I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment requires that a complaint made to a conciliation committee by somebody against whom discrimination has been practised shall be in writing. This point was put in debate by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). Answering the debate, I indicated that the Government agreed with the proposals he made and this Amendment, which was moved in another place and accepted on behalf of the Government there, gives effect to that undertaking.

I think this is a distinct improvement. If the complaint need not be supported in writing, uncertainty is bound to arise from time to time as to whether a complaint was made, whether it was organised by the person against whom the discrimination was practised, whether he really wished to go on with the complaint, the precise nature of the complaint and so on. The Amendment would remove that sort of uncertainty and might result in a number of tiresome situations being avoided.

I express gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for both considering and adopting this proposal which I originally put forward. I am glad that it found acceptance and is considered helpful.

I think the Amendment goes a little further than I had intended. I certainly intended that the individual who wished to make a complaint should do so orally or in writing, and only if a third party was making a complaint on his behalf should the authority of the third person be in writing. None of us can give authoritative rulings about how the courts might interpret the matter, but that was the sole intention and I hope that the courts would still consider that a complaint can be made by an individual either orally or in writing.

I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will respond to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). It is important to make clear that an individual can initially make his complaint to a local conciliation committee or its officers orally. If he is aggrieved, if an incident occurs in which he thinks there has been discrimination, he should have the right to go to the local office in the first place and say, "I have been aggrieved. This has happened to me today". I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will give a further assurance that officials of these local conciliation committees will then assist the person, particularly as a number of these people will have come from abroad and may find difficulty in this matter.

The local officers should have full instructions to help such a person to formulate the complaint in writing. This must not be left in such a way that it is implied that the local conciliation committees can be approached only by the formality of the written word in the first place, with all the difficulties which might attend that situation for people from abroad. It is important to have those two assurances.

With permission, I address the House again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) are perfectly right, and I should like to amend what I said in commending the Amendment to the House. The writing is required only where an authority is provided on behalf of the person against whom discrimination is practised. If the person himself complains, it is perfectly sufficient if the complaint is made orally. It need not be made in writing. I am glad to make that correction.

In reply to my hon. Friend's further point, I have no doubt that as a matter of judgment, common sense and good will, where assistance is required it will be readily afforded. I do not think I can go further than that.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be for the convenience of the House if, while dealing with this Amendment, I explain the next Amendment which goes with it. At the moment if the Attorney-General proceeds in the courts for an injunction to restrain discrimination, he can decide either to proceed in the High Court or to bring proceedings in the county court. If proceedings are brought in the High Court under the existing law a right of appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal. Under the existing law, however, if the Bill remains unamended, without the Amendments which are being considered, should the Attorney-General proceed in a county court it is at least open to considerable doubt whether a right of appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal on an issue of fact.

Under section 109 of the County Courts Act, 1959, such an appeal would lie if the action brought by the Attorney-General is properly to be regarded as an action either in contract or in tort. Considerable doubt exists as to whether such an action would be either an action in contract or in tort. I should have thought that it probably would not be.

To remove any uncertainty, it was decided—this was again a suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington—that appropriate words should be introduced into the text of the Bill to make it absolutely clear that there would be the right of appeal on a question of fact whether the action was brought in the High Court or in a county court. The words in the Amendment in page 4, line 10, have that result.

May I again express my gratitude to the. Home Secretary and to the Government for adopting this suggestion, while expressing the not very optimistic hope that the duties of the Attorney-General will not be very onerous in promoting actions of this sort and the even less optimistic hope that there will not be many appeals from decisions of county courts. Since both of these events may occur, we perhaps ought to provide for them. I recommend to the House that it is perhaps more sensible that there should be appeals on both fact and law if those two unhappy events should occur.