Column 1335A change in the law will still be necessary in the not-too-distant future to increase choice so that couples' wishes can be met. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester. He has set in motion important changes. The Minister for marriages is also the Under- Secretary of State for Health. The Department of Health has only few opportunities to present legislation to the House in every Session and marriages, I suspect, are a long way down the list of important matters on which health legislation is required. If it were left to the Government, it is likely that it would take several decades to change the marriage laws.
I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester on picking up the issue and proposing changes that can be passed by the House. 1.37 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : Like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on introducing the Bill and on the perspicacious, persuasive, perceptive and even passionate way in which he spoke. Like a wine waiter introducing us to the virtues of a good claret, he showed that this particular variety would be distinctive and greatly enjoyed by many celebrating people. As the hon. Member for Leyton said, it is right that we should pass a deregulation measure which will allow the 60 per cent. of people who do get their first choice of marriage venue a greater opportunity to do so. As part of my lengthy preparation for the debate, I asked the registrar of deaths and births in Kidderminster in my constituency about the figures on marriages in registry offices and in Church of England and other authorised religious establishments. In 1989- 90, there were slightly more marriages in religious establishments--346 compared with 288 registry office weddings. By 1993-94, the position had been reversed and more people--286 against 283--were getting married in registry offices. The measure will give those people greater choice. The figures are not surprising as one third of marriages nowadays are remarriages.
As the hon. Member for Leyton said, sadly, parts of the Church of England take a dirigiste attitude and people are forced into registry office weddings although they would prefer a religious ceremony. That probably has something to do with the appalling fact that a 1991 survey showed that some 57 per cent. of people of the marriageable age of 18 to 24--it is getting older nowadays--were ignorant of the nature, purpose and history of Good Friday. By encouraging people in the way that the measure seeks to do, that situation could be improved.
There is a broader reason why it is important to give couples more choice of places in which to be married. It is that successful marriages depend on the involvement not only of couples' families but of their communities. Given the production line nature of many registry office weddings, it is often difficult to provide a personalised atmosphere, but the investment and memorableness of the wedding occasion are preludes to a successful marriage.
Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph published an article in which Lesley Garner said :
"Marriage is more than a ritual that many consider outdated. It is the offering of protection and security under the law."
Any change in the way in which people get married--especially as it affects those 50 per cent. who get married in registry offices--that underlines that and involves the family in a place that is familiar or has an impressive
Column 1336setting, would make it more likely that people will take their marriage vows more seriously and think more carefully about the implications. It may be a forlorn hope, but in my view that could lead to more stable marriages.
Such changes may also encourage more people to get married. At present, 25 per cent. of children are born out of wedlock. While I make no comment on people's decisions about life style, many people do not get married because they feel that it is a hassle and would not mean much to them. If they were able to get married surrounded by their family in a happy and familiar setting, they might be prepared to consider it slightly more seriously. That leads me to what I think is the Bill's only fault, which, I hope, can be remedied by the regulations that will oversee the way in which local authorities decide on the places that are appropriate for marriages.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton that we should encourage maximum flexibility in the choice of places for registered weddings. Sadly, many stately homes and chateaux mariages--the sort of hotels that would be applying for licences--are anything but the kind of places where marriage vows should be properly exchanged.
Perhaps the house of an aunt or that of a mother or father would be more appropriate for marriage vows, whether outside or indoors. The legislation should allow local authorities on a temporary or permanent basis to permit such places to be used for registered weddings after deciding that health and safety and planning regulations have been met. It is important that the public should be able to gain access to such events. Obviously, that would be up to the local authority and, ultimately, the registrar. He will have discretion over whether to marry a couple after he has seen--together, I hope, with local authority officials--the surroundings in which weddings will take place.
Provided that the regulations can be drawn up in a flexible way, people will be allowed to marry in registered surroundings of their own choice rather than the long-standing and possibly inappropriate choice of the local authority. That would meet the objectives of the Bill.
With that important proviso, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester on bringing the Bill to the House and I wish it every success.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) : Like other hon. Members, I welcome the principles that animated my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to introduce the Bill. I want to take just a few minutes to deal with three or four points of concern about the detail of the Bill, with which I hope either he or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal when they reply to the debate. My first point is that to which I alluded in an intervention ; it concerns the respective duties of county and district councils. In the majority of cases, there would be little difficulty in the two local authorities reaching agreement on the designation of a particular building as a suitable site for civil marriages. There would be no problem with most hotels, to take the example most frequently cited. However, I can imagine circumstances in which there might be a clash of opinion. We all know of certain public buildings and of private buildings with a public function, such as sports stadiums, whose
Column 1337construction and use has been permitted by the local district council subject to fairly stringent planning conditions.
Where there is a difference of opinion between the two authorities, whose power will prevail ? Will it be the county council, with its proposed right under the Bill to designate particular premises as suitable for civil marriages, or the district council, which might say that the building cannot be used because its planning conditions state that it may be used for certain defined purposes only and not for anything else ? Will the county council, as registration authority, have to seek planning permission from the district council ?
I want to question the definition of "premises" in the Bill. I do not think that a full answer was given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I understand that a particular building or a garden attached to a building is covered by the definition of "premises". If a couple wanted a Disraeli wedding, they could book Hughenden house or its garden. If they wanted to be a little more adventurous and have a John Wilkes wedding, they could book Prebendal house in Aylesbury for that purpose. However, if they wanted a Hellfire club wedding, would the West Wycombe caves count as premises under the Bill's definition ?
Even though a couple could not use a field or a large park, would a small, easily identifiable, well-defined and fenced area of open space count as premises ? Could they hold a John Hampden wedding by the Ship Money memorial in the field just outside Prestwood ? My third query relates to public access. Public access is crucial because a wedding is not only a private but a public ceremony. All of us who have been through the ceremony as a participant know that the most heart-stopping moment comes when the minister or registrar asks whether there are any objections to the marriage. I am worried especially about the designation of premises outside a couple's registration district. I hope that the regulations will contain provision for adequate notice to be given--and to be given publicly--of certificates and licences so that members of the public are able to exercise their lawful right to voice a legitimate objection in that one in a million case where such an objection exists.
My final concern relates to the record of marriages taking place under the proposed new system. In passing, I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester did not feel able to include in the Bill a provision covering information additional to that contained in marriage certificates. In this respect, England and Wales have much to learn from the Scottish system.
I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend to take on board the use that genealogists make of certificates, licences and other material relating to weddings. Such material is especially important for the reconstruction of family history. Whereas my hon. Friend and I would probably not have too much difficulty tracing our ancestors, even though we might not know exactly where they were born and married or where they died, people with a more common surname might find it more difficult knowing only the name. In such cases, the place of residence and, associated with that, the place of marriage, become more important. I hope, therefore, that registers of licences and certificates provided for in the Bill, and especially of documents relating to marriages that have taken place out of a couple's
Column 1338home registration district, will be made available as a matter of course to genealogists and other legitimate researchers.
Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : In view of the time, I shall be as brief as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for introducing the Bill because I was one of those caught up in the bureaucracy that he seeks to abolish.
Eighteen years ago, when my wife and I were planning to get married, I was living and working in London and she was living and working in High Wycombe, although we wished to marry in York where her parents lived and where she had been brought up. In order to be married in York, not only did she have to re-establish her residence there for a couple of months before the wedding but I had to make four separate visits to the registrar in London to persuade him to study up and get the forms right to enable us to be married in York. My impression was that if two professional, reasonably articulate people found it so difficult to overcome such bureaucracy, most people must be living in sin because they could not have got through all the hoops in the first place.
I hope that either the Minister or my hon. Friend can clarify, first, the religious use of premises. The notes that my hon. Friend has helpfully circulated state that for premises to be registered under the Bill there
"must be no recent or continuing connection with any religion." Filton folk centre is a major public building in the town of Filton in my constituency, and it would be ideal for registration under the Bill as drafted. However, at weekends it is regularly used for services by at least one major evangelical Christian group. The premises would be perfectly adequate for the celebration of marriages at other times or, indeed, at the same time because there are plenty of rooms in the building. I hope that the restriction under the regulations concerning connection with any religion will be applied, if necessary, not to the whole of a building but to a particular part of a building or a particular part of a building at a particular time. If not, what would otherwise be ideal premises will be completely excluded.
There are two matters on which the Bill does not go far enough. There has already been some discussion of whether people should be entitled to be married in a private home or their own home. In fact, quietly, the Bill permits that in two types of home. The Bill will permit the marriage at home of the owners or occupiers of a stately home or their families. It will permit the marriage at home of the owner-occupiers or employees living on the premises of a hotel. That is wholly admirable. I hope that in building on the legislation in future that principle could be extended. I hope that the matter can be considered in the regulations.
I understand the difficulties that are admirably expressed in the notes that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester circulated in relation to his argument that weddings must be held in a public place. However, I commend to him the principle that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I became used to in our youth. At certain times of the year--I am thinking of the passover service held at home--private premises are thrown open to all comers. The door is left open and an extra place is laid at the table to anyone who wishes to walk in. I can see no reason why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said, a private house cannot be made
Column 1339into a public place for a particular purpose and on a particular occasion. There are now many religions and branches of religions in this country for which either a combined religious and civil ceremony or one following the other would be ideally held at home. I cannot honestly see any reason why the law should be so restrictive as to bar people from ordering what is often the most important day in their life as they and their families desire.
The second matter is that, to my great regret, while the Bill and the proposed regulations under it recognise the increasing practice of registrars of allowing some music at a civil ceremony, there is still a crazy distinction--I can only describe it as such--between religious and secular music. Why is it that popular tunes such as "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or "Sheep May Safely Graze" are barred from use in a ceremony because they originally formed part of a cantata ? Why is it that Rossini's "Stabat Mater", which has been described by critics as the most secular piece of religious music ever written, should be barred because of its title ?
Why is it that if one is particularly fond of Ravel's "Danses Sacre es et Profanes"--roughly translated as sacred and secular dances--one has to pick the bits of the dances that are permitted to be played legally at a ceremony ? It is a crazy distinction and any registrar who was serious about it would find that there was little secular music that had not been made into a hymn tune at some time or another.
I hope that when the regulations are made under the Bill they will be somewhat wider in their application to what is permissible. Subject to that, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for introducing the Bill. I wish he had been in a position to do so 19 years ago and I certainly do not wish to delay its passage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville) : Time is pressing on so I shall simply limit myself to dealing with some of the points raised during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised yet again his obviously deeply felt desire to have been married in a garden. As we know, there are some problems with marriage law
The Bill is about civil marriage. Matters to do with marriages in temples are taken care of. Those places can be registered and, as long as an authorised person or registrar is present, there need be only one ceremony. I think therefore that that is not relevant to today.
Column 1340My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a good point about which local authority would be designating. The answer is that it is metropolitan boroughs, county councils and London borough councils at present. That will remain the case, although district councils--of course, there may be changes in all this ; we do not know--can put forward their own civic buildings for consideration. But there will be no change to that.
My hon. Friend said that among other excellent places in his constituency are the Hellfire club caves at Wycombe. I have to tell him that I used to play in a rock band called "The Hellfire Club", and I have some knowledge of the activities that those
gentlemen--Wilkes and others--got up to in the caves. Those activities would not lend any sort of dignity to the institution of marriage, so the answer to his question is probably no. Being caves, they can hardly be called a permanent structure, either--although that is a matter for geologists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr.Stern) raised a number of interesting points. He pointed to the criteria for designation, and mentioned a place used by religious groups at some point. The criterion will be something along these lines : any building that would be seemly and dignified, and therefore appropriate to the institution of marriage, will be permitted. The fact that such buildings might be used at some other time for religious purposes would probably not be relevant, but that would have to be left to the discretion of the local authority concerned. On the matter of the music, I was deeply impressed, as was the whole House, with my hon. Friend's erudition in these matters. If I may, I will write to him and deal with what he said.
I warmly welcome the Bill. We have a strange, quaint custom, particularly at the beginning of Adjournment debates, of welcoming debates that do nothing to help the Government, and congratulating hon. Members who are about to get up and do everything that they can to destroy one's credibility. In this case, however, I most sincerely and warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). For the past two years, I have been trying to find ways to help the White Paper commitment to the improvement of civil marriage. My hon. Friend has made that possible. I am quite sure that what he and other hon. Members have said--that this will add to the dignity and, we must now say, the popularity of marriage at a time when it certainly needs it--means that this is one of the most useful and beneficial pieces of legislation to have emerged in the past 11 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered ; reported, without amendment.
Order for Third Reading read.
I shall be brief. I commend the Bill to the House, and in doing so I thank those who are responsible for its being here--primarily, Lord Renton. He is better known to many of us in this place as the right hon. Sir David Renton ; he was a Member here for many years and the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the constituency of Huntingdon. He piloted this Bill through another place with the general support of peers in all parties.
I had the good fortune to take on the Bill and, had I won a place in the ballot, I would have introduced it last year. I took the Bill through Committee with the support of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and I am grateful for that support. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who is on the Front Bench today, and to our right hon. Friends the Minister for Industry and the President of the Board of Trade, all of whom have been extremely helpful in supporting the Bill.
The Bill has one simple, but important, aim--to outlaw the practice of market overt. Members on both sides of the House will know that if goods in Bermondsey market, which is the one that is almost always quoted, are bought between sunrise and sunset, the title of the goods purchased passes to the purchaser, regardless of the origin of the goods. The market has been castigated as a thieves' den for that reason. The Bill contains no threat to the legitimate traders of Bermondsey market and it has the strong --indeed, passionate--support of the various antique dealers associations, the Antiques Trade Gazette , the Metropolitan police and many other police forces who have been in touch with me, all of whom see it as a small, but positive and helpful step. The Historic Houses Association is yet another organisation which lobbied for the Bill and welcomes its introduction.
I know that some of my hon. Friends have matters that they want to raised and we have little time. With the leave of the House, I shall respond to them if there is an opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking so briefly. I propose to be equally brief. He is wrong to suggest that in Bermondsey market one can pass title regardless of origin. The rule applies only to goods acquired for value in good faith. That is not such a startling proposition and, indeed, it is one which is echoed in other areas of the law.
My concerns about the Bill are that, first, it does not apply, and has no relevance, to car boot sales, which are the modern curse, where fences dispose of property. Secondly, a proper understanding of the rule is so narrow that it will arouse greater expectations for change. The problems of prosecuting people who buy colour televisions--stolen from my constituents- -in public houses in Cwmbran are exactly the same as those of prosecuting people who buy antique items in Bermondsey market at and under value. The law does not affect that problem.
Column 1342I do not intend to talk out or to oppose the Bill, because I am satisfied, having talked to my hon. Friend the Minister, that the Government can deal with it in a way that will satisfy all of us. The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) identified is important, but--partly as a result of the heritage lobby, with and for which he is elegantly associated and an important spokesman--it is only one aspect. Ironically, he wants to tear up the pages of Coke's institutes and Coke's reports, which are still the law of the land on the topic, and to replace them with the Rocky Horror alternative prayer book version ; but never mind. If there is a social need to do so, I can understand the force of the argument, but the problem with the Bill is that it does not deal with other situations that are equally open to challenge, and the matter ought to be given broad consideration.
For example, mercantile agents in possession can pass good title to goods, which means that if one takes one's car to a car salesroom to ask for a quote and it is sold on to someone else, that other person takes good title.
Secondly, if we buy trust property that is sold in breach of trust by a trustee, the rule is that the purchaser for value in good faith takes good title. It makes nonsense of law reform to take one aspect of chattels of a particular class and deal with it on its own. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the Government will review the general position.
The next problem is that the Bill moves English law further away from European law, rather than the reverse. The rule in the French civil code is "La possession vaut la titre", which is very similar to the doctrine of market overt. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider, because this is a single-market issue, whether there ought to be a European approach as to the circumstances in which good title in goods is passed and the circumstances in which it is not. If one buys and imports throughout the European Community--whatever the appropriate balance of protection between the vendor and, on the one hand, the person from whom the goods are stolen and, on the other, the bona fide purchaser--it is a matter with a European dimension that is dealt with on that basis.
Has my hon. Friend had any consultations with the City of London corporation ? One of the glorious anomalies is that every shop in the City of London is a market overt in the class of goods in which it trades. He is seeking here to abrogate the ancient privileges of London, and I should be very interested to know what consultations he has had on that aspect.
What has tended to happen in recent years is that our ancient franchise markets--the kind of market to which the market overt rule traditionally applies--have been greatly undervalued by those in power. I am bound to say that we have seen attempts to deregulate them which the Government have had to slightly reflect upon, and this is another fairly brutal attempt to whittle away at their considerable privileges.
I have several traditional franchise markets in my constituency, and I see colleagues in the House who represent agricultural constituencies where rural franchise markets are a part and parcel of life and perform a valuable social function. Farmer Giles can still turn up and sell his potatoes or his beasts. It used to be that one bought them with good title, and one could sue the auctioneer or those running the market. The Bill would stop that.
I urge my hon. Friend to consider the question of franchise markets. He should not abolish them as a feudal
Column 1343anomaly where they are valued and appreciated institutions. Nevertheless, will he consider a general review of the way in which markets are regulated and run ? I hear what those in the antiques trade who make complaints about Bermondsey market say. I have never been there and I have certainly never bought anything there, although I may have driven past it.
Those who complain that particular institutions have become thieves' kitchens might perhaps consider whether they have a remedy in the law as it stands, rather than promoting Bills of this sort. 2.12 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) : I shall also be extremely brief, and I could not better the erudition with which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) expressed his concerns--which I share, particularly those about livestock markets. The reservations that I have about the Bill include the fact that we are intending to sweep away a piece of English history which goes back for many hundreds of years at just after 2 o'clock in a deserted House on a Friday in July, and that is a pity.
The Bill will not do what it is designed to do, and it will pursue people in one market at the expense of livestock markets in my constituency. I have one charter market in my constituency which has existed since mediaeval times. We do not know--and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) also does not know--whether it is a market overt or not. I suspect that it is, but there is a dispute about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said that there could be real problems in dealing with the issue of title, which is currently covered by that aspect. While I share those concerns, I do not propose to obstruct the passage of the Bill ; but it is worth a moment's pause before we abandon a piece of legal history to the dustbin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I shall respond to some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) put directly to me. He asked me to consider whether the matter could be looked at through the European Commission. That is an interesting point and I will consider it. I do not believe that the Bill contains some of the anomalies to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I shall want to look carefully at it in the light of what he said. I will respond in due course.
We are conducting a more general review and we have known about the Bill for some time. There have been no representations that the market overt rule ought to be kept. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) almost argued against his own point in one respect, when he referred to his local market and said that he was not sure whether it was a market overt or not. There are some problems with definition as to which markets are covered by the general rule of market overt. I do not think that there are particular reasons for keeping it going.
Column 1344Indeed, it is something of a puzzle why it was not abolished when the common law regarding the sale of goods was first codified in the Sale of Goods Act 1893. The rule has been much criticised as a thieves charter, and although there is not a great deal of evidence that market overt is used as a means of disposing of stolen goods, it can no longer rationally be defended. For that reason, the Government support the Bill and commend it to the House.
Mr. Cormack : With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks. I should like to reply briefly to my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), to whom I am grateful for saying that they will not ultimately oppose the Bill. I cast no aspersions on the learning of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, but many learned lawyers, including Lord Renton and Law Lords in the other place, believe that the Bill is desirable and sensible. On the law, I rest my case.
To say that, because market overt has been enshrined in English history since 1189, there is no reason to get rid of it, is hardly an argument. William Wilberforce could have bowed to the same argument when the slave trade was being abolished and one could still be branding people and doing all sorts of other unmentionable things. That argument does not hold, because something that has a long history behind it is not necessarily correct.
I am glad to note what my hon. Friend the Minister said about Europe and it is, of course, important that we discuss matters with our colleagues in the European Union.
As for the City of London, as a freeman of the City--if I have to declare that interest--I have received absolutely no representations from any of my colleagues or from common counsel on this. Many of them know about my interest in the Bill, just as they know that Lord Renton took it through the other place.
I will not weary the House by quoting an extremely learned letter from Brian Davenport QC--I believe that my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth and for Hexham have seen the letter--but, as he points out,
"As a matter of history, there is nothing new in the suggestion that the law of market overt should be abolished. This was unanimously recommended by the Law Reform Committee in its twelfth report in 1966."
He goes on to deal with the livestock market and notes : "The Law Reform Committee reported that over half the livestock markets in England were private markets and therefore could not be markets overt. In the case of each of the others it would have to be shown that the market was established by charter or had existed since before the year 1189."
I do not believe that the farmers of Hexham or of anywhere else are in danger. No one likes dealing in stolen goods in any event, if he is an honest man, and most farmers are honest.
I am conscious that another measure is to be discussed briefly, so, once again, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : It will not be in order for the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) to move his new clause, because consideration has been deferred by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is in charge of the Bill. Bill to be considered upon Friday 21 October.
Not amended(in the Standing Committee), further considered .
This Act, except sections 4 and 5, shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint ; and different days may be appointed for different provisions, different purposes of the same provision and different areas.'.-- [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.] Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed , That the clause be read a Second time.
Amendment No. 92, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out and'. Amendment No. 93, in page 2, line 4, after practicable', insert and cost effective'.
Amendment No. 181, in page 2, line 20, leave out from cent.' to end of line 22 and insert
or such other percentage as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute ; and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament ;'.
Amendment No. 94, in page 3, line 24, at end insert
(5A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above what measures are in its opinion cost effective, the authority shall have regard to any guidance on the question for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.'.
Government amendments Nos. 43 and 51.
Amendment No. 153, in page 3, line 27, after plan', insert and any modification'.
Amendment No. 182, in page 3, line 28, at end insert
(8) Orders under subsection (2)(a) above may make different provision with respect to different cases or classes of case.'. Government amendment No. 52, in clause 3.
Amendment No. 203, in page 3, line 29, leave out shall' and insert may'.
Amendment No. 196, in page 3, line 29, leave out a date' and insert
such date or dates as he considers appropriate'.
Amendment No. 199, in page 3, line 29, leave out all'. Amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 29, after plans', insert and modifications'.
Amendment No. 197, in page 3, line 29, after plans', insert , or parts of plans, as he may specify'.
Amendment No. 206, in page 3, leave out lines 31 to 41. Amendment No. 147, in page 3, line 31, leave out all such plans' and insert any plan or modification'.
Amendment No. 201, in page 3, line 31, leave out all such plans' and insert
a plan or part of a plan specified under subsection (1) above'. Amendment No. 193, in page 3, leave out line 32.
Amendment No. 204, in page 3, line 32, leave out shall' and insert may'.
Amendment No. 146, in page 3, line 32, leave out such plans' and insert the plan or modification'.
Amendment No. 198, in page 3, line 32, leave out such plans' and insert
the plan or the part'.
Amendment No. 171, in page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34.