Sitting of 19 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
The Lord Lindsay of Birker—Took the Oath.

DERELICT LAND CLEARANCE
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what date they have set for the clearance of dereliction in the United Kingdom, and by what means they intend to achieve it.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Government want local authorities to aim at a ten-year target for the clearance of derelict land, particularly in the development areas, intermediate areas and derelict land clearance areas. There are good indications that the high rates of grant now available are having the desired effect of stimulating action.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. May I ask him what steps are being taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Sir Joseph Hunt and reported in April, 1969, particularly in regard to paragraphs 457 and 456 and with especial emphasis on paragraph 467? Can he inform the House whether it is the Government's intention to give effect to the recommendations of the Hunt Committee?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot quite remember what is in paragraph 457 of the Hunt Committee Report, but if, as I think is the case, it is about a national agency for the clearance of derelict land the answer is, "No". In the Government's
958
view it would be contrary to the spirit of the White Paper on local government reform to take the task away from local government in England. A new central group for derelict land clearance is being set: up, and Scotland and Wales have their own reclamation schemes.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should like to point out—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take note that it was paragraph 467 and not paragraph 457 to which I was particularly referring? May I also ask what steps, if any, are being taken to require industry to dispose of future waste without creating a future dereliction?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the exception of tips which were already in use as such before about 30 years ago, this matter is under full planning control.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is the Government's intention so to control the disposal of new waste by industry that no new dereliction will be created in future?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, so far as that is humanly possible.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does my noble friend not think it is economics gone mad to charge rates on clearing pit heaps and then, if they are not cleared, to give 85 per cent. of Government grant to clear them?
LORD KENNET: Not "mad", my Lords, no. The Finance Bill this year has provided that only about half of the royalty payments made by contractors to the owners of the tips shall count in future as income, the other half being capital; and the rating law is being revised to take account of that fact.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not think that there is a far more important task of clearing up to be done in the next few weeks?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the world must change and that therefore there will be continuous dereliction; and accordingly some continuous organisation

959
must be set up to deal with it as it occurs?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, that is very much in the minds of the Government. I would not accept the phrase "continuous dereliction". Dereliction is stuff that has been there for years and is not being used for anything, or added to.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since when has derelict land been called "dereliction"? Is this usage known to any reputable dictionary?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot answer with authority, but within my experience, since the last 30 seconds or so.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is "derelict land" necessarily land? May it not be sea or other waters?

COMMON MARKET AND THE COMMONWEALTH
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are not failing in their duty and acting contrary to the traditions of the Commonwealth, by pursuing a policy of joining the Common market.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): No, my Lords.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very curt reply. May I ask two supplementary questions? Is the Minister aware that neither the Government nor the Opposition, who are always talking about the right terms of entry into Europe, ever tell us what are the right terms; and never define the weight of the burden which this country refuses to bear and which will prove intolerable? Further, my Lords, I should like to ask the Minister this question. Is he aware, and would he not agree, that if we join the
960
European Association we must tax Commonwealth foodstuffs which at presententer duty-free till they are—till they cost; till they are as costly as Continental produce—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Reading!
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE:—which would ultimately displace—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to say that it is not customary to read a supplementary question; and that when the actual draft is illegible, it draws attention to the fact that the question is being used for the purpose of setting forth argument?
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: I apologise, my Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to the first supplementary question, of course if you go into negotiations it is extraordinary foolish to disclose your hand. With regard to the second question, we have on numerous occasions (and I would draw my noble friend's attention particularly to the undertaking that the Foreign Secretary gave at the Western European meeting on July 4, 1967) said that we would make certain that there would be safeguards for Commonwealth commodities in our negotiations.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the course of the debate on the White Paper my noble friend Lord Chalfont referred to the anti-Common Marketeers as the "Blyton popsingers"? Is he further aware that our group is now swelling, and could he advise the Prime Minister in this Election to become anti-Common Market, when we shall get a 20 per cent. lead?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that is highly speculative.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what are the advantages accruing to us from joining the Common Market?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is Question Time, and I can see that the House is in one of its better moods. I think that if I sought to reassure my noble friend, or to give him the information he asks for, it would take a great

961
deal of time, and I feel that the humour would quickly evaporate.

FIREARMS CONTROL
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information is available as to how Neil George Adamson sentenced to life imprisonment at Leeds Assizes on May 11, 1970, came into possession of the firearm with which he shot and murdered a night watchman and a police inspector.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that Adamson has refused to disclose how he came into possession of the firearm. Although the police believe that he obtained the weapon unlawfully, their inquiries have so far failed to establish how it came into his hands.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether it is a fact that this man had a criminal record?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that he had.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not think that this incident suggests, if this firearm had been illegally obtained, that the regulations, and particularly the enforcement of the regulations, about the control of firearms is in urgent need of revision? Can he give us an assurance that when the Government return after the Election this matter will receive early attention?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can give my noble friend an assurance that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is watching this matter very carefully. As my noble friend will be aware penalties for illegal possession of firearms have been increased. The control over shotguns has been established since 1968, where previosuly there was no control, but at the moment my right honourable friend has no intention of introducing further legislation.
LORD WADE: My Lords, do I understand from that reply that it was a shotgun that was used in this incident? May I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree with me that the present control over shotguns is very unsatisfactory?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is difficult to assert that with certainty. The noble Lord will probably be aware that when in 1968 we took the powers that we now have, there was some opposition from the Benches opposite, and it would be just as well to see how the present powers work out.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact that the majority of shotguns in this country are in the possession of Conservative country gentlemen?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that there are 600,000 shotguns in the country at the present time.

CANADIAN BILL AND HIGH SEAS CONVENTION
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of Canadian Bill C202, which sets out to legislate for the high seas and to interfere with vessels engaged in innocent passage contrary to the Convention on the High Seas and the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, both of which have been ratified by Her Majesty's Government.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have followed the progress of Canadian legislation on this question very closely. Bill C202 was tabled in the Canadian House of Commons on April 8, and on the same day the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was informed officially of the proposed legislation. We have been considering what attitude we should adopt, and hope very shortly to have reached a decision. I am sure that noble Lords will not expect me to anticipate this decision by enlarging on our views at this moment.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will bring into consultation the other signatories to the Convention of the Law at Sea in dealing with their representations to the Canadian Government?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we attach a great deal of importance to the Convention, but I should not at this stage wish to give an undertaking as to how we shall proceed after our considerations.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell those of us who have not read the Bill C202 what it says?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord knew what I should have to do to reply to that question he would realise that it would take a very long time. But the fact is that the Canadian authorities are deeply concerned about pollution in the Arctic Seas. They had a disaster last year, and because of the cold the oil will not disperse; it floats on to the coast and causes considerable havoc. The Bill itself enlarges Canadian responsibility well beyond its territorial waters; and certainly these circumstances are not to be found in any other part of the world.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I say that, because of changing business, dinner will not be available to-night; nor do I anticipate that it will be necessary to-morrow night.
WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, until Parliament is prorogued, Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended so far as is necessary to give Government business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day; and that Standing Order No. 41 (No Two Stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is concerned with the advancing of certain Bills from Wednesday, to-morrow, to this day.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lords concerned to advance the following Bills from Wednesday the 20th to this day, vizt.:—

Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Bill,

Riding Establishments Bill [H.L.],

Indecent Advertisements (Amendment) Bill [H.L.],

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.],

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should make an apology to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, in that he is described on the Order Paper as "Lord Shannon", and this is contrary to our practice, even though his Earldom is Irish. I would also mention that this Motion will enable the noble Earl to serve as a Deputy Chairman for only two days. The Motion was tabled before the announcement of the Dissolution, and although some Lords

965
may say that it is a slight nonsense it is, none the less, a harmless one.
Moved, That the Earl of Shannon be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shackleion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Bill is quite simple. It seeks to provide the Board of Trade with powers to make rules for the construction of fishing vessels, and also to make rules for the survey and regular inspection of fishing vessels in order to ensure that they comply with the rules made under this Bill and other enactments. The Bill has a background of tragedy. Early in 1968, news came of the loss, one after the other, of three trawlers from Hull. Those three disasters cost 59 lives, and many families in Hull were bereaved. As a result, the then President established a Committee of Inquiry under Admiral Sir Deric Holland-Martin to examine the major factors affecting the safety of deep-sea trawlers and their crews and to make recommendations. This Bill seeks to take powers to implement some of the recommendations of that Committee. Since those disasters, the nation as a whole has been more acutely aware of the dangers trawlermen face. We now understand better that it is a continuing danger and a continuing anxiety on the part of their families. The Bill before us is one of the measures which are necessary if both the dangers the men face and the anxiety of their families are to be lessened.
The Holland-Martin Committee's recommendations, of which there are 83, are wide ranging. In the introduction to their Report the Committee pointed out that safety cannot be considered in isolation from the other major factors which determined the success and efficiency of an industry or a firm. They point out that there are limits to what can be done in terms of design of ships and equipment to make the working environment on a trawler intrinsically safer. They say that
966
the problem is fundamentally one of changing human attitudes at every level in the industry, and of instilling greater awareness of the importance of safety in crews, skippers and senior management alike. With that in mind, the Committee considered not only the vessels and their equipment, but also the conditions on board the trawlers, the crews' health and fitness, their conditions of employment, training of crews, management and industrial relations. At the end of their Report, the Committee say that partial acceptance of their recommendations would not be desirable since they consider that the recommendations, taken as a whole, represent the minimum of effort required if the industry is to attain an acceptable standard of safety.
The Bill before us deals with only one aspect of safety: that is, the safety of the vessel itself and the equipment it carries. Some other aspects are covered in the Merchant Shipping Bill still before Parliament, such as those relating to hours of work at sea, certification of trawler officers, accident reporting, and safe working practices on board ship. There are also many other matters which do not require new statutory powers, and those are actively under consideration by the Government and both sides of the industry. Both sides of the industry have shown a positive attitude to the Report and there has already been progress in implementing some of the recommendations.
The powers in the present Bill enable rules to be made for the construction of all fishing vessels. Some powers already exist for prescribing the radio and safety equipment which fishing vessels should carry, but powers under this Bill will enable fishing vessels to be surveyed and inspected regularly to ensure that they comply with the rules. Thus the general purpose of the Bill is to bring the powers for regulating the safety of fishing vesels roughly into line with the powers that we already have for regulating the safety of cargo and passenger vessels.
It will be noted that the Bill covers all types of fishing vessels, even though the recommendations of the Holland-Martin Committee of Inquiry related primarily to deep-sea vessels. We recognised that dangers also faced inshore fishing vessels as well as deep-sea vessels

967
and we therefore took the opportunity to take powers to regulate their safety at the same time. For purely practical reasons it will be necessary to concentrate in the first place on the deep-sea vessels; that is generally those over 80 feet in length fishing in near, middle and distant waters. It would obviously not be appropriate to extend all the rules for deep-sea vessels to the whole of the inshore fleet as well; a good deal of consultation will be needed before we can decide exactly what rules should apply to them. But there is no doubt that this extension will be required and we intend no avoidable delay. Meanwhile I can assure the House that the Board of Trade is giving priority to the drafting of rules for deep-sea vessels, and we aim to apply them as soon as possible even though the process of drafting and consultation is necessarily rather complex.
Clause 1 empowers the Board of Trade to make fishing vessels construction rules prescribing requirements for the hull, equipment and machinery of fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom. These rules can differentiate between fishing vessels of various descriptions, including different dates of registry or construction and different operational areas. The construction rules which are being drafted will cover such matters as structural strength, stability, weathertight integrity, means of protection for the crew, electrical equipment and precautions, and structural fire protection.
Clause 2 empowers the Board to make survey rules for the surveying and periodical inspection of fishing vessels in order to ensure their compliance with the rules. Clause 3 deals with the issue of certificates. The survey rules will cover the type of survey to be conducted, its frequency and who should conduct it. They should also cover the requirements for periodical inspection of certain matters during the currency of the certificate, and questions like the form of the certificate and its period of validity. Clause 4 makes it an offence for a fishing vessel required to be surveyed to go to sea unless certificates issued under Clause 3 are in force. These enforcement provisions follow the general lines adopted in relation to passenger vessels and other ships in recent Merchant Shipping Acts.
968
Clause 5 makes provision for the notification in writing of alterations made to a fishing vessel or its equipment where a certificate issued under Clause 3 is in force in respect of the vessel. Clause 6 provides for the prescribing of fees and for the payment of such fees into the Consolidated Fund, except in the cases specified in which it is appropriate that bodies other than the Board of Trade which have carried out the work should be allowed to retain the fee. Clause 7(1) provides that any regulations or rules made under the Bill shall be made by Statutory Instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. This is the procedure used for rules of a similar type relating to other classes of vessel under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Clause 7(2), which has been included in the Bill during its passage, puts on the Board of Trade a statutory obligation to consult organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to them to be representative of persons who will be affected by the rules. Clause 8 provides for extension to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and any territory outside Her Majesty's dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction. Clause 9 contains a number of definitions.
My Lords, I hope that this Bill will commend itself. Whilst it is a comparatively simple Bill, the rules to be made under it will be of a complex nature which will require careful consideration and consultation with all those directly concerned. By opening up a new field for marine safety regulations, it is an extremely important Bill. This country can be proud of its safety record in passenger and cargo ships, which are protected by rules and regulations based on international agreement; we shall now be able to give similar protection to our fishermen. However, this Bill, and even the rules to be made under it, cannot be regarded as a panacea which will make the fishermen's calling a safe one. I have referred to the Holland-Martin Committee's reference to the need to change the whole attitude of mind in the industry. The Government intend to play their part in this process, and this Bill is only one piece in the jigsaw. I hope that I have described how it fits into the picture as a whole; that your Lordships will agree that this is an important piece of safety legislation in a field where the need for

969
such legislation has been demonstrated by cruel experience, and that your Lordships will gladly give the Bill its Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Brown.)
3.1 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for reminding us of the origins of this Bill and explaining its purpose and the way in which it is going to work. I am glad that the Royal Navy can be of some help to fishermen, both in the shape of Admiral Holland-Martin, on whose Report we so much rely, and in the shape of this former naval person who is glad to welcome it as a spokesman from this side and to give it a fair wind on to the Statute Book. Having myself spent a good part of the early days of the war in the Arctic on convoy duty where these trawlers work, and having rescued survivors from these waters, I certainly support a Bill which will allow further regulations to be devised for the safety of those who pursue their business all the time in these remorseless and widow-making waters.
However, in present Parliamentary circumstances it would be unreasonable to give this Bill the scrutiny that its importance for the industry would at other times have deserved. I hope the House will feel that just a few comments from me on the Second Reading alone will suffice. The first I have to make is on the question of balance. The regulations made possible under this Bill (and I must say that I sympathise with the Board of Trade on the number of regulations it now has to set about making under this Bill and the Merchant Shipping Bill) bear upon the causes of no more than 43 per cent. of the casualties which occur in this industry in the deep-sea trawlers. I draw that figure from Fig. B on page 15 of the Report. None the less, of course, they are well worth having. But a far greater impact on casualties, at much less cost, can be made by dealing with the other cause of casualties—not the particular casualties to which the noble Lord referred, but casualties in general over a period of time—accounting for more than all the other causes put together; namely, negligent navigation.
970
The Board of Trade, as I understand it, already has powers in this field through the control it exercises over training, examinations and certification. I would think that the House is owed a rather fuller account than we have had so far, not of the considerations that are going into this but of the actual progress so far made, since this point was revealed by Admiral Holland-Martin in this parallel field of casualties due to negligent navigation. As the Report indicated, and the noble Lord recognised in what he has just said, this is a fundamental area.
Next may I turn for a moment to the cost of implementing the proposals in the Report to which this Bill relates? There is no question, of course, that where the safety of life is concerned the cost of safeguarding it must be borne. But it must, I submit, be fairly shared. What we should like to know is this: what will be the formula for getting fairness as between the new ships and the old ships; as between the industry and the Government, and particularly (I will come on to this point more fully in a moment) as between this country and other countries which are international competitors in the fishing world?
I appreciate that we in this country may well be leading the field among other members of the International Maritime Consultative Organisation. We often have led the field, and I hope we still do. But when welcoming and supporting a Bill such as this, which will lay sizeable financial burdens on an industry with formidable international rivals, we ought to hear from Her Majesty's Government of the action they are taking, and they only can take, to enjoin upon other nations with deep-sea fishing fleets to raise their safety standards in harmony with ours; to the level the Holland-Martin Report shows so clearly to be necessary not only for our vessels but for all fishing vessels. Those are my two main points.
Then I have just two small points of a more technical nature. Recommendation No. 25 of the Report, and Clause 3(2) of the Bill, provide for the Board of Trade to delegate some of its survey work. Is the noble Lord able to say to whom it will decide to delegate, and at what stage? Is it from the outset or from some later stage? The second small point relates to Clause 4(1), which,

971
if I am right, establishes a blanket prohibition on a fishing vessel from going to sea unless it holds all the necessary certificates that have been set out in earlier parts of the Bill. Am I right in thinking that this can be modified by an exemption of some kind? The only exemption I can see does not look as if it applies; it is to be found in Clause 1(2). Can this blanket prohibition be modified in any way so that a fishing vessel can go to sea for purposes other than fishing? It seems that from time to time this would be required; for instance, to go to a repair yard or to go somewhere to be sold.
Finally—and this is a very small point—now that this Bill has, I suppose, unexpectedly overtaken the Merchant Shipping Bill by about ten days, can we turn a blind eye to references on page 5 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1970? Or maybe we can pass this Bill now in the reasonable assurance that both measures will cross the finishing line in a dead heat. My Lords, I beg to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.8 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the points he has raised. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him on all of them. We quite agree with his comments about the effects of negligent navigation. The Board of Trade issued a Merchant Shipping Notice last August stressing the dangers of leaving the bridge in the charge of unqualified persons. This is similar to the first recommendation by Holland-Martin, that owners should lay down clear guidelines for their skippers so as to ensure that the bridge is manned at all times by an experienced, competent man. With powers provided by the Merchant Shipping Bill it is proposed, subject to consultation, to require the carriage of a third certificated hand on distant-water trawlers, which will make such bridge manning easier to ensure. Attention has also been given the content of training courses and examinations, and we are further considering whether there are any other measures to meet this danger.
The noble Lord asked about a formula for sharing the cost of these extra precautions and measures which arise under this Bill. I am sorry that I cannot give much
972
information on this point. One principle agreed is that there should be some sharing of the extra cost, but consultations are proceeding now. I do not know what the outcome will be. I cannot give him a formula; it will emerge, I hope, in due course.
The noble Lord has also referred to his anxiety concerning the fact that because of these safety rules we may be burdening ourselves with costs in excess of those borne by our foreign competitors. It should be noted that some other nations are ahead of us in terms of regulations, although not necessarily in terms of practice: we do not really know. However proposals are already before IMCO, largely based on our own ideas and the ideas we shall incorporate in the rules we produce, and on Holland-Martin, and I assure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom plays a leading part in IMCO and will press forward for international standards on this matter.
He also raised the question of the delegation of survey work. Our intention is that, wherever practicable, surveys will be delegated. The question as to whom such work should be delegated is still being considered. The White Fish Authority and the Mutual Insurance Company have expertise in this field, although the most likely candidate for the delegation is Lloyd's Register of Shipping, since all the distant-water fleet and about three-quarters of the near- and middle-water fleet are classed. This should substantially ease the load of additional work for the Board of Trade surveyors, so far as construction and propelling machinery is concerned. However, in line with existing comparable arrangements for merchant ships we need to survey unclassed ships, and possibly classed ships in respect of stability, life-saving appliances, and perhaps fire protection. Those are our present views on that issue.
Another point raised by the noble Lord was the question of a trawler sailing to sea, not for fishing but for repairs, and I would inform him that Clause 1(2) empowers the Board of Trade to exempt any vessel from any requirement of the rules with respect to, among other things, a specified voyage, so that we have power to introduce these exemptions.
My Lords, I think I have covered all the points raised by the noble Lord—at

973
least I hope so—and in a moment I shall move that the Bill be not committed.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FOOTPATHS AND OPEN SPACES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PARISH COUNCILS AND BURIAL AUTHORITIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must say that in moving the Second Reading of this small Private Member's Bill it strikes one as rather appropriate that the House should be discussing burial grounds in the dying embers of the life of this Parliament. May I also say, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, that I very much appreciate the co-operation of both the Government Chief Whip and my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, not omitting, of course, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, in allowing this Bill to go forward to-day and, subject to the general approval of the House, to pass through all its stages. It is, I believe, a recognition that the Bill is non-controversial—a thought with which I hope noble Lords who may be taking an interest in the Bill will also agree.
The Bill is really split into two parts. The first half under Clauses 1 and 2; brings up to date the powers of burial authorities to enter into agreement, in return for payment, to maintain individual graves and memorials. I would say at once that nothing in either of these two clauses affects either private family burial grounds or, for that matter, private cemetery companies, such as the West London
974
Crematorium. The need for bringing this general legislation up to date will be immediately apparent to anyone who has made a study of the problem. I am told that there are over 10,000 burial grounds, crematoria, places of interment and churchyards maintained by burial authorities. Many of these burial grounds are situated in the centre of villages and towns and many have lapsed into a state of untidiness, largely due to the burial authorities being unable, by law, to accept money for the maintenance of private graves—nor, for that matter, could they spend public funds upon a private interest.
Up to now there have been two courses open for families who wished to arrange with burial authorities the future maintenance of their private graves. The first was by forming a charitable trust and the second was by entering into a contract for specific maintenance. Neither of those courses has proved very satisfactory; and because of the deep concern at the unsatisfactory state that many burial grounds have got into, over 120 local Acts have been passed conferring powers on the burial authorities to improve maintenance procedure.
Clause 1 virtually adopts a similar power to those in the local Acts. It will thus bring these powers under general legislation and so will be available to all burial authorities. Under subsection (1) of Clause 1 agreements between burial authorities and individuals will be limited to ninety-nine years, a time limit which is considered expedient for administrative reasons, but that period is renewable at the discretion of the burial authorities. Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the problem of transferring existing grave maintenance agreements where, for instance, a churchyard is closed by Order in Council and passed to a burial authority for future maintenance. Clause 2 basically brings up to date the procedure for granting rights of burial, which up to now have been governed by the old Burial Acts, stretching from 1852 to 1906, and also the Public Health (Interments) Act 1879. Up to now, the procedure has been that all rights granted must be by deed, must be under seal, and must be, I am told, witnessed by at least two parish councillors—a fairly laborious process. The new procedure under this Bill will allow this right to

975
be granted by the simple signature of the clerk or an authorised person and does away with the necessity of a deed. It is a process of streamlining which, one may say, has already been adopted under fourteen local government Acts.
I turn now to Clause 3 of the Bill. This part of the Bill, together with Clauses 4, 5 and 6, deals with the granting to parish councils of limited powers in relation to the erection and maintenance of local signs. The general purpose of this part of the Bill is to allow parish councils to erect signs at bus stops, place names, and warning signs—for instance, of dangerous cliffs. With the recent pressure on local authorities to provide international road signs throughout the country, the priority for these local signs has, naturally, taken a rather low place, and it is with the agreement of local authorities and of Her Majesty's Government that these limited powers should be granted to parish councils.
Clause 3(1) makes certain that powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 granted to highway authorities, will apply, except to signs on footpaths and bridlepaths. It also establishes that any sign which will be seen by drivers of vehicles must conform in size, colour and type to Ministry of Transport regulations. subsection (2) will permit a parish council to provide or contribute to the cost of providing bus-stop signs, warning signs or place-name signs close to a road, subject to the highway authority's consent or conditions.
Subsection (3) will allow a parish council to provide miscellaneous signs on a footpath or bridlepath, and subsection (4) will limit the parish council's powers to erecting signs on adjacent private land only with the owner's and occupier's consent. Subsection (5) serves two purposes. In the first place, it preserves the highway authority's power to require removal of objectionable signs. Secondly, it places on the parish council the responsibility for the removal of these signs, thus avoiding a situation where the landowner, having granted initial permission for the parish council to place a sign on his land, may find himself liable for the cost of removal on the order of the highway authority. Subsection (6) allows the parish council to erect warning signs
976
where it considers it necessary. One example is that of high-tide warnings on beaches.
I turn briefly to Clause 4. This is a common-form clause empowering the Minister of Housing and Local Government to repeal or amend provisions in local Acts similar to the provisions under this Bill if the promoting authority request him to do so. Clause 5 deals with the interpretation of both a parish council and a burial authority under this Bill. The effect of subsection (1) of Clause 5 is to extend to the council of a borough included in a rural district the powers available to a parish council under Clauses 1 and 3. Clause 6 is again a standard provision, authorising the payment of any increase in rate-support grant resulting from expenditure by local authorities under the powers in this Bill. The Financial Resolution passed in another place on April 14, 1970, has limited its effect to the provision of Clause 3 only. Clause 7 sets out the Short Title of the Bill, and the House will note that it does not apply to either Scotland or Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I have dealt briefly with the clauses and the purposes of the Bill, which I hope I have explained in sufficient detail. Before concluding, I should like on behalf of the promoters of the Bill to take this opportunity to thank Her Majesty's Government for their support and assistance in its drafting. And, on a personal note, I should like to thank also the Ministry and the National Association of Parish Councils for their guidance, in particular in the rather jungle-like atmosphere of burial-ground legislation. I would only add that this Bill was unopposed in another place and, so far as I am aware, has not been opposed by any of the local authority associations. I hope that to-day it will receive the blessing and support of Her Majesty's Government. For these reasons I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Earl will have earned the thanks of parish councils throughout England and Wales, and of many larger authorities concerned with burial and cremation, for

977
having introduced this Bill to-day. It will do all sorts of modest but useful things which he has outlined, such as doing away with the need to seal certain documents. All this is going to make life a lot easier for many people whose lives ought to be made a lot easier. The Government are in entire agreement with the proposals in the Bill and have cooperated with its sponsors in the House of Commons in amending it. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Entry upon land]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("Provided that no person shall be so authorised to enter upon any land the occupier of which is under a duty imposed by or pursuant to any enactment to preserve the natural aspect, features and animal and plant life of the land except for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I should like immediately to set the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, at rest by telling him that I am not proposing to ask your Lordships to divide. When I put it down, of course we did not know, although we may have guessed, that this Parliament was getting near to its Dissolution
978
Obviously, the news which was made public yesterday means that this Bill will be lost if this Amendment is accepted. The noble Earl has pertinaciously contended for this measure, which is a very reasonable measure on the whole, as I have endeavoured on behalf of the National Trust, for whom I am speaking, to make plain from the beginning. When my noble friend the Leader of the House spoke on Second Reading, he strongly advised me and the National Trust not to press the Amendment which, in my speech on that occasion, I foreshadowed. Of course, he had knowledge which I did not have. Naturally, we gave most careful consideration to that advice, because we know that he has the interests of the National Trust very much at heart—he has made that clear on a number of occasions. It was of course possible to guess that possibly there was something behind what he was saying, so we have in fact been considering this matter during the interval.
As I have said, this is a very useful Bill in many ways, particularly from the point of view of the conservation of the common seal, and although we on the National Trust feel strongly that the position which we have taken up about the seal colony on the Fame Islands is a reasonable one and we should like to ask your Lordships to consider it further, we feel that on the whole it is more valuable from everybody's point of view, including that of the Trust itself, that this Bill should become law as soon as possible so that, in particular the provisions for the conservation of the common seal may come into force at an early date.
There has been a good deal of criticism—indeed, there was criticism from the Benches of this House on the last occasion—of the National Trust for taking up this attitude. I should like to spend a few minutes in trying to persuade your Lordships that we have in fact taken up a very reasonable attitude from the start, and I hope that your Lordships will feel that what I have to say this afternoon on behalf of the National Trust is evidence that we have approached this matter in a reasonable way. We have never been satisfied, and we are not now satisfied, on the evidence, either on the scientific side or on the side of extensive damage to the

979
salmon fisheries, which has been put for ward without any real attempt to prove it and which certainly is the sort of evidence which would be required if the matter were raised in a court of law or in a Select Committee upstairs. I should have liked to spend some little time on expatiating on this, but obviously your Lordships would feel that that was rather unreasonable at the present time. Therefore, I do not propose to say any thing more but simply that I do not propose formally to move the Amend ment. There was one other thing which—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? I am not quite clear on the situation. Certainly he has the right to speak as often as he likes, but he said that he was not going to move the Amendment, in which case I am not quite sure why he spoke at all. If he wishes to deploy his case, I think the correct thing would be for him to move the Amendment (something which he was doing quite reasonably) and then, at the end, I think it would be reasonable, he having made his speech, to allow noble Lords who may disagree with him an opportunity to reply. If he now says that he is not moving his Amendment no such opportunity is open to them. He has made a speech, and nobody is allowed to answer it. So, with the greatest respect, may I suggest that he moves his Amendment, that the Lord Chairman puts the Amendment, and then the Committee will have an opportunity to debate it. Then, if my noble friend wishes to withdraw it at the end, he may. I would hope that this is the feeling of the Commitee.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHORLEY: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House. Mine was a tactical error which I should like to correct. Before actually moving the Amendment, I should like to say that the National Trust have always taken the view that insufficient research has been done both on the scientific side and in relation to this alleged damage to salmon fisheries. The conference which was held in the spring of 1968 published—I am not sure that it was a public document—a report, of which a copy was
980
given at that time to the National Trust. I devoted quite a lot of attention to this Report during the Committee stage last year of a Conservation of Seals Bill. One thing particularly emphasised in that report by the scientists who met at that conference was the need for a great deal more research. That, of course, was the main substance of the National Trust case, that not enough research had been done. If he can see his way to do so, I should like the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—I am not sure that he speaks for the National Environment Research Council—or anybody else who is in a position to do so, to give an assurance that the point about research will not be overlooked and forgotten because we feel that we really ought to have such an assurance. I hope that somebody in a position to do so will be able to reassure us on that point. With those observations, I beg formally to move the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord speaks from the opposite Bench perhaps I may add a word. I always seem to be gently tangling with my noble friend Lord Chorley on procedure. As I understand it, your Lordships do not in fact speak in this House on behalf of any particular interest, and therefore it would be wrong in any way to attribute to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that he is the agent of the Natural Environment Research Council; and I should have thought that in this matter the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, ought not, as it were, to be speaking on behalf of the National Trust, because they may hold different views. I do not doubt that he has had full consultation with them; but I have heard other views, and I think it right once again to put on record that we speak for ourselves.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Following upon what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, may I ask whether it is possible in these circumstances to speak on behalf of the Government?
3.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I shall certainly speak from my own experience. Most certainly I am not authorised to reply on behalf of the N.E.R.C., or indeed on behalf of the National Conservancy, of which I am a member.

981
All I can say about that body is that the Conservancy are responsible for looking after various nature reserves on which seals are found, and they have not thought it necessary to make any representations that their control of their nature reserves should not be subjected to the provisions of the Bill. I must confess that I am surprised that any body, corporate or otherwise, should expect to be treated differently from other people.
So far as the Farne Islands are concerned, in the early years of this century the seals there had been reduced to a very small number indeed. The local fishermen shot them because they thought that they did damage to the fisheries. Protection was introduced in 1914. A second Bill was introduced in 1932, and by the early 1930s there were something like 400 seals on the Islands. By 1952 that number had increased to 2,000; by 1960 to 3,500, and by last year there were probably something like 6,500 seals on the Islands. I think it quite inconceivable that anybody could think that a large population of fish-eating animals like seals could possibly grow to that number without causing damage to fisheries somewhere. Indeed, any of us who has seen what happens on the East coast of Scotland knows that damage is being done.
Long before I felt there was any necessity for a Bill of this nature, being interested in seals I went to look at some of the damage that was being done on the Aberdeenshire coast. I saw the nets which had been torn; I saw the fish which had been damaged in the nets; and I saw the seals, some of which had been marked and ringed on the Farne Islands, which had been drowned in those nets. I remember saying to myself at that time that quite clearly something ought to be done about it, and I felt that any responsible landlord on whose property animals of that nature were found and were clearly doing damage would do something about it. There was a rather desultory and, I felt, half-hearted effort to do a cull in the mid-1960s when, if I remember aright, most unsuitable weapons in the shape of humane killers as used by butchers were used on wild animals. It was then stopped. The population, as I have said from my own observation, has since very nearly doubled, and I felt that something ought to be done.
982
I feel that if that were the sort of action which responsible landowners took up and down the country—if I may enter into politics for a moment—noble Lords opposite would be absolutely right in nationalising all land and preventing any private owner from having anything to do with it. A landowner has some responsibility to his neighbours. If he does not fulfil it properly so far as other vermin—hares, rabbits, deer and the like—are concerned, the private landowner or the corporate landowner, like the Trust, can be forced to do his duty and reduce the vermin which is damaging neighbours' crops. This Bill merely extends to seals the law which appertains to land vermin, and I can see no reason for the noble Lord's Amendment. I am grateful to him for having aired it, and I hope that even if he did press it your Lordships would not agree with it.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I should just like to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has said: that for this view to have been aired is a good thing. I think it is true to say that the whole House has tremendous respect for the National Trust, its objects, its aims and what it does. It would have been a great pity if we had had a Division on this Amendment which is trying to put the National Trust in a special position in law, different from that of any other landowner, including the Crown, in the country. The Secretary of State has given every guarantee of every possible consideration for the conservation of seals, in the best meaning of the word. Nobody wants to see the grey seal vanish.
Following on what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said, I think it is true to say that not only have the numbers of these seals increased but, even more startling—if I can quote another set of figures—is the record of the birth of pups in the Farne Islands. In the 1930s the average birth was about 120 pups a year; by 1952 we had an average birth of about 600 pups a year; 18 months ago, by the end of 1968, it was reckoned that 1,800 pups a year were being born. If these figures were carried to their logical conclusion, it would lead to an even bigger population explosion among the grey seals of the Farne Islands. It is only common sense to realise that these seals are going

983
to get desperate for food and they must do damage to the fisheries. This population explosion in that one area must mean that there is less food for them, and they will become less healthy seals. Therefore, when tourists and nature lovers go to look at them they will not see the nice seal they would like to see; they will see a much more diminished seal who is not half as healthy as it would have been. I say that with hesitation before the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal—I do not know what the noble Lord, the "Lord Great Seal" would say; I do not think he is here at the moment. I think we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for not pressing this Amendment, and I hope, as time goes on, the National Trust will have no cause to regret what is provided for in this Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: In answer to the last point, I should like to say that although this Amendment has been drafted to defend the National Trust's position it does not confer any exclusive position on the National Trust; it is much more widely drawn. That is why the original Amendment was withdrawn in the other place and redrafted on these lines, and then it was too late to call it. It has a much wider application than the National Trust itself. It could apply to the Nature Conservancy, for example, and there are other bodies in the same sort of position as that indicated in the terms of the Amendment. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I should like noble Lords to realise that.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I accept what the noble Lord has said. I think my noble friend Lord Cranbrook made the point that Sections 98 to 100 of the Agriculture Act 1947 embody the same principle.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I quite agree with what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has said on this subject. If the seal population on the Farne Islands is put in a privileged position and allowed to grow and grow, the danger is, as my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton pointed out, that you will get a lot of weak, half-starved seal pups. The other danger is that fishermen may be driven, through desperation, to take the law into their own
984
hands, and you will then probably get a great number of seals wounded by inexpert marksmen. While I appreciate the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his great desire to protect seals, which is also my desire, I think that his sentiments are slightly misplaced as regards the Fame Islands. Therefore I wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I might intervene to say briefly, to make clear that I have no special interest, that when I first took an interest in this matter I was not Lord Privy Seal but Paymaster General, or something of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a rather odd intervention as to whether Ministers spoke on behalf of the Government. It is perfectly clear to us that, on the whole, we deprecate people speaking specifically on behalf of a special interest. None the less, it is perfectly proper that noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, should consult his friends and should have regard to their special knowledge. As he has made clear, his Amendment goes wider than the National Trust, although I think it is a disguised way of doing so. Therefore, I think the Committee have really to take a decision in the light of the general arguments as to whether it is in fact right to exempt the National Trust. When I asked my noble friend not to put forward his Amendment it was because I had no foreknowledge at that moment as to what might happen and whether or not there would be time, and I wanted to see a Bill which clearly commanded general support pass into law. One is always afraid of being tripped procedurally. In fact, I think that we are going to be able to manage our business quite nicely before Parliament dissolves. But that was my chief reason for my request.
Of course we take into account the fact that there are strong feelings among members of the National Trust, but I should find this Amendment equally objectionable. It may be that there are occasions when certain bodies should be exempted from the general legislation of the land: there may be special circumstances affecting the Crown and other bodies. But we need to be very careful, on a piece of legislation of this kind, before we exempt privileged bodies from

985
the general provisions of the law of the land, and I see no reason for exempting anyone. There is a slight tendency for bodies of great prestige, whether it be the National Trust or the British Museum, sometimes to take on a slight quality of sovereign power within the Kingdom—though that is no reflection on the National Trust.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for what he said about my own interest. But as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made clear, I am quite certain that there is a clear analogy with Section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947, and I shudder to think what would happen if there were this exclusion. This would make much greater difficulty for the National Trust. I can see their annual meetings being the scene of some pretty passionate arguments, and I think the kindest thing we can do is to subject them to the law of the land which we hope we are going to create.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the lack of scientific certainty, and there is no area such as conservation where there is not a lack of scientific certainty. A great deal of the work of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy is to improve our knowledge, whether it be the work of the Nature Conservancy on deer conservation and culling, the managing of deer stocks in the Island of Rhum, or in other fields. But I am quite sure that there is enough evidence to support the basic contentions of noble Lords who are in favour of this Bill. I regard the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, as someone who has done a very moderate and successful job in trying to weld interests together, and I hope that we shall now be able to let this Bill go through. My noble friend has shown great determination to go on putting his case, but I think he will agree that the moment has now come to call "time" on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be
986
now read a third time. In so doing I should like to thank all noble Lords for the support they have given to it, and to say how thankful I am that I shall not have to inflict on your Lordships for yet a fourth time speeches on the Conservation of Seals Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to offer my personal congratulations to the noble Earl on his mammoth effort and on having achieved a hat trick. When I heard the announcement of the Dissolution, I was rather terrified that in 1971 we should be having yet another Seals Bill. I am delighted that we have managed to do so well, and I hope that the country will be duly grateful to the noble Earl.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am glad to be able to congratulate the noble Earl for the third time. He has done very well. I should like to say that, as soon as it became apparent that there was to be a Dissolution, I made sure that right at the head of my personal list of Bills that we had to pass into law was the Seals Bill.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this means that this Bill will be on the Statute Book before the Dissolution of Parliament?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I think it has now completed all stages. It will still require the Royal Assent, but I think that that can probably be arranged.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as the Crown Estates, for whom I speak, have been mentioned several times in this debate, I should like to say what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, already knows: that we of the Crown Estates who have considerable interest in seals, particularly on some of the sands, welcome the Bill in its present form, and I personally should like to congratulate the noble Earl on his achievement in getting the Bill through.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as one who has perhaps been the main thorn in the noble Earl's flesh in the last two

987
years, I should also like to add my congratulations to those which other Members of your Lordships' House have bestowed on him.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Riding Establishments Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—[Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 134 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 to 4]
Clause, 1 page 1, line 16, after "not "insert" under this subsection"
Clause, 1 page 2, line 6, leave out "in place of" and insert "for"
Clause, 1 page 2, line 7, after "year" insert "in each place where they occur"
Clause, 1 page 2, line 7, after "substituted" insert "the words"
[Nos. 5 to 8]
Clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out from "conditions" to "in" in line 35.
Clause 2, page 3, line 40, leave out from "section" to "every"
Clause 2, page 3, line 41, leave out "that" and insert "after 31st December 1970 shall be subject to the following conditions (whether they are specified in the licence or not), namely—"
Clause 2, page 4, line 28, leave out from "if" to end of line 29 and insert "after the words ' proposed to be granted' there were inserted the words ' (not being one of the conditions set out in subsection (4A) of this section)'; and subsection (9) of that section shall be read and have effect as if for the words from ' subject' to ' Act' there were substituted the words ' to which a licence under this Act is subject (whether by virtue of subsection (4A) of this section or otherwise)'"
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg to move
988
that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8 en bloc. The Amendments to Clause 1 are entirely drafting and I need not bother your Lordships with them, since they improve the wording of the Bill. But I should like to say a few words on Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to Clause 2, which make it clear that the additional conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the new subsection (4A) shall only apply to licences granted on or after January 1, 1970. If the Commons had not made these two Amendments, it might have been construed that existing licences would be subject to the new conditions of this clause, and it would have been very unfair if holders of licences granted before this Bill became law had the conditions of their licences altered.
My Lords, I do not think I need say anything more about Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Coming to Amendments Nos. 5 and 8, Amendment No. 5 is consequential on Amendment No. 8, and the object of that Amendment is to restore the licensee's right of appeal. It allows a person to appeal against any condition attached to his licence except those set out in the new subsection (4A). As the Bill was originally drafted, this would not have been possible. The Amendment also has the effect of amending subsection (9) of Section 1 of the 1964 Act so as to make it clear that the contravention of any condition attached to the licence, whether by virtue of the new subsection (4A) or otherwise, constitutes an offence. That sounds rather complicated to any noble Lord who has not studied the Bill, but these Amendments really improve the Bill and I thoroughly recommend them to your Lordships. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments, Nos. 1 to 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—[Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—[Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and citation]:
BARONESS BIRK: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is a technical Amendment, and it is necessary in order to exclude Northern Ireland from this Bill. The reason is that, although the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 extends to Northern Ireland, the subject matter is a transferred matter, and any amendment of the Act must be a matter for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Naturally, if this Bill is passed I hope that the Northern Ireland Parliament will amend the Act accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end add—
("( ) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland ").—(Baroness Birk.)
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: As my noble friend has said, this is a subject on which the Government of Northern Ireland are free to legislate for themselves. The Government therefore welcome this Amendment and recommend it to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution), the Report received; Bill read 3a.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, I should like to thank the House for allowing the Bill to proceed with such ease. I would thank the Government for their help, and also the Opposition and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who has
990
explained to me that he is unable to be here to-day but who spoke in the debate on Second Reading. I should also like to thank the many other noble Lords who offered their help, but who did not participate simply in order to avoid taking up time when there was no apparent opposition to this Bill. I am very grateful to them for their silent co-operation.
The effect of the Bill, if it gets to the Statute Book this Session, as I hope it will, will be to make it possible for the first time for V.D. not only to be openly discussed but to be the subject of open education. For the first time in 81 years—that is, since the 1889 Act—warnings, health and educational posters and leaflets will be relieved of the legal restrictions which to-day still hamper any anti-V.D. campaign or effort. The fact that the law has probably been broken many times, usually inadvertently, does not mean that it cannot be and has not been invoked on odd occasions by different people. A further effect of the Bill will be that newspapers will no longer be at risk if they publish such advertisements or reproduce some of the educational material as news copy. In the current Health Education Council campaign, only one newspaper, the Sunday Times, reproduced a poster, the Council being informed that many other newspapers considered that they would be legally at risk if they did so. The importance of this applies not only to newspapers but even more so to medical journals and health journals, where I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is most important that this material should be reproduced.
This is an uncontroversial measure. Indeed, the only criticism I have received from any noble Lord is that it does not go far enough, This, if I may say so, is probably true of almost any piece of legislation; but this Bill does a considerable amount and has a very great practical effect. It is, I am aware, a small dot in a large legislative field, but if it becomes law this Session, as I very much hope it will, the effect will be quite out of proportion to the Bill's modest contents. I hope that by the time that Parliament dissolves it will be on the Statute Book. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Birk.)
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my noble friend on the skill with which she has moved this small but very important Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Administration of Justice Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 85 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out "and"
Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert "and the Vice-Chancellor"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in then-Amendment No. 1 and, if no noble Lord objects, No. 2 also. I only wish that I could move that "this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 67". Unfortunately, that cannot be done because I have a responsibility, as anyone in charge of a Bill has, to explain to all Members of this House what the Amendments are which the other place have made; since any Member of this House is entitled to object to any of those Amendments. I suppose also that those who read the Report of the proceedings of this House are entitled, when a Bill comes back from the other place to this House, to see from what is said in this House what
992
Amendments have been made in the other place. I shall be as short as I can. Unfortunately it is my duty to explain each of these Amendments, and I shall not be surprised if by the end there is hardly anybody left in the Chamber.
The first six Amendments relate to the organisation of the Supreme Court, and the point of the first two Amendments is this. Your Lordships may remember that the heads of the Queen's Bench Division, the Court of Appeal, the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division have special titles. This has never applied to the Chancery Division, probably because the Lord Chancellor is, at least nominally, the President of that Division. We used to call him the "Senior Judge". I explained when the Bill was before the House the difficulties to which that gave rise and, accordingly, it was decided to resurrect the old and respectable title of "Vice-Chancellor" for the judge who controls the administration of that Division. In the other place, it was pointed out by the Opposition that an Order in Council can be made reducing or increasing the number of Divisions of the High Court and the distribution of puisne judges between them, provided that this was originally on a report or recommendation of the Council of Judges and now on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. It was pointed out that the Vice-Chancellor should be added, and the Government agreed. The rate at which such Orders in Council are made is at present running at one every 100 years; so it is not an enormously important point, but the Opposition were technically right in proposing this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 3, page 3, line 43, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. The effect of this Amendment is to remove from Clause 3,

993
the Commercial Court, the provisions that would have enabled Rules of Court to be made to allow the Commercial Court, in such circumstances as might be prescribed, to disregard the strict rules of evidence and to sit in private.
This was the only really contentious matter as it developed in the other place. Your Lordships' House accepted the provision without much argument. If I had been asked what I thought would happen in another place I should have said that some of the supporters of the Government who sit on the Back Benches, finding something which is being done to please the City and the interests of the Commercial Court Users' Conference might not agree, but that the Conservative Opposition would strongly support that for which there has been such a clamant demand for some years in all commercial centres in the City of London. But I am afraid that there was something of an Election atmosphere. And the Opposition, finding objection from some of the Government supporters, and finding that the Press, just as they had coined the phrase "grants for students' mistresses "were now talking about" secret courts", supported the Amendment.
The Amendment was defeated in Committee, but only by the casting vote of the Chairman; and when it came to the Report stage the Government were defeated by one vote. I think that this was the only time in this Session, if not in this Parliament, that this has happened on the Floor of the House. But one has to accept defeat on occasions in life, and the Government decided to do so; and accordingly I would advise my noble friends in this House to accept the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think at this stage of Parliament I shall get into terrible trouble with my colleagues, either in another place or in this House, if I say that I have never been able to see what was wrong with this provision. But never mind: the other place has spoken, as the noble and learned Lord has told us. I would not advise anybody to seek
994
to put back these words and to resist this Amendment. I think we had better leave the matter as the Commons left it on Report, particularly as the Government have accepted the situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Divisional Courts
". In paragraph (b) of the proviso to section 63(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (which requires the president of a division of the High Court, in constituting a divisional court, to obtain the concurrence of other judges of his division, but only two of them in the case of the Queen's Bench Division), the words" with the concurrence of the other judges of the Division or a majority thereof, or in the case of the King's Bench Division" shall be omitted."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. May I also speak to Amendment No. 62? The provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act provide that a Divisional Court shall be constituted of two Judges, and no more, with a proviso that they may sit more if, in effect, the head of the Division and other Judges agree. In the case, for example, of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, all the Judges have to agree; but in the case of the Queen's Bench Division it is sufficient if two other Judges agree. At the time of all this, about 1930, there were a large number of Queen's Bench Division Judges, some of whom would be on circuit, so that it was very reasonable that no more than two others beside the Chief Justice should have to agree. But at that time the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division consisted of the President and two Judges, whereas it now consists of the President and 17 Judges, some of whom, again, are usually on circuit. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the practice, so far as that Division is concerned, into line with that of the Queen's Bench Division.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Sittings of Central Criminal Court 1964 c. 42
". The Administration of Justice Act 1964 shall be deemed to have been enacted with the following paragraph in place of paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 (which Schedule relates to the constitution, jurisdiction, sittings, etc. of the Central Criminal Court:—
"14.—(1) The Court may sit in more than one division simultaneously.
(2) Any division of the Court may sit at any place in Greater London." ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the trial of Old Bailey cases anywhere in Greater London and not only in the City. The Administration of Justice Act 1964 provides that the Court may sit at any place in the City and may sit in more than one division simultaneously. The "City" is defined in Section 38(1) of the Act as the City of London. At the moment we are very short of courts at the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court, and that is one of the reasons why, unhappily, that Court is getting into arrears.
There are usually some empty courts in the Law Courts, in the Strand, but because of this provision we have not been able to start cases there. What we have had to do is to start them at the Old Bailey, and then everybody comes up to the Strand. There was a recent episode reported in the Press when the juries in two cases, as well as the judges, counsel and the solicitors concerned, all had to return to the Old Bailey from the Royal Courts of Justice because one of the jurors had been unable to serve. Therefore, I have been giving consideration to this matter and the only way to cure it is by this Amendment, the effect of which is that any such case can be tried wholly at the Law Courts in the Strand instead of having to be called on at the Central Criminal Court and then, if anything goes wrong in the middle of the trial, it being necessary for everybody to have to go all the way back again.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[The Lord Chancellor)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think this is a most important Amendment. I noted particularly that in a recent debate in another place, on the Beeching Report, the question of the under-use of spare courts in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand was raised. Some interesting statistics were then given by the right honourable and learned gentleman the Attorney-General which showed that there was a considerable number of days when there were empty courts available. I had no idea that there was this technical reason why they could not be used, or why it was difficult to use them. This idea of a "travelling circus" going backwards and forwards up Fleet Street is almost beyond belief. I am glad that the Government have found a way of curing it, and I welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Temporary additional judges of Patents and Registered Design Tribunals
".—(1) If it appears to the Lord Chancellor expedient, having regard to the state of business pending before the Patents Appeal Tribunal or the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal, he may appoint—

(a) a judge of the Court of Appeal; or

(b) a person who has held office as a judge of the Court of Appeal or of the High Court; or

(c) one of Her Majesty's counsel,

to sit and act as an additional judge of the Tribunal (either alone or with a judge of the High Court who is a judge of the Tribunal) for such period, or for the purpose of hearing such appeals, as the Lord Chancellor may specify.
(2) A person appointed to either Tribunal under this section shall, while sitting and acting as aforesaid, have all the jurisdiction of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a judge of the Tribunal.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may pay to a person appointed to either Tribunal under this section (other than a judge of the Court of Appeal) such remuneration as he may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service; and any such remuneration shall be included in the expenses of the Tribunal.
(4) In this section the Patents Appeal Tribunal" means the Appeal Tribunal constituted under section 85 of the Patents Act 1949 (as amended by section 24 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969); and "the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal" means the

997
Appeal Tribunal constituted under section 28 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (as so amended).
(5) In subsection (8) of the said section 85 and subsection (8) of the said section 28 (which confer power on the two Tribunals to make rules about procedure etc.), there shall in each case be inserted at the end of the subsection the words "including right of audience "."
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. May I also mention, and speak to, Amendment No. 63. The principal purpose of these Amendments is to allow the Lord Chancellor, when necessary, to appoint temporary additional Judges to the Patents Appeal Tribunal and the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal. Under Section 85 of the Patents Act 1949 as subsequently amended, appeals from the Comptroller-General of Patents lie with the Patents Appeal Tribunal which consists of one or more Judges of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor. The nominated Judges are, in fact, the two Patent Judges who are formally attached to the Chancery Division. Though they can sit together if they wish, the two Judges normally take appeals separately and alone.
The proceedings are not technically proceedings in the High Court because the Appeal Tribunal is a separate creature of Statute. The position is much the same under the Registered Designs Aot 1949. The work is, of course, of considerable importance in the industrial sphere. It is also highly specialised and can be done only by persons of high legal standing with experience and knowledge of patent law; or at least with a strong grounding in science, and such persons are rare. A considerable amount of work is coming into the lists of the Patents Appeal Tribunal and unless immediate steps are taken it is likely to be in serious difficulties; and in particular difficulties at the moment when the two Patent Judges have been fairly recently appointed and there are still some cases in which they have both been concerned when at the Bar. It is for these reasons that although this power will be exercised as sparingly as possible, it is one which I think is essential to the administration of justice. Amendment No. 63
998
is merely a consequential Amendment to Schedule No. 11.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it would be more appropriate if my noble friend Lord Cawley were to comment on this subject, because he is one of those people who are specialised and knowledgeable in this branch of the law. I have not had a chance to speak to him about it, but I am glad to take the word of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the situation is as described. I am sure that it is so, and in those circumstances additional Judges or Patent Appeal Commissioners or whatever it is that they are to be called, are plainly necessary. One just hopes that the power will not have to be used too often.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Clause 10, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
"or
(c) an order of any court which is enforceable as if it were for the payment of money so recoverable."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we now come to Part II, the abolition of imprisonment for debt and the creation of attachment of earnings orders. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This, first, is a minor drafting Amendment. The definition of "judgment debt" in this clause includes an order made in the magistrates' courts for the payment of money recoverable as a civil debt. It is not certain that an order of any court which is enforceable as if it were for the payment of money so recoverable would be covered by this definition. This Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No 8]
Clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
"(8) Where a county court makes an administration order in respect of a debtor's estate, it may ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. Under Clause 11(8), where an application is made for an administration order the courts may make an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment required by the administration order. Section 148 of the County Courts Act 1959 under which administration orders are at present made does not provide for such an order to be made only on application, although in practice it is usually made on the application of the debtor. Under the Bill the court will have power to make an administration order of its own motion where application is made for an attachment of earnings order in respect of a judgment debt. The Amendment to Clause 11(8) will therefore enable the court to make an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment required by an administration order, whether the administration order was made on application or by the court of its own motion.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, although this is not one of the most important Amendments on enforcement of debt, it is an instance of the greater interplay that has been put into the Bill between attachment of earnings orders and administration orders. There are some very important new clauses to which we shall come, but this Amendment provides a little more flexibility. I am extremely grateful to the Government for having given so much further thought to this matter. I believe that the Bill has been considerably improved since it left this House, and this is one small instance. I should like to comment on a few of the others later on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Clause 11, page 10, line 13, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
"(9) The power of a county court under subsection (8) above to make an attachment of earnings order to secure the payments required by an administration order shall, where the debtor is already subject to an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment of a judgment debt, include power to direct that the last-mentioned order shall take effect (with
1000
or without variation under section 15 of this Act) as an order to secure the payments required by the administration order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This new subsection deals with the case in which there is already an attachment of earnings order in force when an administration order is made. This may happen either where, on an application for an attachment order or administration order, it is found that an attachment order is already in force in respect of the same debtor; or where on an application for an attachment order the court has made an attachment order for the purpose of diverting the debtor's earnings pending the making of an administration order. In either case, if the court wished to attach the debtor's earnings to secure the payments under the administration order, it would be inconvenient, especially for the employer, if the existing attachment order had to be revoked and replaced by a new one. The new subsection accordingly enables the court to direct that the existing attachment order shall take effect with any necessary variation as an order to secure the payments required by the administration order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
Clause 12, page 10, line 43, leave out from "Act" to end of line 44.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid any possibility of confusion between Clause 12(2) and the definition of the employer in Clause 24(1). Clause 12(2) provides that for the purposes of the Bill the relationship of employer and employee shall be treated as subsisting between two persons where one of them as a principal pays earnings to the other, and references to employer and employment shall be construed accordingly where the context permits. Clause 24(1) defines the employer in relation to an attachment of earnings order

1001
as the person who is required by the order to make deductions from earnings paid by him to the debtor.
The question when a person is an employer arises mainly in Clause 12, although also at other points of the Bill, such as Clause 18. In those contexts it is necessary for the court to inquire whether the debtor in fact has an employer by whom he is paid earnings as defined by the Bill. To answer this question you look at Clause 12(2). In any case where it appears that there is such a person, then an attachment of earnings order can be made and directed to him. Similarly, such a person, if there is one, is subject to the obligation imposed by Clause 18(c). In those contexts the words "the employer" are purposely avoided; for example, line 30 and line 31 on page 10, and also Clause 12(b). These words are used only in contexts which assume the existence of an attachment order made and in force and capable of being complied with by the person to whom it is directed. Here they refer to a particular person, a person who is for the time being required to comply with the order. On a close examination, therefore, it is clear that there is no overlap between Clause 12(2) and the definition of the employer in Clause 24(1). Nevertheless, in order to avoid having what may appear at first sight to be two definitions of the same term, the draft Amendment deletes from Clause 12(2) the provision for references in the Bill to "employer" and "employment" to be construed in accordance with that subsection.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Clause 13, page 12, line 4, leave out "not less than"
4.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 11. This is a drafting Amendment. As it stands, Clause 13(2) provides that where a person is served with an attachment of earnings order and the debtor is not in his employment or subsequently leaves his employment he
1002
must give notice of that fact to the court within not less than ten days from the date of service. The words "not less than" are quite unnecessary, and the Amendment provides for them to be deleted.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 12, 13 and 14]
Clause 14 page 12, line 37, leave out from "debt" to "no" in line 42 and insert—

"(a) no order or warrant of commitment shall be issued in consequence of any proceedings for the enforcement of the debt begun before the making of the attachment of earnings order; and

(b) so long as the order is in force."

Clause 14 page12, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) An attachment of earnings order made to secure the payment of a judgment debt shall cease to have effect on the making of an order of commitment or the issue of a warrant of commitment for the enforcement of the debt."
Clause 14 page 13, line 4, at end insert—
"(4) Where an attachment of earnings order ceases to have effect under this section, the proper officer of the prescribed court shall give notice of the cessation to the person to whom the order was directed."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. The effect of these Amendments would be to bring subsection (2) of Clause 14 into line with subsection (1). I have a fairly lengthy explanation of this, but that is all it does. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has a copy of this. If there is any point that he thinks is omitted or that I ought to mention, I hope he will be good enough to say so. Subject to that, I have stated what the object is.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has missed anything of importance. The point is one of consummate subtlety. It derived from my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, who seem to have been

1003
most acute in their scrutiny of this part of the Bill. I am sure that somewhere in the proceedings of another place there is an explanation; I have certainly seen one, and I am quite content that the House should accept these three Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[15 and 16]
Clause 15, page 13, line 32, after "deducted" insert "at any time"
Clause 15, page 13, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) The lapse of an order under subsection (4) above shall not prevent its being treated as remaining in force for other purposes."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. Clause 15, subsection (4), provides that where an attachment of earnings order has been made and the person to whom it is directed ceases to have the debtor in his employment the order will lapse unless and until the court again directs it to a person, whether the same as before or another, who appears to have the debtor in has employment. It shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act, other than those in that subsection, as ceasing to be in force.
It was suggested, I think, by the Opposition in another place that as subsection (4) does not in terms refer to any purposes, it is difficult to know in what respects a lapsed order is to be treated by virtue of subsection (5) as being still in force. But there can be no real doubt about the purposes of subsection (4), which are obviously to provide for the order to cease to operate against the old employer, but to keep it alive so that it can be redirected to a new employer. The purely verbal point that no purposes are in fact mentioned in subsection (4) is met by the Amendment to replace subsection (5) by a new subsection providing that the lapse of an order under subsection (4) shall not prevent its being treated as remaining in force "for other purposes". In providing for the lapse of an attachment order on the cessor of the debtor's employment, subsection (4) prevents it operating as
1004
respects deduction from earnings paid after the cessor of payment to the collecting officer of the amount deducted.
The object of the Amendment to add the words "at any time" is to make it clear that the second part of the passage in the references is not limited by the first. Notwithstanding the lapse of the order, the former employer is to remain liable to pay to the collecting officer any amount deducted from the debtor's wages before as well as after the lapse. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 17]
Clause 15, page 13, line 39, leave out from "order" to end of line 44 and insert—

"(a) ceases to have effect under section 9(2) of the Act of 1958 (registration of related maintenance order, committal of debtor for arrears, etc.) or under section 14 of this Act; or

(b) is discharged under this section,

the person to whom the order has been directed shall not incur any liability in consequence of his treating the order as still in force at any time before the expiration of seven days from the date when the notice required by the said section 9(2) or section 14 or, as the case may be, a copy of the discharging order is served on him."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 17. Clause 15(6) is intended to protect an employer who is administering an attachment of earnings order from action for continuing to treat it as operative when in fact it has ceased to operate. The employer has to be informed by the court that the order has ceased to operate, and he is given seven days from receipt of this information to comply with it. As drafted, the subsection covers two situations: first, where the order has been varied, and secondly where it has been discharged by the court. It is, however, unnecessary for the subsection to cover the situation where the order has been varied, because this is already dealt with in subsection (2). On the other hand, it ought to cover the situation where an attachment order which has been made to secure payments under a maintenance

1005
order ceases to have effect because of one of the circumstances set out in Section 9(2) of the 1958 Act or the new subsection (3) in Clause 14: for example, where the related maintenance order has been registered for enforcement in another court or has been discharged.
This Amendment therefore substitutes the new subsection which provides that the employer must have been notified by the court that the attachment of earnings order has ceased to have effect, or have received a copy of the discharging order, and at least seven days must have elapsed since he received the notice or the discharging order before he becomes liable for treating as operative an order which has ceased to have effect or has been discharged. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 18 and 19]
Clause 16, page 14, line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3) below"
Clause 16, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
"(3) Where a county court makes an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment of a judgment debt and also, under section (Extension of county court's power to make administration order) (1) of this Act orders the debtor to furnish to the court a list of all his creditors, sums paid to the collecting officer in compliance with the attachment of earnings order shall not be dealt with by him as mentioned in subsection (1) above, but shall be retained by him pending the decision of the court whether or not to make an administration order and shall then be dealt with by him as the court may direct."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Clause 16(1) requires the collecting officer to whom the employer pays deductions made under an attachment of earnings order to deal with the money as if it has been paid by the debtor. This means that where the order has been made in respect of a judgment debt the collecting officer will pay the money over to the judgment creditor. Where, however, the attachment order has been made for the purpose of diverting the debtor's earnings pending the consideration
1006
of the question whether an administration order should be made, it would clearly be unfair to pay the money over to the creditor on whose application the attachment order was made. If the court ultimately decides to make an administration order, the money should be applied in payment of all the proved debts.
Clause 16(1) is therefore made subject to a new subsection (3), which provides that where the court makes an attachment order, and at the same time orders the debtor to furnish a list of all his creditors as a necessary preliminary to the making of an administration order under the clause, deductions paid to the collecting officer under the attachment order are to be retained by him pending the decision of the court whether or not to make an administration order, and to be dealt with as the court may direct.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is, to coin a phrase, a pre-consequential Amendment on the new clause down as Amendment No. 31. It is plainly a sensible arrangement. Indeed, the whole point of the new Clause 31 will be vitiated for the short time concerned while the list is being collected and the court is deciding whether or not to make an administration order; and there are questions of preference of one creditor over another to be taken into account. I am sure that this is the right thing to do and I welcome the Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 20 and 21]
Clause 18, page 15, line 41, leave out from "and" to "shall" in line 43 and insert "knows that the order is in force and by what court it was made "
Clause 18, page 15, line 45, leave out second" the "and insert" that".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. Paragraph (c) of Clause 18 provides that any person who becomes a debtor's

1007
employer and has knowledge of the existence of an attachment of earnings order against him shall within seven days of his becoming the debtor's employer or of acquiring that knowledge, whichever is the later, notify the court in writing that he is the debtor's employer, and include in his notification a statement of the debtor's earnings.
It is possible that the new employer might become aware of the attachment of earnings order without knowing which court made it. In those circumstances, he will not be able to fulfil the obligation imposed on him by the Bill. The first Amendment accordingly provides for the obligation to arise only where the new employer knows not only that the order is in force, but also by what court it was made. The second Amendment is consequential and requires the employer to notify that court. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—[The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 22]
Clause 19, page 16, line 26, after "not" insert "unless the court otherwise orders".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 22. Clause 19(3) provides that where the employer applies to the court for a determination whether payments of a particular kind constitute "earnings" for the purposes of an attachment of earnings order he shall not incur any liability for non-compliance with the order while the application or any appeal from the determination is pending. This provision does not apply if the employer subsequently withdraws the application or abandons the appeal. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the court to waive this restriction. The employer's application or appeal may have been perfectly bona fide when it was made or entered, but may subsequently be abandoned because there is no longer any doubt whether the payments in question constitute earnings. In such a case the court ought to be able to absolve the employer from liability for not having
1008
made the deductions required by the order while the application or appeal was pending. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I suppose the kind of case in which this would arise is where the meaning of the Bill is being tested, and a test case is being fought which, having been resolved, all the other cases fall perfectly plainly to be decided one way or the other. There are no doubt other examples and new law to be made in the course of the decisions by the courts under the definitions in the Bill. If so, I would certainly agree that the employer ought not to be penalised if he has, as it turns out, made the wrong decision in accordance with what the court finally decides.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 23]
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
Consolidated orders
".—(1) The powers of a county court under sections 10 and 11 of this Act shall include power to make an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment of any number of judgment debts; and the powers of a magistrates' court under those sections shall include power to make an attachment of earnings order to secure the discharge of any number of such liabilities as are specified in section 10(4).
(2) An attachment of earnings order made by virtue of this section shall be known as a consolidated attachment order.
(3) The power to make a consolidated attachment order shall be exercised subiect to and in accordance with rules of court; and rules made for the purposes of this section may provide—

(a)for the transfer from one court to another—

(i) of an attachment of earnings order, or any proceedings for or arising out of such an order; and

(ii) of functions relating to the enforcement of any liability capable of being secured by attachment of earnings;

(b) for enabling a court to which any order, proceedings or functions have been transferred under the rules to vary or discharge an attachment of earnings order made by another court and to replace it (if the court thinks fit) with a consolidated attachment order;

(c) for the cases in which any power exercisable under this section or the rules

1009
may be exercised by a court of its own motion or on the application of a prescribed person;

(d) for requiring the clerk or registrar of a court who receives payments made to him in compliance with an attachment of earnings order, instead of complying with section 16 of this Act, to deal with them as directed by the court or the rules; and

(e) for modifying or excluding provisions of this Part of this Act, section 9 or 20 of the Act of 1958 or Part III of the Act of 1952, but only so far as may be necessary or expedient for securing conformity with the operation of rules made by virtue of paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection.

(4) Subsection (3) above is without prejudice to any other power to make rules."
4.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. This, I am afraid, is rather a long new clause. It will enable a single attachment of earnings order to be made to secure payment of two or more judgment debts or other liabilities of the same debtor. Under the Bill as it stands, an attachment order can be made only to secure payment of one debt or liability. If two or more attachment orders are made in respect of separate debts and liabilities, the employer is required to deal with them in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule 5. This means that an attachment order made to secure the payment of maintenance, or one of the other liabilities in respect of which a magistrate's court may make such an order will fall to be dealt with before any other attachment order.
As between attachment orders in each of these classes, an earlier order would be dealt with before a later one. Although it is not likely that several attachment orders would be made against the same debtor, since the first, particularly if it was for maintenance, might well exhaust most of the debtor's free pay, it would obviously be inconvenient to the employer if he had to comply with two or more orders and accord them due priority. Moreover, as between creditors of the same class the principle of "first come, first served," while applying to existing methods of enforcement, is scarcely compatible with the integrated system envisaged by the Payne Committee.
In the county court these disadvantages can be avoided by making an administration order, either under the
1010
court's present powers or under the powers conferred by the new clause, together with an attachment of earnings order to secure the payments due under the administration order. This may, however, be an unnecessarily cumbersome expedient where the debtor has only two or three judgments against him. Furthermore, since an administration order covers all the debtor's liabilities, and not merely judgment debts, it may stimulate into activity creditors who would not otherwise press for payment of their debts. In the magistrates' courts there is no procedure comparable to an administration order whereby all liabilities of a debtor can be dealt with simultaneously.
On Third Reading in this House the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, urged that there should be some means of consolidating attachment orders made to secure the payment of fines of similar liabilities so that an employer would not be faced with the task of dealing with several orders made by different courts in respect of the same man. The Confederation of British Industry made the same point in representations to me. In reply to the noble Viscount, I said that there were practical difficulties in the way of consolidating two or more attachment orders in respect of fines: for example, the enforcement of the fines might be in the hands of different magistrates' courts. I said, however, that the matter was under consideration, and it is now thought possible to provide for the consolidation of attachment orders if the procedural details are left to be worked out by Rules of Court.
I need not deal in great detail with the various subsections of the new clause, particularly as the noble Viscount is familiar with them. I have stated their effect and am glad to know that at last we have been able to meet this point which has been raised here and to provide for consolidation orders.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is probably the most important of the new clauses. Amendment No. 31 is important, but this Amendment will make the matter very much easier in every way. I have never disguised from the House that I disliked

1011
Part II of what is now Schedule 5, which provided for this complicated system of priority of orders. I fully understand that there still has to be a difference between magistrates' court orders and county court orders. I was disappointed when the Bill had to leave the House without there being any really satisfactory method of consolidating orders in either of those courts. There were only the administration orders that we considered, and we had not made very much progress. Now there is a very much better method of doing it.
I am glad that the magistrates' courts department of this new clause is to be dealt with by rules. I may as well say now that at some stage somebody is going to have to write a little book on the new method of enforcement of debts provided under this Part of the Bill. There will be all sorts of new subsidiary orders rules, both in the county courts and in the magistrates' courts. It is no secret that we hope to have before long consolidation of magistrates' court legislation Statutes. That will no doubt be followed by new rules to supersede the ones which came in at the beginning of this year, because the references will all be wrong. There will be an opportunity then to include the rules envisaged by this new clause in the consolidated new rules.
One way and another, the other place, with the assistance no doubt of the noble and learned Lord's Department, and the right honourable gentleman the Attorney General, and his Office, have succeeded in tidying up this Bill in a big way. I never placed this as exclusively a matter for the convenience of employers, as the noble and learned Lord will remember. I always thought that the system was inherently unsatisfactory as we left it, and I welcome this new clause; I think it is a great improvement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said; and I am glad that we have been able to meet his wishes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 24]
Clause 20, page 17, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) This Part of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any enactment passed before
1012
this Act and preventing or avoiding the attachment or diversion of sums due to a person in respect of service under the Crown, whether by way of remuneration, pension or otherwise."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the provisions of Part II of the Bill override any statutory prohibition against attaching the earnings of particular classes of Crown servants. At present, Clause 20(5) deals only with Section 203(2) of the Army Act 1955 and the corresponding section of the Air Force Act, and it provides that these sections which avoid any assignment of or charge on a Serviceman's pension, among other things, shall not apply to the making or variation of an attachment of earnings order. Recently it has been discovered that Section 2(2) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 contains a similar prohibition against the assignment or charging of the remuneration of an officer of Customs and Excise "save as expressly provided by or under any enactment".
It is doubtful whether any provision in the Bill can be regarded as expressly overriding this prohibition. There may also be other statutory provisions not yet brought to light which contain similar exemptions for the pay of certain classes of Crown servants. In order to ensure that they are all overridden by Part II of the Bill, the Amendment substitutes for Clause 20(5) a new subsection providing that Part II shall have effect notwithstanding any earlier enactment preventing or avoiding the attachment or diversion of sums due to a person in respect of service under the Crown.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, all I would say in regard to this Amendment is that it speaks volumes for the efficiency of the cross-referencing system of the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office. I am sorry there should have been an admission that there may be other references which have been missed. It seems to me, however, that there has been great vigilance in spotting this one; and of course this Amendment must be a necessary result of the discovery of this provision in the Customs and Excise Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 25 and 26]
Clause 21, page 18, line 19, after "or" insert" in the case of an offence specified in subsection (3A) below
Clause 21, page 18, line 22, at end insert—
"(3A) The offences referred to above in the case of which a judge may impose imprisonment are—

(a) an offence under subsection (2)(c) or (d), if committed by the debtor;

(b) an offence under subsection (2)(e) or (f), whether committed by the debtor or any other person."

4.51 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Clause 21(3) provides that where a person commits an offence under subsection (2) in relation to proceedings in the High Court or a county court he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25, or he may be ordered by the High Court or the county court judge to pay a fine not exceeding £25 or to be imprisoned for not more than 14 days. The effect of the Amendments is generally to confine the sanction of imprisonment to offences by the debtor, but it would also enable an employer to be imprisoned for offences involving recklessness or dishonesty. I can go into the details if any noble Lord would like to hear them. There was a good deal of discussion about the employers' position below, and the eventual agreement was that prison should apply only if there were offences involving recklessness or dishonesty, and not mere carelessness or negligence. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry to prolong these proceedings by commenting on so many of these points, but this is another of some importance. It was a question of getting the balance right, particularly on the employer's side, where I think as the matter was originally suggested he was going to be open to a prison sentence for a rather wide and unfortunate range of offences. Now the prison penalty has been restricted, as the noble and learned
1014
Lord said, and I should consider the clause to be quite unobjectionable. I imagine that prison for offences of this kind is going to be an extremely rare sentence in any event, very much a last resort; and if an employer has been reckless or dishonest I should think that usually a substantial fine would be sufficient. But I agree that the prison sanction should perhaps be there for the very rare case where it is necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 27 and 28]
Clause 22, page 19, line 42, leave out "or apprentice"
Clause 22, page 19, line 43, leave out "or apprentice".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Clause 22(2)(e) of the Bill provides that
"wages payable to a person as a seaman or apprentice, other than wages payable to him as a seaman or apprentice of a fishing boat",
shall not be treated as earnings, and in consequence are not subject to attachment under the Bill. Although there are numerous schemes for Merchant Navy training there is now no specific apprenticeship scheme, and apprenticeship in the Merchant Navy is largely obsolescent, if not almost completely obsolete. This situation is recognised by provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill now before Parliament which, among other things, seeks to remove the words "or apprentice" from the definition of "excepted sums" in Section 21(1)(e) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958. This provision corresponds to Clause 22(2)(e) and it will be wholly repealed by the Administration of Justice Bill in the event of this Bill's being enacted before the Merchant Shipping Bill receives the Royal Assent. In these circumstances, no useful purpose is served by retaining the references to apprentices in Clause 22(2)(e) and this Amendment merely removes them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:My Lords, is the Merchant Shipping Bill going to receive the Royal Assent?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand there is a reasonable prospect of its doing so, and I see my noble friend Lord Beswick expressing his assent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 29 and 30]
Clause 23, page 20, line 10, leave out from beginning to "shall"
Clause 23, page 20, line 16, at end insert—
"(3) In section 1 of the Act of 1958 (introductory provisions setting out the scheme of Part I as respects registration in one court of a maintenance order made by another), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(1A) In the following provisions of this Act "maintenance order" means any order specified in Schedule 8 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970'".
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I believe that in error they are listed in the printed document as under Clause 22, when it should be Clause 23. These Amendments are related to the intention to introduce a Bill to consolidate all provisions relating to attachment of earnings. Section 21(1) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 contains the definition of "maintenance order". I could then give your Lordships, and will give your Lordships, the reasons, if required, why these particular Amendments are necessary, or at least desirable, as they help towards the Bill to consolidate all provisions relating to attachment of earnings. Otherwise, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope the House will not ask the noble and learned Lord to read out the explanation. It seems to me to be technical, and highly desirable, as is anything which goes towards consolidation. Perhaps I should have said before that it was on the consolidation measure that we should write a book, and not on this Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 31]
Leave out Clause 25 and insert the following new clause:
Extention of county court's power to make administration order
'.—(1) Where, on application to a county court for an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment of a judgment debt, it appears to the court that the debtor also has other debts, the court—

(a) shall consider whether the case may be one in which all the debtor's liabilities should be dealt with together and that for that purpose an order should be made for the administration of his estate; and

(b) if of opinion that it may be such a case, shall have power (whether or not it makes the attachment of earnings order applied for), with a view to making an administration order, to order the debtor to furnish to the court a list of all his creditors and the amounts which he owes to them respectively.

(2) If, on receipt of the list referred to in subsection (1)(b) above, it appears to the court that the debtor's whole indebtedness amounts to not more than the amount for the time being specified in section 148(1)(b) of the County Courts Act 1959 (limit of total indebtedness governing county court's power to make administration order on application of debtor), the court may make such an order in respect of the debtor's estate, subject however to section 20(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 (which requires that, before such an order is made, notice is to be given to all the creditors and thereafter restricts the right of any creditor to institute bankruptcy proceedings).
(3) Where under subsection (1) above a county court orders a person to furnish to it a list of all his creditors, the making of the order shall, for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1914, be an act of bankruptcy by him.
(4) Nothing in this section is to be taken as prejudicing any right of a debtor to apply, under section 148 of the County Courts Act 1959, for an administration order.
(5) In Part VII of the said Act 1959 (administration orders)—

(a) in section 153 (appropriation of money paid under administration order), paragraph (a) (which requires appropriation first in satisfaction of the plaintiff's costs) shall be omitted and, for the word "next" there shall be substituted the word" first"; and

(b) in section 156(1) (power of Lord Chancellor to make rules about administration orders), after the words "the objects of this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "and section (Extension of county court's power to make administration order) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".'

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, here I shall welcome assistance from the noble Viscount because this is a

1017
long new clause, which replaces Clauses 11(9) and 25. It enables the county court to make an administration order on an application for an attachment of earnings order, and lays down the procedure to be followed in such a case. The main principle was already there, but this has been improved administratively in a good many ways. While I shall be happy to deal with any particular points which the noble Viscount, or any other noble Lord, may have in mind, it would save a good deal of time if the House is satisfied that that is the object and is prepared to accept it as such. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, again I think the noble and learned Lord is quite right. Most of this is technical. It, incidentally, causes the death of my one Parliamentary child in this Bill, because it replaces an Amendment I got into one of the earlier clauses. But I am not sorry; I do not think it was a very sturdy infant. The principle, if I may change the metaphor, has been reproduced here and the whole matter has obviously been thought through again, certainly in my mind, with the result that it has been improved. I think that there are again matters here which go towards consolidation, or at any rate would help in that direction, and I certainly welcome the new clause. It is an important one, but not one on which we ought to insist on further explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 32 and 33]
Clause 29, page 24, line 9, leave out "sections 27 and 28 "and insert" this Part".
Leave out Clause 31 and insert the following new clause:
Application to Crown
".—(1) This Part of this Act shall bind the Crown.
(2) Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (power of court to order inspection, custody, etc. of property pending commencement of action) shall bind the Crown so far as it relates to property (within the meaning of that section) as to which it appears to the court that it may become the subject-matter of subsequent proceedings involving a claim in respect of personal injuries to a person or in respect of a person's death.
(3) A court shall not make an order under section 27 or 28 of this Act, nor an order under section 21 of the said Act of 1969, if it considers that compliance with the order, if made, would be likely to be injurious to the public interest.
(4) In this section references to the Crown do not include references to Her Majesty in Her private capacity nor to Her Majesty in right of Her Duchy of Lancaster, nor to the Duke of Cornwall.".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. We now come to Parts III and IV of the Bill, which relate to discovery and to mortgage possession actions. These two Government Amendments I think would be conveniently taken together. The new clause is intended to replace Clause 31, and the Amendment in Clause 29—page 24, line 9—is consequential. Clause 28(2) enables the High Court in an action for damages for personal injuries to make an order for the inspection, photographing, preservation, et cetera, of property which does not belong to a party to the proceedings but which is the subject matter of the proceedings or as to which any question arises in the proceedings. By virtue of Clause 31 this provision binds the Crown, except the Queen in her personal capacity, although the court is precluded from making an order if the court considers that it would be injurious to the public interest.
Clause 28(2) gives effect to a recommendation in paragraph 367 of the Report of the Winn Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation, and is complementary to Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, which enables the High Court, before the commencement of proceedings, to make an order for the inspection, photographing, preservation, et cetera, of property which is likely to become the subject matter of the proceedings or as to which any question may arise in the proceedings. Section 21 is not confined to prospective proceedings for personal injuries. On the other hand, it does not bind the Crown. A confusing and anomalous situation will therefore arise when Clause 28 comes into operation. Both Section 21 and Clause 28(2) will have to be supported by rules of court prescribing the circumstances in which an order may

1019
be made, and it is obviously desirable that there should be a single rule or set of rules providing for the inspection, and so on, of property before the commencement of proceedings and against a third party during the course of proceedings.
As matters stand, however, that could not be done without introducing qualifications which might easily be overlooked. The new clause accordingly provides for Section 21 of the Act of 1969 to bind the Crown in relation to claims for personal injuries to the same extent as Clause 28(2) and the other provisions of Part III of the Bill; that is to say, in prospective or pending proceedings for personal injuries the court will be able to make orders in respect of property belonging to the Crown, other than to the Queen in her personal capacity, unless the court considers that compliance with the order would be injurious to the public interest. The substitution of "This Part" for "Sections 31 and 32" in Clause 29(3) is a consequential Amendment to enable the definition of "personal injuries" to apply to the new clause. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, probably the only comment necessary is to welcome the inclusion of the Crown, not only under this Bill but under the earlier Act as well. I always tend to approve of this type of extension of the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with cases in which the Crown is involved. There is here a perfectly proper proviso which prevents a case from being so dealt with where the public interest is involved. But it is an important matter of principle, and I am glad that the Government have reversed their previous policy, both under this Bill and under last year's Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 34–37]
Clause 32, page 24, line 42, leave out from "court" to "to" in line 43 and insert "that in the event of its exercising the power the mortgagor is likely to be able within a reasonable period."
Clause 32, page 25, line 6, leave out "in the action "
Clause 32, page 25, line 13, leave out from "thinks" to end of line 14 and insert "reasonable".
Clause 32, page 25, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) The Court may from time to time vary or revoke any condition imposed by virtue of this section.
( ) This section shall have effect in relation to such an action as is referred to in subsection (1) above begun before the date on which this section comes into force unless in that action judgment has been given, or an order made, for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property and that judgment or order was executed before that date.
( ) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, "the court" means a judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland, and in subsection (1) the words from ''not being" to "made" shall be omitted.
5.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37. Clause 32 as it stands enables the court to adjourn the proceedings in a mortgage possession action, or stay or suspend execution of the judgment, et cetera, if it appears to the court to be proper to do so for the purpose of giving the mortgagor an opportunity to pay any sums due under the mortgage or to remedy a default under it. Although it was considered that in exercising this power the court would normally impose, under subsection (3), a condition requiring the mortgagor to keep up current payments of interest or instalments of capital repayment plus interest, the Building Societies Association represented to me that a more precise indication should be given in the Bill of the circumstances in which the court should exercise its powers. The first of the Amendments to Clause 32 accordingly provides that the power to adjourn the proceedings or stay execution, et cetera, shall be exercisable if it appears to the court that if these powers are exercised the mortgagor will be likely, within a reasonable period, to be able to pay the sums due under the mortgage. By reason of the deletion from subsection (1) of the reference to "the purpose of giving the mortgagor an opportunity ", it is necessary as a consequential Amendment to delete the reference to this purpose at the end of subsection (2). This consequential Amendment is effected by Amendment No. 36.

1021
Amendment No. 35 seeks to delete the words "in the action". This is a drafting Amendment; it is considered that the words "in the action" are unnecessary and may lead to misunderstanding. Amendment No. 37 seeks to add two new subsections to Clause 32. The new subsection (4) will give the court power to vary or revoke any condition imposed in connection with the adjournment, et cetera, of a mortgage possession action. This power is desirable to deal with possible changes in the circumstances of the mortgagor. The proposed new subsection (5) will enable the court to exercise the powers conferred upon it by subsection (2) in relation to proceedings pending when Part IV of the Bill comes into operation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the House will approve these Amendments. They consist of three new subsections. One deals with Northern Ireland, which appears under Amendment No. 37. I should not like to say at the moment exactly what it means, but on the other hand I have no doubt that it is correct drafting for Northern Ireland, and as these things always have to be most carefully cleared up and considered I do not suppose there is anything in it at all. I welcome these Amendments, particularly if they are the result of representations by the building societies who will usually be the people involved in this Part of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 38]
Clause 33, page 25, line 21, leave out from "and" to "then" in line 22, and insert "no part of the land is situated in Greater London or the county palatine of Lancaster."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. Clause 33 provides that proceedings for the possession of a mortgaged dwellinghouse situated outside Greater London shall be brought only in the county court if the value of the property is within the ordinary county court jurisdiction prescribed by Section 48 of the County Courts Act 1959. In relation to such property in Greater London there
1022
will be concurrent jurisdiction in the county court and the High Court. The distinction between Greater London and other places seems to be justified because of conditions in Greater London. The circumstances which lead to special treatment being given to property in Greater London are similar to those obtaining in Lancashire and particularly the southern part of the county, especially Liverpool and Manchester. It is considered that the convenience of litigants will be served by placing Lancashire on the same footing as Greater London in this respect.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Regional government for the law, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 39.]
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors
"—(1) A person commits an offence if with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he—

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

(c) falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
(3) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due,

1023
to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. Some of your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and some other noble Lords expressed great disappointment that we had not dealt in the Bill with one of the recommendations of the Payne Committee; namely, that there should be legislation against unfair harassment of debtors. I encouraged my noble friend, while at the same time saying that it was a difficult field and I was unable to introduce any such clause in your Lordships' House. But a good deal of consideration has been given to the matter and this new clause has now emerged, rather on the post, in the other House.
Your Lordships may remember that the Payne Committee gave certain examples of harassment, which included the "blue frightener" and the "red frightener", being printed notices announcing an intention to institute proceedings or demand payment and intended to be mistaken for a county court summons or otherwise calculated to alarm the debtor. Secondly, they referred to frequent calls at the home of the debtor, leaving threatening cards, or calling accompanied by an Alsatian dog. A third example was of persons informing neighbours, or local shopkeepers trading with the debtor, of his indebtedness, under the guise of seeking information, or by sending obvious demand notes wrongly addressed to those persons instead of to the debtor; and fourthly, threatening to paint a motor car possessed by the debtor with the statement that it is the property of the creditor, or threatening to paint the debtor's premises.
The Committee were satisfied that some creditors will go to any lengths to harass or intimidate debtors in order to collect debts, and they thought the conclusion
1024
inescapable that some practices are employed with the object of instilling fear and panic in debtors, causing them anguish and driving them to desperation in trying to pay off their debts.
At the same time, my Lords, one has to remember that the debtor owes the money. The person who is making the claim is claiming something to which he is entitled, and I think it was both natural and right that there was a full argument in the other place as to whether the new clause really covered the debt which ought to be covered and dealt with it in a practical way. I think it does, and I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, is not in his place, but I have no doubt that he will be very glad to see this new clause here. There are two questions that I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord, one of which he can perhaps answer to-day. The other I shall be content to be told about at any time. First of all, I think I am right in saying that this offence covers not only cases where there is a debt but cases where the person who is doing the harassment claims that there is a debt; in other words, it may cover cases where there is not in fact a debt at all, and it could possibly impinge upon the area of the Inertia Selling Bill, which I understand we are not proceeding with, because the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, did not proceed with the Second Reading yesterday. This is a point of some importance, particularly if the Inertia Selling Bill is not going through.
The other point, which is not intended as a criticism of this Government, is that since the noble and learned Lord has been upon the Woolsack (and it has not only been his doing, but that of his colleagues as well) we have had a number of new offences created relating to harassment. There is the one for the tenants, originally under the Prevention of Eviction Act, and now under the Rent Act. There is one for caravan dwellers, which may cause extreme difficulty in perfectly proper cases of caravans on sites run by local authorities. Now we have

1025
this, and had it not been for the impending Dissolution of Parliament we should have had the Inertia Selling Bill. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could ask somebody to find out if this range of offences has been causing difficulty in the magistrates' courts.
The definitions have never been very solid. I remember myself doing an appeal to quarter sessions under the original Prevention of Eviction Act, and it was very difficult to know what was meant to be included under the definition of "harassment", which was inevitably wide because of the nature of the offence. We have had since further indications, of which this is the last, that this is an area of the criminal law which is spreading; and as these cases are never reported anywhere—certainly not magistrates' courts cases, so far as I know—it would be of interest, at any rate to me, if it is not too much trouble, to know whether there have been difficulties over definition; whether magistrates' courts have found trouble in interpreting these sections and whether anything needs to be done about it. I leave it there not for answer to-day, but if the noble and learned Lord has time before more pressing events come upon him I should like an answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the first point, the clause does cover the case where there is not a debt. On the second point, I will have inquiries made and will write to the noble Viscount. The Inertia Selling Bill, I take it, is not being proceeded with because it had not started at all in your Lordships' House. The Committee in the other place on that Bill tried its hand at a harassment clause but found it very difficult, and eventually we said, "If we are to have one in this Bill why not leave it to us?" So they did so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 40]
Clause 36, page 27, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) References in subsections (1) and (2) above to orders mentioned in Schedule 9 to this Act include references to orders made before the day appointed under section 47 of this Act for the coming into force of this section, except an order in the case of which the person entitled to payment has before that day begun proceedings for the enforcement; and in relation to such a case the enactments
1026
in force immediately before that day with reference to the enforcement of such an order shall continue to apply notwithstanding any repeal effected by this Act, without prejudice however to section 10(6) of this Act.
For the purpose of the operation of subsection (1) above with respect to an order made (otherwise than by a magistrates' court) before the day so appointed, the order shall be deemed to specify the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which the person subject to the order for the time being resides."
5.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, lastly we come to Parts V and VI, Miscellaneous and General. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40. This Amendment is a transitional provision. Clause 36 provides a procedure for the enforcement of orders for costs, compensation and so on, made in criminal proceedings and in certain appeals to quarter sessions in proceedings which are not criminal—for example, licensing appeals. Obviously, when the Act comes into force there will be proceedings which are in different stages, and this is an Amendment simply to deal with the transitional stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 41]
Clause 36, page 27, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) In any of the cases specified in Part I of Schedule 9 to this Act, a court (other than a magistrates' court) which makes such an order as is there mentioned may, if it thinks that the period for which the person subject to the order is liable apart from this subsection to be committed to prison for default under the order is insufficient, specify a longer period for that purpose, but not exceeding twelve months; and then, in the case of default—

(a) the specified period shall be substituted as the maximum for which the person may be imprisoned under section 64 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (distress or committal); and

(b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to that Act shall apply, with the necessary modifications, for the reduction of the specified period where, at the time of the person's imprisonment, he has made part payment under the order.

( ) Where a magistrates' court has power to commit a person to prison for default in paying a sum due under an order enforceable as mentioned in this section, the court shall not exercise the power unless it is specified

1027
that all other methods of enforcing payment have been tried or considered and either have proved unsuccessful are are likely to do so."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. This Amendment deals with the committal to prison of persons convicted of criminal offences who fail to pay costs or compensation awarded against them. The new subsection (7) of Clause 36 enables courts other than a magistrates' court—that is, quarter sessions, assizes, and so on—which make an order for the payment of costs or compensation to fix periods of imprisonment in default of payment longer than the period for which the defaulter could be committed to prison by the magistrates' court which is responsible for enforcing payment of the costs or compensation, but not exceeding twelve months. The new subsection (7) would permit the Central Criminal Court to fix a term of imprisonment in default of up to twelve months, which is the same as the maximum term which, under Section 14(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, a court of assize or quarter sessions may fix in default of payment of a fine.
The new subsection also applies to these terms of imprisonment fixed by courts other than magistrates' courts the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, under which the period of imprisonment is proportionately reduced when a part payment of the debt is made. The new subsection (8) prevents the magistrates' court from committing to prison a person who has failed to pay costs or compensation unless it is satisfied that all other methods of enforcement—for example, attachment of earnings—have proved unsuccessful or are likely to do so. This provision is on similar lines to Section 44(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which deals with committal in default of payment of fines. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this again is a matter that should just be mentioned, because, as I understand it, the Bill will now allow magistrates, really acting in this case as agents for a higher court, to send people to prison for more than the normal
1028
six months' maximum. They will be able to enforce a term for up to twelve months, and it is slightly remarkable, in that it is very rare for them to be allowed to send anybody to prison for twelve months. But the reason is perfectly clear, and I welcome the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 42]
Clause 38, page 29, line 29, at end insert:
"( ) Nothing in this section applies to a legal aid contribution order made before the day appointed under section 47 of this Act for the coming into force of this section; and in relation to such an order the enactments in force immediately before that day and relating to the enforcement of such an order shall continue to apply notwithstanding any repeal effected by this Act, without prejudice however to section 10(6) of this Act."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. This Amendment is a transitional provision relating to cases where a legal aid contribution order is made, but not enforced, before the day appointed for Clause 38 to come into force. Such orders will continue to be enforced under the present law under Section 79 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 43]
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
Variation in rate of payments in maintenance order registered in magistrates' court
".—(1) Section 4 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (which enables the rate of payments in a maintenance order registered in a magistrates' court under that Act to be varied by the court of registration) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) Subsection (3) of that section (rate of payments not to be varied upwards) shall cease to have effect in relation to any maintenance order as defined by section 24(1) of this Act, whether made or registered before or after the coming into force of this section.
(3) In subsection (4) of that section (power of magistrates' court, on application for variation, to remit to the court which made the

1029
order), for the words "that, by reason of the limitations imposed on the court's jurisdiction by the last foregoing subsection or for any other reason, it is" there shall be substituted the words "that it is for any reason"."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43, and I would also speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 67. Part I of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958, among other things enables a maintenance order made by the High Court or a county court to be registered in a magistrates' court for enforcement. At present, a magistrates' court has only limited power to vary the rate of payments under a registered order. These Amendments are intended to remove the restriction on the magistrates' powers by allowing upward variation of the rate of payments. Amendments 64 to 67 are consequent Amendments to Schedule 11. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 44]
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
Proof of age before magistrates
"Section 126(5) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (which relates to proof of age) shall have effect as if the provisions of that Act included—

(a) section 1 of the First Offenders Act 1958; and

(b) section 18, section 24(1) and (2) and section 73 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. The purpose of this new clause is to assist in a consolidation of the law relating to magistrates' courts which is being considered at the moment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 45]
Clause 46, page 32, line 43, after "20" insert "or 33"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. Under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, all matters relating to the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland are, subject to certain exceptions, outside the powers of the Parliament at Stormont. If the Northern Ireland Parliament were to attempt to enact legislation similar to Clause 33 the legislation might, without this Amendment, be ultra vires. This would be because, in conferring an exclusive jurisdiction on the county court, the measure would be depriving the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction and consequently be a law in respect of a matter relating to the Supreme Court in contravention of the 1920 Act. The Amendment will make it clear that legislation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which confers on the county courts in Northern Ireland jurisdiction similar to that envisaged in Clause 33, cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there you are. As I said, Northern Ireland is very difficult.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 46.]
Clause 47, page 33, line 23, after "sections" insert "32, 35".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which extended Clause 32 to the High Court in Northern Ireland. Its object is to ensure that Clause 32, as adapted by the earlier Amendment, and Clause 35, which defines terms referred to in Clause 32, form part of the Statute Law of Northern Ireland by extending it there.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 47]
Schedule 2, page 38, leave out line 27.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. This is a drafting Amendment to correct a minor slip.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 48]
Schedule 2, page 39, line 40, at end insert—
"THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1959 (c. 22)
In section 42 of the County Courts Act 1959 (jurisdiction by agreement in certain actions) for the words "Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division" substitute the words "Family Division or have involved the exercise of the High Court's Admiralty jurisdiction".
At the end of section 54(2) of the said Act of 1959 (transfer of equity proceedings from High Court to county court) insert the words "other than a matter in relation to which section 63 of this Act applies".
In section 62(1) of the said Act of 1959 (probate jurisdiction) and section 63 thereof (transfer of probate proceedings from High Court to county court) for the words "principal probate registry", in each place where they occur, substitute the words "principal registry of the Family Division".
In section 64 of the said Act 1959 (effect of order of judge in probate proceedings), in paragraph (a), after the word "principal" insert the words "registry of the Family Division" and, in paragraph (b), for the words "principal probate registry" substitute the words "principal registry of the Family Division"."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. This Amendment is designed to cure a minor omission in Schedule 2, which makes the necessary Amendments to the various Acts affected by the provisions of Clause 1 for the re-organisation of the Divisions of the High Court. The omission lies in the failure to include certain provisions of the
1032
County Courts Act 1959 which also need minor consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 49]
Schedule 4, page 42, line 40, leave out from first "section" to end of line 41 and insert" 65, 66 or 68 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. In accordance with Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, imprisonment for debt will continue to be available as at present in respect of the taxes, social security contributions and other liabilities specified in Schedule 4. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 relates to taxes recoverable under Sections 78 or 79 of the Income Tax Act 1952 or Section 8 of the Income Tax Management Act 1964. The provisions of the Acts referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 have now been replaced by Sections 65, 66 and 68 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, a consolidation Act which came into force on April 6 of this year. This Amendment seeks to alter the Administration of Justice Bill to take account of these changes. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 50]
Schedule 5, page 43, line 21, leave out from "the" to end of line 27, and insert—
"the following enactments—
the National Insurance Act 1965,
the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, or
the National Health Service Contributions Act 1965.
(c) amounts deductible under any enactment, or in pursuance of a request in writing by the debtor, for the purposes of a superannuation scheme within the meaning of the Wages Councils Act 1959."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. The object of this

1033
Amendment is to correct two defects in paragraph 3 of Schedule 5, which defines the "attachable earnings" for the purposes of an attachment of earnings order in the ways there set out. Sub-paragraph (b) is defective because the enactments specified in Schedule 6 (which deal with social security contributions and allowances) do not include the National Health Service Contributions Act 1965. Subparagraph (c) is defective because the reference to amounts deductible under any enactment other than the Bill should be confined to amounts deductible for the purposes of a superannuation scheme within the meaning of the Wages Councils Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 51]
Schedule 7, page 45, line 29, leave out from "In" to "of" and insert "section 9(4) and (5)"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. May I also refer to Amendment No. 57. These are purely drafting Amendments. I will answer any questions on them, but they are minor Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 52–55]
Schedule 7, page 45, line 31, after "Act," insert—
"(a)"
Schedule 7, page 45, line 35, at end insert—
"(b) for the words from "which made that order" to the end of paragraph (ii) substitute "shall make the appropriate variation order, unless the debtor requests it to discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request"."
Schedule 7, page 45, line 36, after "Act," insert—
"(a)"
Schedule 7, page 45, line 39, at end insert—
1034
"and
(b) for the words from "proceed under the following paragraph" to the end of the subsection substitute "discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request"."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55, and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. It is intended to consolidate into one Act all the law relating to attachment of earnings and that that Act shall come into force at the same time as the attachment of earnings provisions of the Bill. This will greatly simplify the task of those who have to make or administer these orders, since without this consolidation they would have to seek their law in various Acts. In preparing the consolidating Bill, it has been thought possible to simplify the wording of subsections (4)(i) and (ii) and (5)(a) and (b) of Section 9 of the 1958 Act, and these Amendments to Schedule 7 of the Bill achieve this simplification. Section 9, as amended and simplified by the Bill, can then be included in the consolidating Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, again we welcome the announcement of this consolidation. The poor Keeling Schedule, which we all looked forward to so much and welcomed, is now going to be entirely superannuated and superfluous, but I am sure it was worth doing even for the purpose of discussing the Bill before Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 56]
Schedule 7, page 46, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) for subsection (4)(a) substitute—
"(a) the power to make an order in pursuance of a complaint by the debtor for an attachment of earnings order, or the discharge or variation of such an order, shall be deemed to be a power to make an order against the person to whom payment under the relevant adjudication is required to be made (whether directly or through an officer of any court)"."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56. May I also speak to Amendment No. 60? Under Section 43 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, where a complaint is made with a view to proceedings in a magistrates' court, a summons is served on the person against whom the court has power to make an order as a result of the complaint. Where a husband is subject to an attachment of earnings order to secure maintenance payments and wishes to apply by complaint for the order to be varied or discharged, it is desirable that the wife should receive a summons so that she may have an opportunity to oppose the variation or discharge. She would, however, not be covered by the expression
"person against whom the Court has power to make an order."
Section 20(4)(a) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 provides, in effect, that for the purpose of the complaint to vary or discharge she shall be deemed to be the person against whom the court has power to make an order, and the summons will therefore be served on her.
By reason of Clause 11(1)(d)(i) of the Bill, a debtor may apply to a magistrates' court for an attachment of earnings order to be made. A husband may make such application in respect of maintenance payments. But the wife may not, in every case, wish that such an order be made. There may be arrears, and she may know that the husband has some capital from which he could pay off the arrears immediately. For that reason she may want a committal order to be made instead. It is therefore necessary to provide that not only where the debtor seeks discharge or variation, but also where he seeks the making of an order, the summons shall be served on the wife, thus giving her an opportunity to be heard. The Amendment achieves this by inserting in Section 20(4)(a) of the 1958 Act a reference to an application that an order be made, in addition to reference to applications for variation and discharge. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 57]
Schedule 7, page 46, line 13, after "1970" insert "and for "defendant" substitute "debtor"".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57. I spoke to this when moving Amendment No. 51.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 58 to 60]
Schedule 7, page 47, line 40, leave out from "court" to end of line 49 and insert "shall make the appropriate variation order, unless the debtor requests it to discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request"
page 48, line 15, leave out from "to"to end of line 21 and insert" discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request"
page 49, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) the power to make an order in pur-surance of a complaint by the debtor for an attachment of earnings order, or the discharge or variation of such an order, shall be deemed to be a power to make an order against the person to whom payment under the relevant adjudication is required to be made (whether directly or through an officer of any court); "
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord has any objections, I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 when dealing with Amendments Nos. 52 and 55, and to Amendment No. 60 when dealing with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 61]
Schedule 9, page 52, line 44, at end insert—
". Where a person convicted by a magistrates' court appeals to quarter sessions

1037
against conviction or sentence and quarter sessions makes an order as to costs to be paid by the respondent to the appellant."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61. Part II of Schedule 9 is intended to list all instances in which costs, compensation, and so on, may be ordered by a court to be paid by a person other than a convicted person. An order for such costs, compensation, et cetera, is enforceable, under Clause 36(2), as if it were for the payment of money recoverable summarily as a civil debt. The case in which a person convicted in a magistrates' court succeeds in his appeal to quarter sessions and is awarded costs against the prosecutor was inadvertently omitted from Part II of Schedule 9, and this Amendment corrects that error.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 62–64]
Schedule 11, page 54, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

"In section 63, in paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (6), the words "with the concurrence of the other judges of the Division or a majority there of, or in the case of the King's Bench Division.""

Schedule 11, page 55, line 9, at end insert—

"12, 13 and 14 Geo. 6. c. 87.

The Patents Act 1949

Section 85(6).

12, 13 and 14 Geo. 6. c. 88.

The Registered Designs Act 1949

Section 28(6)."

Schedule 11, page 55, line 20, column 3, at beginning insert—

"Section 4(3)."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 62, 63, and 64? I have already spoken to No. 62 in relation to Amendment No.
1038
4; to No. 63 in relation to Amendment No. 6; ami to No. 64 in relation to Amendment No. 43.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 65]
Page 55, line 28, at end insert—

"1959c.22.

The County Courts Act 1959.

Section 153(a). Section 154."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. The effect of this Amendment is to provide for the repeal of Sections 153(a) and 154 of the County Court Act 1959. The repeal of Section 153(a) is consequential on subsection (5)(a) of the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 31. The repeal of Section 154 is consequential on the restrict-tions imposed by Part II of the Bill on the power of committal under the Debtors Act 1869.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 66]
Page 55, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—

"In section 45(2), the words "of the Queen's Bench Division of." "

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66. This Amendment inserts in the Repeal Schedule a reference to the words deleted from Section 45(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by Clause 7(3) of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 67]
Page 55, line 48, at end insert—

"1968 c. 36.

The Maintenance Orders Act 1968.

In the Schedule, the entry relating to section 4 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958."

5.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. I have, in fact, already spoken to this when I was dealing with Amendment No. 43.
May I just say that I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount who, I know, after his daily appearances at the Third Airport Inquiry, has to do so much other work at night; and of course it was fairly late before either of us knew that, instead of this Bill being taken to-morrow, it was going to be taken to-day. I am very grateful, if I may say so, for his friendly co-operation. I think this is a Bill which will save a number of people, mostly passive inadequates and muddlers, from going to prison, and in the end it will provide a more efficient system of collecting debts. It will also secure a very worthwhile reconstruction of the High Court of Justice. I remember saying that I did not anticipate that there would be anybody left in the Chamber by the time we finished, and I very much appreciate the interest which so many noble Lords have taken in troubling to remain to this late hour. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is of course a very important Amendment because, unless another place manages to hurry up considerably with the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, this may well be the last Amendment, or the last approval of a Commons Amendment, which the noble and learned Lord will move in this Parliament. The noble and learned Lord slightly pre-empted the speech I was going to make on it. It is not for him to thank me; it is really the other way round. We have now had a series of—I almost said dialogues,
1040
though it is a little unfair to use that term. But there have been suggestions in some quarters that we ought perhaps, to have the legal legislation debated in a Committee Room upstairs, with the noble and learned Lord and myself, and somebody to write down what was said, and the House could get on with something else. This is a little unkind, because other noble Lords and noble Baronesses also have made the most notable contributions to some of the legislation.
Over the last five years we have had a number of Bills which have been piloted through this House by the noble and learned Lord, and in most cases I have been marking him. I should like this evening to thank him for all the help he has given me, both in the House in accepting some Amendments, and also behind the scenes, in helping me to understand the Bills. So long as he does not use my remarks in any electioneering speech, I hope that I may congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Bills with which he has been concerned, and on the progress that has been made. They are almost all uncontroversial, and they have advanced the cause of justice, and I think the noble and learned Lord can be proud of his service.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might add just a word to what the noble Viscount has just said—and I speak as one who has spent much of his life in the cause of law reform, and has been a colleague of the noble and learned Lord for many years in the same subject. I think that from this point of view this Parliament has been one of the most, if not the most, remarkable in Parliamentary history; and we have been able to achieve this under the leadership of the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack. I think that we should not only congratulate him but the country also on what has happened.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have said. Looking back, I am satisfied that in the last five years we have got through a very great deal of law reform, and I am personally very indebted to all noble Lords who have helped us to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL
Reported without amendment.
  DIVORCE: UNITED KINGDOM AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION
  DIVORCE: UNITED KINGDOM AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION
  ROLLS ROYCE: I.R.C. LOAN
  ROLLS ROYCE: I.R.C. LOAN