad or in hospital and, therefore, unable to attend. It is vitally important that everyone concerned in a case should be heard and, therefore, I support the Government's amendment.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I have no objection to the purport of these amendments. Indeed, I venture to applaud them. My only cavil is that I do not believe that they are necessary. Before taking any action which might adversely affect a party or anyone who might be before it, every court should, so far as practicable, give notice to that party and hear any representations.

I expect that my legal pronunciation of Latin will offend your Lordships but there is a very fundamental principle of law, indeed it is a principle of natural justice—audi alteram partem (hear the other party). I expect 1 hat the noble Lord will say that that may be so but there is no harm in writing it down and that it is better to be safe than sorry. If he says that—and I suspect that that will be echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris—I have nothing more to say. As I say, it seems to me that every court should do that and I hope that it would do so of its own motion.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord and I am encouraged by the Government's attitude towards this necessary and important concept of notification. On this side of the House we welcome these amendments which honour fully the assurance given in Committee that the Government would look carefully at the points which we raised.

I shall say what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said I would say; namely, that it is better that those matters should be written into the Bill. There remains only one tiny reservation which concerns the words "(if practicable)". Perhaps the noble Lord could expand on that phrase. I hope that he can assure me that that phrase should not be interpreted as an invitation to any of the parties concerned to cause any further delay. If that assurance can be given, I do not wish to move Amendments Nos. 3 or 8.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made a point with which have some sympathy; namely, that these amendments are not necessary. However, he correctly anticipated the reason that we should like to see them written into the Bill. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that it is better to be safe than sorry.

As regards the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the words "(if practicable)" should not constitute an invitation to the parties to cause any unnecessary delay, it is not our intention that that should be the consequence.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 3, leave out ("interested") and insert ("such").

The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, objected in Committee to amendments similar to these amendments because he said that they were unnecessary. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's objection, my noble friend Lord Ferrers withdrew those amendments in order to have another look at them.

Parliamentary counsel has been able to improve the drafting of the amendments but we still believe that they are necessary to rectify a problem with the Bill. As it presently stands, the wording of the Bill is adequate for the first application for maintenance but does not work so well for subsequent applications. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill's provisions must apply also to applications for variation or enforcement. For that reason we believe it is more accurate to use the words "person who applied" than the word "applicant" in Clauses 1 and 2. The remaining four amendments are consequential.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, the noble Earl and the draftsman for reconsidering this matter. As the noble Lord knows, I still believe that the original draft was adequate. Indeed, I am borne out in that by the fact that one of the amendments alters the same wording as in the draft in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act of a few years ago.

In two periods of my life I have worked very closely with parliamentary counsel and I knew them all. I no longer have that privilege but it is perfectly obvious from scrutiny of this Bill that counsel in charge of it has an extremely acute mind, high intelligence and, indeed, an ear for language. However, I believe that he has gone too far in this case.

The word "applicant" refers not only, as its etymology might suggest, to someone who is at present applying. Many years ago I was an applicant for admission to the Bar. I am now an applicant to your Lordships' indulgence. In a very short time I hope to be an applicant for a taxi to take me home. Therefore, I do not quarrel with this. I asked that the matter should be considered and I am most grateful that that has been done. Having made my point, I must defer to the draftsman, if he prefers this wording. I merely thank the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 17, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("person who applied").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: means of payment]:

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7: Page 4, line 33, after ("court") insert ("having (if practicable) given them an opportunity to make representations").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 37, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("person who applied").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 11, leave out ("applicant for the") and insert ("person who applied for the maintenance").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid

. Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates' court and the court decides to issue a warrant of distress under section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the purpose of levying the sum there shall not be taken under the warrant any of that person's goods which are—

  1. (a) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation; and
  2. (b) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the baleful subject of bailiffs. Just as park-keepers are disliked by small boys and traffic wardens are seldom popular with motorists, so bailiffs are not the flavour of the month with many of those to whom this Bill will apply. They are necessary, but there are few that love them. It is all the more important therefore that their powers should be clearly understood and their activities disciplined and controlled.

The effect of the amendment will be to bring private bailiffs into line with the county court bailiffs. In redrafting it after the Committee stage I took into account what was said by the noble Earl at Committee stage regarding the National Consumer Council report and the work of the Home Office group set up specifically to consider such matters. That is why the amendment I am presenting today is a much narrower amendment. It seeks to implement the provisions introduced into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which stipulates the specific goods which may not be seized under a warrant of execution by bailiffs working for the county courts. A similar provision operates for sheriffs in Scotland under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. As the provision was introduced by the Government for county court bailiffs in England and Wales, and sheriffs in Scotland, there seems to be no justification for private bailiffs in England and Wales not also operating under those restrictions.

The matter is important because offences do occur. I refer noble Lords to a case reported in The Times as recently as Friday, 4th January 1991, in the following terms: A community charge defaulter who had goods removed from his home by bailiffs last September after he failed to pay the tax won a court appeal yesterday against the London borough of Wandsworth for wrongful seizure of goods". On that occasion the stipendiary magistrate said, that he was not satisfied that the bailiffs had done enough to find out who owned the goods". He added, that it was vital that bailiffs found out whose property they were taking when seizing goods to enforce payment of the community charge". It must needs be that offences occur, and the same will unquestionably apply to maintenance orders. That is why the amendment is not only required, but urgently required. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the amendment is a general provision which does not relate specifically to maintenance collection and enforcement, which is the subject of the Bill. I understand the concern behind the amendment, as did my noble friend Lord Ferrers when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, moved a more comprehensive amendment at Committee stage. We understand the problems and distress that occur when bailiffs are involved. As the noble Lord said, it is indeed a baleful subject. We are giving the report of the National Consumer Council on private bailiffs careful consideration. However, we feel that we must resist the amendment.

The amendment sets out very detailed procedural rules. As mentioned during the Committee stage, the Home Office is presently consulting the magistrates' courts service with a view to bringing the magistrates' courts rules, specifying which goods may be distrained, into line with the rules governing distress orders by the higher courts. I would not wish to pre-empt that consultation by agreeing to this amendment.

It is correct that the wording of this amendment appears in Section 15 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which is primary legislation. But that is only because the procedures in the higher courts were already governed by primary legislation—the Supreme Court Act 1981 and the County Courts Act 1984—and it was necessary to amend those statutes. The equivalent provisions for magistrates' courts are contained in Rule 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, and it is this secondary legislation which will need to be amended. The Government consider that it is best that these procedural matters relating to distraint in the magistrates' court are dealt with in secondary rather than primary legislation so that we can adjust them as circumstances require. In the light of that explanation I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I see that I have yet again failed to convince the noble Lord of the merits of my argument and bring him round to my point of view. Perhaps I may ask him to reassure me on two points. The first concerns the timetable of the Home Office group. Is there any reason to believe that that group is treating the question as a matter of considerable urgency? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say something a little more precise than that the group will report as soon as possible or in due course. It is a matter on which we have considerably strong feelings, and I would welcome an assurance that the Home Office group is proceeding with its task as briskly as may be.

Secondly, can the noble Lord assure me that that group will consult widely? Has it consulted, or does it plan to consult, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux? That has without question unrivalled experience of the problems which arise almost daily in the matter of bailiffs and the way they work. I shall be grateful if the Minister will reassure me on those two points.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord and the House that the Home Office is at present consulting interested bodies, including the magistrates' courts' representative bodies. We are consulting widely on the harmonisation of magistrates' courts' rules with the seizure regime applying to the orders of the civil courts. Ministers will aim to take decisions in the light of responses they receive by the summer. It is not an entirely straightforward matter. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I could not ask for more. I am grateful for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Revocation, variation, etc. of orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: general]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 12: Page 8, line 44, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("person who applied").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to maintenance orders registered in or confirmed by magistrates' courts or registered in the High Court]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 13: Page 27, line 3, leave out ("in court which made it") and insert ("by registering court").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a tidying-up amendment to Schedule 1. It is necessary because the words in brackets in that paragraph are intended to be a summary of what is said in Section 34 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. The present drafting does not achieve that. This amendment will ensure that the paragraph gives an accurate summary of that section. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 14: Page 30, line 12, after ("Act)") insert ("(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 15: Page 30, line 13, at end insert ("and (b) for the words " "the applicant for the order" " there shall be substituted " "the person who applied for the maintenance order" " ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8 p.m.

In the title:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 16: Line 14, leave out ("to amend section 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this was a matter which I raised in Committee in relation to the title. It struck me in passing that it was extremely odd, when the schedule of minor and consequential amendments contained 10 paragraphs, to have taken only the last paragraph, paragraph 10, and reflected that in the title. It also struck me as odd that it should be thought proper in the title to refer at all to matters of minor and consequential amendment. There was then the general background that if words are unnecessary we do not want them in a statute.

I tabled the amendment because of the timetable. I wrote to the noble Earl to say that if the Government wanted to introduce their own amendment I should withdraw mine. I then received a message from the Public Bill Office that it thought the amendment was necessary. That gave me the opportunity of looking further into the matter.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division. But I ask that it be considered both by the noble Lord's department and by parliamentary counsel. The point is that the Long Title in this form serves no purpose at all; it is useless juridically and parliamentarily. A Long Title can be useful, but not one of this kind. I know what is in the mind of the draftsman. The present practice is that everything of major importance in the Bill must be reflected in the Title. In so far as he has followed that, he is following existing and current practice, which is approved in the Public Bill Office as well.

It strikes me as very odd if that is carried as far as a minor and consequential amendment. I believe that the draftsman is right in saying that this is not consequential, but it is minor or else it should not appear in that schedule.

What I wish to submit to your Lordships for consideration is what is the real purpose of the Long Title. The textbooks, including Erskine May, are unanimous on this in the modern practice in law. The Long Title is part of the statute and available for interpretation. It does not operate to contradict the enacting words of the main clauses. That of course includes the schedules, which are just as much part of the statute as the main clauses.

One used to be told by teachers of constitutional law the undoubtedly apocryphal story of a private Act of Parliament in which the town clerk had interpolated into an obscure schedule a clause divorcing his wife. I do not think that anyone ever believed that. However, it points to this conclusion. Parliament very much leaves the schedule of minor and consequential amendments to the draftsman, and I think that he should consider—perhaps I can write to him about it—one or two of the provisions in the schedule which seem neither minor nor consequential. Also, as I read it, the Long Title does not reflect the provision in the main clause, Clause 5, amending the Children Act.

However, that is not my point. My point is this. Although the Long Title cannot contradict the words of the main clauses and schedules—the enacting words —it is available in case of any doubt as to their meaning. Craies on Statute Law cites a number of cases where the Long Title was made a resource for resolving a contradiction.

A Long Title in this form can be of no service at all. It is not needed as a label because it does not purport to be such. The Short Title is the label. Nor is it a table of contents, which appear immediately before the Bill under "Arrangement of Clauses". That appears in each print of the Bill and in front of the Act of Parliament when it is printed as a separate Act. It also appears as an index in the statute book when the Act is printed there. Therefore, one does not need the Long Title as a recital of what is in the Act or the Bill.

What one needs it for is to tell one what is the object of the measure so that, if there is some ambiguity or conflict as to interpretation, the court can look at the Long Title to resolve it. I do not hold this out in any way as a model of drafting, but a Long Title in this form for this Bill would be far more useful: "An Act to secure more effectively the payment of maintenance and certain periodical payments and the enforcement of orders for maintenance of certain periodical payments and for connected purposes". That would be of some use to the court in an emergency. As I say, the present Long Title is no use at all.

Having said that, I go back to what I said originally. What the draftsman has done is entirely in accordance with contemporary practice. I ask though that it should be re-examined if any weight is given to what I have just said. Perhaps the noble Lord can have it considered by officials and perhaps the draftsman could take it to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, who could take it to the Legislation Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord raised this point during Committee stage. He is an advocate of concise drafting which excludes all unnecessary words. In this I fully support him. The current practice is for the Long Title of a Bill to reflect everything contained in the Bill. I should like also to have recourse to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (21st Edition), where it states at page 441: The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill, and should cover everything in the bill".

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, the noble Lord has quite rightly added those last words, which reflect the current practice. But the words immediately before reflect the purposes of the Bill. It was that that I tried to emphasise.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I take the noble and learned Lord's point. Perhaps he will allow me to proceed a little further. The specific words referring to Section 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 are required in the Long Title as the amendment to that section in the Bill, I am given to understand, is not directly covered by the phrase "and for connected purposes" which ends the Bill's Long Title.

The amendment to Section 10 made in the Bill will enable rules of court to be made to ensure consistency between procedures under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 and procedures which will be introduced with the implementation of the Children Act 1989. Although this amendment to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 embraces maintenance proceedings, it goes slightly wider than the manner in which maintenance should be paid, which is the subject of our Bill, and therefore requires specific mention in the Long Title even though the amendment to the 1990 Act being made by this Bill is only a minor amendment. That is our explanation.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his assurance that he will not press his amendment even though he may not be convinced by what I have said, although of course I hope he is.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, it remains for me to thank the Minister and the draftsman for having given this matter consideration. The opposing arguments are now quite clear. All I can ask is that the matter should be considered on general principles. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.