HL Deb 25 October 1990 vol 522 cc1578-80

119 Page 32, line 22, leave out 'subsection (16) below' and insert' section (Exercise of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience) (4) of this Act'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 119. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 122A to 122E, 123, and 123A to 123F.

In order to understand the amendment it is necessary to give an explanation of the background. As a result of amendments carried in this House before the Bill began its passage in another place, Clause 23 had grown to some 20 subsections. Indeed, critical comment was made of that. Therefore, the present amendments divide the clause into three more digestible parts. I wish to emphasise that no substantial policy changes are introduced in the re-arrangement except those already dealt with to provide, for publication of draft schemes.

With reference to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the following amendments concern matters to which this House has already given consideration and come to an appropriate decision: they are Amendments Nos. 122A, 122B, 122D, 122E, and 123D. Amendments Nos. 123E and 123F are unnecessary as they raise only a point of drafting. Amendments Nos. 122C, 123A and 123C are inappropriate.

Arnendment No. 123E seeks to refer to provisions rather than rules in a code of practice. This concerns a point of drafting. It seems reasonable to specify that a code of practice contains rules. As regards Amendment No. 123F, the intention of subsection (5) of the new clause in Amendment 123 is to state that the High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate function is a separate court. It is clear that the High Court of Justiciary as a court of first instance would be treated as a separate court in its own right.

As regards Amendment No. 122C, it would be inappropriate to direct the Lord President and the Secretary of State to have regard to this. The proper criteria to which regard should be had are set out in subsection (4) of the clause. As regards Amendments Nos. 123A and 122C, it is appropriate that only the governing body should have the role of assessing whether a member is a fit and proper person and conduct any disciplinary proceedings against a member. The Lord President should not have a role in disciplinary proceedings even where, as he can, he has requested suspension. He does not have such a role at present in relation to solicitors or advocates.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 119.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

Lord McCluskey

My Lords, the difficulty with that explanation is that it is incomprehensible to those who have listened to it. I, who have studied the matter, certainly did not understand what the noble and learned Lord said. That is partly because the grouping is wrong and we should not be discussing all these issues at the same time. The matters dealt with by the noble and learned Lord are separate and it is unfortunate that we should deal with them now. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with the matters until the noble and learned Lord moves specific amendments with which I am concerned.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that the House does not have to accept the groupings of amendments. It can insist on discussing amendments individually.

Lord McCluskey

My Lords, I am obliged. I do not wish to be obstructive but I believe that the points are separate. They are easier to understand when separated out and one does not save time by putting them together when they are not closely allied.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, as has already been made clear, it is a matter for the House and not for me. However, there is a point which is validly made at this stage and which I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept. When one looks to the alteration of the provisions from a single clause of 20 subsections into three more digestible clauses one will see that there have been no substantial policy changes except those providing for the publication of draft schemes. The House has already considered that amendment and it met with approval.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

5.45 p.m.