PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS OF DISCIPLINARY CASES (Hansard, 22 April 1977)

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 10, line 33, leave out it is alleged that an individual or and insert— (a) it is alleged that a registered insurance broker or enrolled".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, we may take Government Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
The purpose of the amendments is to offer some flexibility to the investigating and disciplinary committees in processing minor complaints. Their effect is to release the investigating committee from the obligation to refer to the disciplinary committee complaints which, though fully subsantiated, are clearly not serious enough to justify erasure of the offending broker from the register. Since erasure is the only sanction available to the disciplinary committee it is not really appropriate that it should be required to deal with these minor complaints. Instead, I envisage that the investigating committee will deal with such matters informally as it thinks best, perhaps by issuing a reprimand it self or by reporting the matter to the Council.
On reflection, I have felt unhappy about the lack of flexibility in some of the provisions for the investigation of complaints and want to ensure that the procedures can operate smoothly and in a way which will secure the confidence both of brokers and of the general public. I hope that hon. Members will agree that these amendments will facilitate this objective.

§ Mr. Welsh
I thank the Minister for his previous answer, and I expect that the answers to these points may be along the same lines.
I want briefly to put to the hon. Gentleman some matters which again are of concern to Scottish solicitors, who are put in an exceptional position by the clause. The provision would be a duplication of tried, tested and proven existing safeguards affecting solicitors in Scotland, who are already subject to considerable and effective disciplinary procedures.
The words of the Law Society are worth putting on record. It says: There is a Solicitors (Scotland) Disciplinary Tribunal which is a completely independent Tribunal set up to investigate complaints against Solicitors. The findings of the Tribunal are binding on the Society and are appealable to the Court of Session. In addition to this, there are other mechanisms. … complaints against Solicitors can be reported to the Council itself and the Council's treatment of these complaints is open to review by a lay observer appointed by the Government. 635 Therefore, solicitors in Scotland already are subject to strict disciplinary controls, quite apart from long-standing professional ethics. This provision in the Bill is what might be termed a "disciplinary overkill."
In addition, I should like to know why the Bill asks solicitors to register with this second professional body—unless, by implication, it is questioning their professional integrity. Moreover, why has there been no attempt in the Bill to use the existing Scottish disciplinary procedure for our solicitors? Elsewhere, the Bill makes exception for Lloyd's members because of the wish "to avoid publication" of safeguards. I regret therefore, that similar provision has not been made to meet a very similar situation concerning Scottish solicitors.
While I am on this subject, perhaps I might seek some clarification from the Minister about whether the present Law Society and Scots law degree provisions as well as apprenticeship schemes in Scotland will be adequate to allow registration with this Council. Has this been considered in the talks which have gone on in the background to this Bill?
To sum up, solicitors in Scotland are not at all happy with certain aspect; of the Bill, I ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) to think again about the Law Society's representations to them.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I am obliged to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) for making those representations on behalf of Scottish solicitors. I wish that more non-solicitors in the rest of the United Kingdom would make representations on behalf of solicitors here.
I do notthink that solicitors in Scotland are in an exceptional position. The answer which I gave before is essentially the same here. If they elect to be insurance brokers, they come within a discipline which is rather different in character from the natural discipline to which they as solicitors have to conform. It is not a natural consequence of being a solicitor to be an insurance broker or to have expertise in insurance browing. It is very peripheral to the occupation, and I speak with some knowledge of that, as a solicitor.
636 It is right that solicitors should be required to register with another professional body if they want to be insurance brokers. I do not believe that solicitors, except in a number of very rare situations have any peculiar knowledge of insurance broking. Therefore, why should they be in a special position?
It does not necessarily follow that a solicitor who falls fouls of the disciplinary provisions for insurance broking under this scheme would have committed an offence that is subject to disciplinary proceedings by his own professional body. I concede that it is possible that a man, who fell foul of the disciplinary procedures here, would also fall foul of his own professional proceedings, but it does not follow that one is dependent wholly on the other in all circumstances.
There is a difference between Lloyd's brokers and solicitors. Lloyd's brokers have expertise in this particular field, and it is not the case that solicitors would necessarily have it as well.
I note the hon. Members' point, but what is much more important, so will the Council. Certainly if, in practice, there is any problem which should be resolved, I am confident that this will be done.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 35, leave out 'subsection (1), (2), (4) or (5) of'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 41 to 47.

§ Mr. Davis
Amendment No. 38 is a paving amendment for a series of amendments to Clause 16. The amendments to Clause 16 serve to remove an inconsistency in the Bill and at the same time improve the drafting of the clause. They have little practical effect on the grounds on which a registered broker or an enrolled body corporate becomes liable to erasure.
It has been pointed out in relation to Clause 16(2)(a) that the only offence under the Bill which could be committed by a body corporate is to pretend to be enrolled on the list when it is not. It is therefore incorrect to refer in Clause 16(2) to the commission by an enrolled 637 body corporate of "an offence under this Act" The provision in subsection (2)(a) is accordingly combined with that in subsection (1)(a) by this series of amendments. I am sure that I have persuaded the House of the clarity of these views.