HL Deb 21 July 1994 vol 557 cc393-404

Preliminary

1.—(1) Paragraphs 2 to 5, 7 and 8 below apply where—

  1. (a) a person (contractor A) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order made under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise any function (the relevant function) of a Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority A); and
    2. 394
  2. (b) the disclosure of relevant information, that is, information obtained, whether before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, in or in connection with the exercise of the relevant function or a related function, is restricted by any enactment or by any obligation of confidentiality.

(2) Paragraph 6 below applies where—

  1. (a) a person (contractor A) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order made under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise any function (the relevant function) of a Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority A); and
  2. (b) the disclosure of relevant information, that is, information obtained, whether before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, in or in connection with the exercise of any function of another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority E), is restricted by any enactment or by any obligation of confidentiality.

Disclosures between contracting parties etc.

2. The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information—

  1. (a) between contractor A or an employee of his and authority A or an authorised officer of that authority;
  2. (b) between contractor A and an employee of his or between one such employee and another; or
  3. (c) where the relevant function has been delegated to authority A by another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority B), between contractor A or an employee of his and authority B or an authorised officer of that authority,
if the disclosure is necessary or expedient in or in connection with, or for the purpose of facilitating, the exercise of the relevant function or a related function, or the performance of ancillary services.

Disclosures by contracting parties to contractor B

3.—(1) This paragraph applies where another person (contractor B) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise the relevant function or a related function.

(2) The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his, or authority A or an authorised officer of that authority, to contractor B or an employee of his if—

  1. (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function or a related function; and
  2. (b) where the disclosure is by contractor A or an employee of his, the disclosure falls within a description of disclosures certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be capable of being so necessary or expedient.

Disclosures by contracting parties to contractor C

4.—(1) This paragraph applies where another person (contractor C) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise a function of another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority C).

(2) The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his, or authority A or an authorised officer of that authority, to contractor C or an employee of his if—

  1. (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function, a related function or a function of authority C; and
  2. (b) where the disclosure is by contractor A or an employee of his, the disclosure falls within a description of disclosures certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be capable of being so necessary or expedient; and
  3. (c) the information could be lawfully disclosed, for that purpose, by authority A to authority C.

Disclosures by contractor A to authority D

5. The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his to another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority D) or an authorised officer of that authority if—

  1. (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function, a related function or a function of authority D;
  2. (b) the disclosure falls within a description of disclosures certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be capable of being so necessary or expedient; and
  3. (c) the information could be lawfully disclosed, for that purpose, by authority A to authority D.

Disclosures to contractor A by authority E

6. The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by authority E or an authorised officer of that authority to contractor A or an employee of his if—

  1. (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function, a related function or a function of authority E; and
  2. (b) the information could be lawfully disclosed, for that purpose, by authority E to authority A.

Disclosures for audit purposes

7.—(1) Where authority A is a Minister or office-holder, the enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his if—

  1. (a) the disclosure is to the Comptroller, or a person exercising an audit function of his, and the information could lawfully be disclosed to the Comptroller or that person by authority A; or
  2. (b) the disclosure is to an accounting officer, or a person exercising an audit function of his, and the information could lawfully be disclosed to that officer or person by authority A.

(2) Where authority A is a local authority, the enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his if—

  1. (a) the disclosure is to the authority's chief finance officer, or a person exercising an audit function of his; and
  2. (b) the information could lawfully be disclosed to that officer or person by the authority.

(3) In this paragraph— accounting officer" means an officer appointed by the Treasury under section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 or section 4 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973; audit function", in relation to the Comptroller, includes any function under Part II of the National Audit Act 1983 or Part III of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (examinations into economy, efficiency and effectiveness); chief finance officer" has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; Comptroller" means the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.

Implied term of contractor A's contract

8. It shall be an implied term of any contract made between contractor A and authority A and relating to the exercise of the relevant function that contractor A shall take all reasonable steps to secure that any relevant information—

  1. (a) which is obtained by him or an employee of his; and
  2. (b) the disclosure of which is restricted by any enactment or obligation,
is not disclosed at any time (whether or not during the subsistence of the contract) to any other person in contravention of the enactment or in breach of the obligation.

Unauthorised disclosures

9.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

  1. (a) any information is disclosed to any person in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 7 above (the original disclosure); and
  2. (b) that person, or any other person to whom the information is subsequently so disclosed, discloses the information otherwise than in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 7 above (the unauthorised disclosure).

(2) If the original disclosure was restricted by an enactment, the enactment shall apply in relation to the person making the unauthorised disclosure as if—

  1. (a) he had obtained the information by virtue of the same provision as the person who made the original disclosure; and
  2. (b) where the enactment would not have restricted that disclosure if the person who made it had not fallen within a particular class, he fell within that class.

(3) If the original disclosure was restricted by an obligation, the person making the unauthorised disclosure shall be treated for all purposes as if he were subject to that obligation.

Interpretation: general

10.—(1) In this Schedule— ancillary services" means services certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be services appearing to it to be calculated to facilitate, or to be conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the relevant function; authorised officer", in relation to a Minister, office-holder or local authority, means any officer of the Minister, office-holder or local authority who is authorised by him or it to disclose or (as the case may be) obtain the information in question; employee", in relation to contractor A, includes any person who performs ancillary services for that contractor, and any employee of such a person; related function" means any function of authority A which is certified by that authority (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be a function appearing to it to be a function which is related to the relevant function.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above a function of authority A is related to another function of that authority if information—

  1. (a) which is obtained in or in connection with the exercise of either function; and
  2. (b) the disclosure of which is restricted by any enactment or by any obligation of confidentiality,
can lawfully be used by that authority for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the other function.

(3) In this Schedule—

  1. (a) any reference to another person is a reference to a person other than contractor A; and
  2. (b) any reference to another Minister, office-holder or local authority is a reference to a Minister, office-holder or local authority other than authority A.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 215A not moved. ]

Schedule 14 [Amendments etc. for Facilitating Contracting Out]:

[Amendments Nos. 215B and 215C not moved.]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215D: Page 111, line 14, after ("43B") insert (", 43C").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 215E: Page 111, line 22, leave out ("or agent").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 215G and 215J.

If I may say so, it is a slightly arcane point on Schedule 14, which deals with Scotland. I am a little worried about the rent registration service provider performing his functions through an employee or agent. I hope very much that the Government will consider whether the provision is in the appropriate formulation. I beg to move.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)

Perhaps I may respond briefly. These amendments would prevent rent registration providers from using agents. However, it is important that remote areas are covered, and it may be that a provider can give a faster and more efficient service in such areas by using a local agent with local knowledge such as a surveyor, rather than relying on his own or one of his employee's relatively infrequent visits.

Agents are fully accountable for their actions. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 43A(8) provide that decisions and actions of an agent, or his use of knowledge, experience or opinion, will be deemed to be that of the provider. Therefore rent registration service providers will be fully responsible for the actions of their agents; and anybody adversely affected by the actions of an agent will be able to seek redress from the provider.

As for possible bias, the rule in law against bias and the appearance of bias means that the courts could quash biased decisions. That provides a very strong safeguard for the interests of persons affected by rent registration service decisions. Since under new Section 43A(8) the rent registration service provider would be responsible for his agents' decisions, he would himself be liable to challenge should he appoint an agent in circumstances where there was a real danger of bias. Of course, should it not be possible to find an agent who was free from a real danger of bias, then no agent would be appointed. I hope that with that fairly brief explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It is important to have it on the record. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215F: Page 111, line 23, leave out ("by") and insert ("or omitted to be done by or in relation to").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 215G not moved. ]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215H: Page 111, line 27, leave out ("by") and insert ("or omitted to be done by or in relation to").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 215J not moved. ]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 215K to 215Q:

Page 111, line 33, at end insert:

("(9) Subsection (8) (a) above is without prejudice to section 43C below.").

Page 111, line 34, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections").

Page 112, line 14, after ("done") insert ("or omitted to be done").

Page 112, line 16, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").

Page 112, line 18, leave out ("by") and insert ("or omitted to be done by or in relation to").

Page 112, line 23, at end insert:

("Rent registration service providers: restrictions on disclosure of information.

43C.—(1) Schedule (Restrictions on disclosure of information) to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (restrictions on disclosure of information) shall, where contractor A within the meaning of that Schedule is a rent registration service provider, apply with the following modifications.

(2) Without prejudice to paragraph 10(1), references to an employee of contractor A and, where contractor B within the meaning of that Schedule is also a rent registration service provider, to an employee of contractor B shall be taken to include references to an agent, and the employee of an agent, of contractor A or, as the case may be, of contractor B.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6) below, references to authority A shall be taken to be references to the rent officer for any registration area specified in the rent registration arrangements.

(4) In paragraph 2(a), the reference to authority A shall be taken to be a reference to such a rent officer or the Secretary of State.

(5) In paragraphs 3(2) (b), 4(2) (b), 5(b) and 8 and, in paragraph 10(1), in the definition of "ancillary services", the reference to authority A shall be taken to be a reference to the Secretary of State.

(6) In the definition of "related function" in paragraph 10(1), the reference to a function of authority A which is certified by that authority shall be taken to be a reference to a function of a rent officer which is certified by the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 215R to 216ZB not moved. ]

Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 [Provisions with respect to orders]:

[Amendments Nos. 216A to 217A not moved. ]

Clause 66 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 217AA and 217B not moved. ]

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Interpretation of Part II]:

[Amendment No. 217C not moved. ]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 217CA to 217CC:

Page 59, line 14, leave out ("or 3") and insert (", 3 or 3A").

Page 59, line 32, leave out ("district") and insert ("county borough").

Page 59, line 34, leave out ("means a regional, islands or district council") and insert ("has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 217CD and 217D not moved. ]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 217E and 217F:

Page 60, line 18, at end insert: ("( ) In relation to any time before 1st April 1996, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if, in paragraph (b) of the definition of "local authority", for the words "county borough" there were substituted the word "district".").

Page 60, line 39, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.

Schedule 15 [Repeals]:

[Amendment No. 218 not moved. ]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 219 and 220:

Page 121, line 9 (bis), at end insert: ("1992 c. 41. The Charities Act 1992. Section 67(3) (b) and the word "but" immediately preceding it.").

Page 121, line 12, at end insert: ("1993 c. 10. The Charities Act 1993 Section 47(3)(a).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 221 not moved. ]

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

[Amendment No. 222 not moved. ]

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 223 to 231:

Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Offences under section 63 of the Charities Act 1992: creation of statutory defence)," ).

Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Applications for permits to conduct public charitable collections: time-limits)," ).

Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual audit or examination of charity accounts),").

Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual reports of charities)," ).

Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual returns by charities)," ).

Page 61, line 40, after ("1984") insert ("and the Charities Act 1993").

Page 62, line 2, leave out first ("and").

Page 62, line 2, after ("1985,") insert ("the Charities Act 1992").

Page 62, line 2, after ("1985,") insert ("and the Charities Act 1993").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 232: Page 62, line 6, leave out ("day") and insert ("days").

The noble and learned Lord said: I am sorry to interrupt the rapid progress that the Committee has been making but this is quite a short amendment and I hope that the Committee will think it is valuable. It would remove one-and-a-half lines of statutory drivel from the Bill—Members of the Committee may ask why it is worth doing that when Bills these days are in constant disregard of the recommendations of the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation—based on an authoritative memorandum by the two senior Scottish judges of the time that the legislation should lay down general rules. However, our legislative practice at the moment is to try to cover every particular instance that can be envisaged—the vital one always being missed, as the Scottish judges prognosticated. Where it is not a mass of particular instances, it is a series of what is in effect departmental standing orders and page upon page telling grandmothers how to suck eggs. In particular, it enjoins Ministers to do what any sensible Minister would do without prompting.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, regards "sensible Minister" as a contradiction in terms in relation to the present Government, although he has genially excused the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, from that blanket condemnation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are things that we could safely leave to a Minister to do. It is quite useless to go on inflating our statute book, at enormous expense, by telling Ministers to do things that they would certainly do without any prompting.

The amendment proposes to leave out one-and-a-half unnecessary lines. Clause 71(4) reads: The remaining provisions of this Act, other than section 26(2), shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes". Amendments Nos. 232 and 235 to which I speak propose to put "day" into the plural and leave out the final one-and-a-half lines. The Committee may ask why the words: and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes", should be in the Bill at all. Those words are included in order to forestall an argument that the Minister must make only one commencement order, however different the provisions may be and however different their purposes.

Obviously that is a pretty extreme line of argument. Similar words occur constantly in statute after statute. I came across them by chance in the Local Government (Wales) Bill which was in the charge of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He is a greatly admired lawyer so I confidently left the matter to him. I asked him whether he was prepared to say that such an argument could possibly succeed in any reasonable court. Of course, he was not prepared to say that. The furthest he was prepared to go was to say that the argument might be advanced. There is no limit to the silly arguments that might be advanced by way of misinterpretation. In any case, the noble and learned Lord was prepared to concede that, if we tried to forestall and obviate every conceivable argument, however remote its chance of success, the statute book would go on growing as inexorably as it does at the moment.

The Committee may wonder how such words ever got into a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, surmised rightly on an earlier occasion that they got into a Whitehall computer. It is not difficult to see how that happened. A young and keen trainee draftsman would be given a shot at the first draft of the Bill. He would put in some such provision as: "and different days may be appointed for different provisions or for different purposes". The senior draftsman would query that and the young draftsman would say: "Well, it is quite possible that an argument might be advanced that, however different the provisions and however different the purposes, only one commencement day should be appointed. If different days were appointed for different purposes and different provisions, they would be ultra vires". Of course, the senior draftsman would know that that was nonsense, but he would not want to discourage a keen young probationer, and so it passed into the draft of the Bill. No official would object to unnecessary words in a Bill; the longer a Bill is, the more likely it is to be guillotined in the other place and the more likely the provisions are to be discussed late at night in your Lordships' House where they cannot effectively be challenged. So it would have gone to officials.

The Minister is interested only in the policy, and on being assured that this was normal drafting, he would have had no more to say. The only other person who is in fact responsible is the Prime Minister. Parliamentary counsel come directly under the Prime Minister. Sir Robert Andrew, in his Review of Government Legal Services, recommended that the Law Officers' Departments should be the responsible office for parliamentary counsel, but that was the only recommendation of Sir Robert Andrew that was not accepted. So the parliamentary counsel are still responsible only to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister naturally has other things to do than to scrutinise a Bill to see whether an unnecessary line-and-a-half has been included. He will probably be in Corfu or Edinburgh at a conference and will have other matters on his mind than the contents or even the general style of drafting. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, surmised, the matter gets on to the computer. Once it is in a computer, it is irremovable. It comes in Bill after Bill.

In these amendments we propose that instead of saying "day" we say "days", and leave out, and different days may be so appointed". If the word "days" is substituted for "day", it is obvious that more than one day is indicated. That being so, I venture to suggest that there is nothing to be said against this amendment. I do not know what it says at the end of the noble Lord's brief. I trust that it says either "Consider" or "Accept". But I fear that, the computer being almost "saintly", it may say "Reject". But I ask the noble Lord to look at this matter as one of common sense. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

The noble and learned Lord has been quiet for too long. I for one much enjoyed the way he spoke in moving his amendment. I want so much to be helpful to him. But before I do so, perhaps I may read out the words of my brief. What the noble and learned Lord suggests in Amendment No. 232 is that we should turn the word "day" into "days". And I have to tell him that the words that he wants to leave out are the standard form of words which appear in almost every Bill of more than a few clauses which is to come into force by a commencement order—especially Bills which, like this one, cover a number of topics. These words allow different dates for commencement to be chosen as appropriate for the various provisions and for the different purposes of those provisions, instead of compelling them to have the same, possibly inappropriate, date.

I am advised that to put the word "day" into the plural, which would be the result of Amendment No. 232, might have the same effect in respect of different days and different provisions, although we cannot be sure that the courts or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would take that view. To omit the standard words would certainly deprive us of the capacity to bring the same provision into force on different days for different purposes—most obviously, Clauses 28 and 70, which introduce Schedules 10 and 15 respectively.

That is what I am bidden to say. But after the speech of the noble and learned Lord, I think it would be unfair of me not to say that I will take this matter away and consider it with the parliamentary draftsmen to see whether we could accommodate the wishes of the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Tordoff

Will the noble Lord perhaps accept, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been saying about this being a sort of computer virus, that what he has just read out to us is also a form of computer virus which comes out of the same computer?

Lord Strathclyde

I rather felt like that as I was reading it out.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I gratefully accept his undertaking to consider the matter. For his brilliant conduct of this Bill, the noble Lord has very much earned a holiday. When he returns, I hope that he will have a serious interview with the computer and try to concentrate its mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 233: Page 62, line 6, after ("day") insert ("not later than twelve months after the day on which this Act is passed").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 234, 236 and 237, all of which raise the same point. In other words, they all deal with a commencement date and are to ensure that "a commencement date" means what it says.

The amendments, I am afraid, are called for as a result of the constitutional antics of the Home Secretary in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which will be a painful memory to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who had to defend an uncomfortable debate on that subject.

The Committee will know that a non-statutory scheme was set up to provide for victims of criminal injury. After a time, it was decided to substitute a statutory scheme. That was in 1988. Not only did that Act stipulate for a statutory scheme but it spelt out the details of the scheme in great detail in a schedule. In the usual way these days, it was left to the Minister to bring all the provisions of the statute into force. That is invariably the practice these days. It is highly convenient because only the Minister knows when he is administratively ready to bring the provisions into force.

However, what was done in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was something quite different. The Minister, having been given a discretion as to the date on which it should be brought into effect, interpreted that as a discretion not to bring the scheme into force at all, but, on the contrary, to substitute a quite different and again non-statutory scheme of his own devising.

There is more to be said for what the Minister did than has sometimes been allowed. It is at the moment uncertain whether what he did was legal or illegal. That awaits decision by the Court of Appeal. But on balance, beneficent or otherwise, legal or illegal, there is no question that what the Home Secretary did was unconstitutional. What he did was to fly in the face of a clear indication by Parliament embodied in the statute that it wanted a specific statutory scheme. That has been stultified by the Minister's decision that that gives him a right not to bring the scheme into force at all.

That being so, it is necessary in each Bill nowadays, I fear, to make sure that giving the Minister discretion as to a commencement date will not be taken as an invitation to him not to bring the provision into force at all. The question first arose earlier this week in relation to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill when an amendment similar to that which I am now moving was put down. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the Minister in charge of the Bill, gave an undertaking that the provisions would indeed be brought into force. Your Lordships naturally accepted that.

It would be desirable if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, could say that what the Home Secretary did was a constitutional aberration which will not be repeated. However, I do not expect him to say that. So long as he says that the provisions of the Bill will be brought into effect, I imagine that the Committee will be content that he has gone as far as he possibly can. I beg to move.

Lord Strathclyde

It is always with some trepidation that I rise to disagree with the noble and learned Lord. It will come as no surprise to him that I shall not venture into a controversy with the Home Secretary, whom I much admire. However, I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Government have every intention of commencing all the provisions with the minimum of delay. To delay unnecessarily these worthwhile deregulatory measures would be nonsensical and contrary to government policy.

However, there are good reasons why we sought the flexibility of the commencement order for particular provisions. They require new administrative arrangements and procedures to be put into place, in particular the purposes of subsections (5) and (7) of Clause 71 under which transitional provisions for Clause 26 and Chapters III and IV of Part I are to be included in the commencement orders.

Obviously I wish to avoid the problems mentioned by the noble and learned lord. I hope that he will take this commitment as a serious one. I believe that when we have passed the Bill and it has received Royal Assent, we shall move speedily to the commencement orders. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendments.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I surmise that the Committee will be satisfied that the Minister has gone as far as he possibly can and the Committee has an assurance that, so far as concerns this Bill, the commencement provisions mean what they say. The larger question will, no doubt, have to be raised on some larger occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 234 to 237 not moved. ]

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.