Commons Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Duke and should like to write to him when we have considered the points that he raised. The effect of the amendment would be that in any tribunal in which the commons registers or connected documents were material evidence, the question of what authentication would be required of a copy of a register or connected document before it was admitted in evidence would be left to the discretion of the tribunal. We think that that is a valid point, and we would like to consider it further to see whether the amendment would be of benefit to the Bill. Amendment No. 88 deals with a rather obscure provision. From what the noble Duke said, we are assuming that it is intended to exclude the liability of a person who relies on a copy containing a mistake that appears in the original register. As an aside, I am not sure whether the press would accept someone being in the wrong room at night as being a fault of the photocopier. In other words, under this amendment the copy would be perfectly correct but the register would be faulty, as opposed to the copier being faulty. However, the register is generally conclusive of the matters registered—warts and all. So a person who relies on a ““mistake”” in that register would be acting entirely properly and could not be held liable for his actions. We think that the amendment is unnecessary but we are willing to consider whether subsection (2) is essential to the Bill. If the noble Duke agrees, we will come back on Report with any amendments that may be required. In the light of that, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.