HL Deb 01 February 1990 vol 515 cc421-34

3.37 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. — (The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 37 [Regulations about competence and conduct of authorised practitioners]:

Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 178:

Page 29, line 38, after ("Lord Chancellor") insert ("with the consent of the Master of the Rolls").

The noble and learned Lord said: The clause deals with regulations governing the competence and conduct of authorised practitioners. Its provisions mainly concern the solicitors' branch of the profession. Earlier I moved and spoke to a series of amendments which attempted to remove those parts of the Bill in which the Executive seek novel powers to dominate an independent legal profession in the exercise of matters wholly outside politics and wholly within the province and practice of a profession.

I repeat my comment that it is ironic that, whereas in Eastern Europe the legal profession is excitedly throwing off all the shackles of executive domination which have existed for the past 50 years, here we are introducing them for the first time. That will make our country the only country outside a few remaining communist dictatorships where so much regulatory power is given to a Minister over an independent legal profession.

It will be said that the Lord Chancellor is a very special Minister, and has never taken such powers hitherto. Clause 37 deals with the competence and conduct of conveyancers, who are professionals to whom the citizen goes when seeking to buy or sell property. The Government will now enter that arena. It is not just this particular Lord Chancellor who will have the additional powers; they will apply to all future Lord Chancellors in all future governments. Hitherto the supervision of the solicitors' branch has been given to a judicial officer, the Master of the Rolls. Now it is to be given to a Minister. In the guise of reform the Government are seeking to extend government authority. That is a very strange path for a Conservative Administration to tread.

In my earlier amendments I sought to remove the Minister altogether from these novel powers which he now seeks. However, this amendment asks the Government at least to act with the consent of the judiciary in matters which are wholly unconnected with policy and concern merely administration of the ordinary business of an independent legal profession. The amendment tries, admittedly in a minor way, to maintain that balance between the Executive and the judiciary which, in the view of some of us, is affected by this Bill.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to qualify the assumption of increased government power by at least sharing that power with the Master of the Rolls whose duty, as I understand it, is at present to supervise the solicitors' branch of the profession. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

I do not agree with every amendment to this Bill that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell has moved. However, we are faced with a situation in which, as he says, the Master of the Rolls remains with statutory responsibility for the working of the solicitors' branch of the profession while Clause 37 gives the Lord Chancellor jurisdiction with regard to conveyancing services carried out by solicitors and other people.

Unless the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend or an amendment with similar effect is added to the clause, we shall find (shall we not?) that the Master of the Rolls has been bypassed in the responsibilities which, under statute, he has to exercise.

The Lord Chancellor

Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. The regulation-making power in question is in respect of authorised practitioners. The jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls at present is in relation to the solicitors' branch of the profession. There is no intention whatever in any way to diminish that jurisdiction. Indeed, it is reinforced in relation to rights of audience in the way that was described earlier.

The regulation-making power here in question is a regulation-making power in respect of authorised practitioners, who will be banks, building societies and the like. I should have thought it appropriate that responsibility for these regulations should lie with the Lord Chancellor and that he should be answerable to Parliament for them. It is quite clear that in making regulations under this kind of power the Lord Chancellor would wish to consult widely. I have no doubt whatever that in that situation it would be very appropriate for him to consult the Master of the Rolls and others. However, this is not a regulation so far as the solicitors' branch of the profession is concerned.

It is a regulation that may be of great importance to the solicitors' branch but I suggest to the Committee that the appropriate person to hold such responsibility is the Lord Chancellor. In fact this move is a reduction of the powers which were given to the Lord Chancellor under the Building Societies Act. In that Act he was given the responsibility of individual consideration of the grant of authority to authorised practitioners.

In the light of that explanation I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rawlinson of Ewell

I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend say that he personally, in holding the office that he does, would consult with the Master of the Rolls. Of course, that is the noble and learned Lord himself saying that. I immediately accept that. However, it seems a little strange that the Master of the Rolls who has perfectly adequately looked after the position with regard to conveyancers should not be the appropriate person to regulate it now that the practice is being extended to other persons. I just remark on the continual increase in the powers of the Executive who always see Ministers of the future coming in to control the affairs of an independent legal profession.

I happily accept what my noble and learned friend says on his own behalf in respect of his term of office; namely, that he will consult. I sincerely hope that any who follow him in office will also undertake consultation in the same way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 178A and 178ZA not moved.]

3.45 p.m.

Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178AA:

Page 29, line 43, at end insert ("; and (c) that authorised practitioners settle their prices for the provision of conveyancing services on a fair and reasonable basis to provide a reasonable rate of return on the costs of providing those services alone.").

The noble Lord said: At the very outset perhaps I may say that the object of all the amendments with which I shall be associated together with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies is to ensure that the public are properly safeguarded. It is not in any way an effort to exclude people who enter the competition field, as we must now refer to it in professional life presumably as well as in commercial life. With those who fairly come into the competition field, if they behave properly when authorised by this Bill, we have no quarrel. However, we want to ensure that the public are properly protected. The noble and learned Lord has always said that that was one of his aims, consistent of course with the changes that are effected by this Bill.

I should like to quote from paragraph 5.14 of the Government's White Paper. It refers to authorised practitioners, who shall submit to the board, each year details of the prices they charge for conveyancing services, certifying that those prices have been settled on a fair and reasonable basis to provide a reasonable rate of return on the costs of providing those services alone".

The people whom I have largely in mind are not the small authorised practitioners who may want very vigorously to undercut. That is not a pleasant situation; but it is not the main mischief that I am after. The main mischief concerns the large financial institutions which have very substantial resources. They would be able to destroy the very competition that is supposed to be fair and proper competition in providing conveyancing services. Compared with the independent conveyancers those institutions will be able to deal with the matter by subsidies from profitable parts of their financial enterprise other than conveyancing work. That is the mischief with which this amendment seeks to deal by underlining the intention contained in the White Paper and seeking its insertion in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Perhaps I may briefly support the principle behind the amendment. One of the concerns is the position of the high street solicitor. Some of us at the Bar think that that is perhaps almost as important as our own position. His position may be one of some difficulty. Any measure that seeks to ensure fair competition between those who provide services under the Bill must be acceptable.

This matter arose in another context with the cab rank and legal aid situation. It will arise in another context later in the Bill. But anything that can be done to ensure fair competition, with respect, should be written into the Bill. For that reason I support the amendment.

The Lord Chancellor

In Clause 37 power is given, that, The Lord Chancellor may by regulation make such provision as he considers expedient with a view to securing —

  1. (a) that authorised practitioners maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in connection with the provision by them of conveyancing services; and
  2. (b) that the interests of their clients are satisfactorily protected".
In addition to that, there is provision in relation to the conveyancing board. I mentioned that earlier in the course of the consideration of this part of the Bill. There is the general duty of the board in Clause 32(1), to seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services", and the general provisions that appear in Clause 14 and open this Part of the Bill. Attention was drawn to them some time ago.

The concerns to which the noble Lord has referred are concerns that I certainly have very much in mind. My understanding is that the regulation-making powers that are contained in Clause 37 already enable me to make the regulations that would be required. I wish to make it clear that these are matters on which, before any regulations are made, I should like to consult. We have already indicated what is in mind. Before any regulations are made, that would be a matter that I would wish to consult about.

Perhaps I may refer to one other aspect. In considering this, I have felt that these regulations could be of quite considerable importance. At the present moment, we have provided that they should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, having regard to the other parts of the Bill, in which the affirmative resolution has been used, I believe that it might be very good that we should make this type of regulation subject to the affirmative procedure. Effectively I should be under the duty to report fully to Parliament on the results of the consultation and the final form of the regulations so that Parliament would know exactly what the regulations were to be before the system was put into effect. Of course there is power to alter the regulations, to which the same procedure should apply.

I believe that it is in the interests of us all that we achieve the best possible procedure in the light of practical considerations. I believe that this system is the best way of assuring Parliament that its wishes in this connection are fully carried out.

I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment. If the lines that I have suggested are acceptable, then I shall undertake to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to put it into the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that in this way we may well be able to settle the detailed matters in a way acceptable to all those who have an interest in the matter.

Lord Mishcon

I am sure that the Committee will be grateful —we on these Benches certainly are —for the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that there will be an amendment at Report stage which makes the making of regulations, including regulations under Clause 37, subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance.

Perhaps I may refer back to the reasoning behind the amendment. He will remember that I especially stressed the threat of cross-subsidy (if I may use that phrase) which may come from the rather wealthy institutions, contrary, as I would say, to the public benefit. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord agrees with that. He has said that it is the kind of matter that he would have in mind when making regulations, and that he would be consulting in regard to them. I understood, I hope correctly, that the noble and learned Lord has fully in mind the dangers about which I have tried to speak. He has nodded his head, for which I am most grateful. I understand that it was the type of regulation about which he would be thinking, the precise nature of it being determined after he has had consultation with the appropriate bodies. The noble and learned Lord wishes to say something.

The Lord Chancellor

I should not like it to be left on the nod of the head, as it were, in case it might be thought disrespectful to the noble Lord. I should like to make it clear that I believe it essential that the competition should be fair. The question is how best to secure that without involving some unnecessarily elaborate procedure. It is quite clear that, among other things, we shall require —and I believe, so far as I can judge, that it is agreed by all those who have an interest in the area —that the precise prices being charged should be stated. Therefore the level of charge that these authorised practitioners are making will be obvious. I shall endeavour to ensure that there is machinery for dealing with any difficulty that might arise from that pricing being in any sense unfair. I believe that that is the objective that the noble Lord has in mind on this aspect of the matter.

I have in mind of course the protection of clients and the maintenance of satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in the discharge of the responsibilities of providing conveyancing services.

Lord Mishcon

Although not using again the phrase "cross-subsidising", I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will have that very thought in mind when he considers what is fair and proper and will safeguard the public. In view of the very fair assurance that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 178AB:

Page 29, line 43, at end insert ("; and (c) that authorised practitioners are not unfairly prejudiced against in relation to their conveyancing competitors.").

The noble Lord said: First, I have to apologise for my noble friend Lady Stedman, who is temporarily indisposed and was unable to be present when the paving amendment was called. However, the paving amendment was only to leave out the word "and". I hope therefore that the essence of the matter is still available to me.

These are probing amendments at this stage in our proceedings. I hope therefore that the Committee will forgive my lack of thorough acquaintance with the essence of these matters at short notice. The amendment stems from the White Paper, in which the Government stated their intention to introduce a conveyancing code of conduct which would prohibit an authorised conveyancer acting for both buyer and seller. I understand very well the desire of the Lord Chancellor to avoid conflict of interest for the better conduct of justice and of conveyancing.

Nevertheless I also understand that the Council of Mortgage Lenders takes the view that such a prohibition, in addition to being impractical, would be unfair, given that licensed conveyancers can already act for both parties, as can solicitors in certain circumstances.

I realise that it is a difficult issue and that the Government have an understandable desire to prevent any potential conflict of interests. However, it appears that the circumstances in which all those carrying out conveyancing could act for both parties should be clearly defined in regulations. I beg to move.

4 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

This is the other side of the question that we were discussing earlier. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for presenting the amendment. His knowledge of the subject is wide but we appreciate that he has taken over the matter at short notice.

In achieving a balanced set of regulations it is one of the points with which I am trying to deal. As I explained earlier, it is right that the regulations should be the subject of consultation and affirmative resolution procedure. The position of the financial institutions on the one hand —if I may refer to the general body of authorised practitioners as such —and licensed conveyancers or solicitors on the other may be somewhat different. The authorised practitioners are to be a new and innovative force in the conveyancing field. Therefore, one must be particularly careful and I wish to ensure a balanced protection.

The powers under Clause 37 are directed towards the protection of the clients as well as satisfactory conduct on the part of the authorised practitioner. All the codes of conduct applicable in the area must be taken into account. There is an interaction between the professional conduct rules of the professional bodies and the authorised practitioners' possible practices because, on the basis of what we have in mind, the authorised practitioners require to have their transactions in that area supervised by qualified people. Therefore, the way in which the qualified people carry out transactions and so forth will be subject to that.

The noble Lord can be assured that I shall endeavour to produce regulations which are fair to everyone operating in that field.

Lord Diamond

It is with great sincerity that I thank the noble and learned Lord for having dealt with the matter so fully and, as one would expect, so reasonably. I look forward to the next stages. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 178B:

Page 30, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who spoke to it in moving Amendment No. 175A. He tells me that he does not wish to move the amendment today. When the noble Earl spoke my noble and learned friend did not reply to this amendment, and before he does so I should like to put before the Committee several further considerations.

I believe that where the subsection gives particular examples of regulations to be made in a clause which, in formal terms, is permissive on the Lord Chancellor, it would not be unreasonable to put down a marker by providing that any provision which the Lord Chancellor deems it expedient to make —I quote from subsection (1) —shall (and not just may) include provisions to deal with some of the significant matters listed in subsection (2). I make that point in particular because the matters listed in subsection (2)(b), (c) and (d) —I do not comment on other matters contained in the subsection —should be set out in full in primary legislation.

Will my noble and learned friend consider dividing the clause so that some of the matters are "may" matters —for example, subsection (2)(a) —and others are "shall" matters? Would that be seen as a draftsman's abomination? To deal in that way with the matters which I believe should be in primary legislation would reassure some of us who view with a measure of cynicism various provisions contained in this part of the Bill.

I have another concern about these matters. I am not sure whether both subsections (2)(b) and (c) or only one —and if only one, which one? —should qualify for "shall" treatment. They are most confusing, as is the White Paper.

In paragraph 5.9 of the White Paper the Government propose that the legislation will require conveyancing to be carried out or supervised by defined persons with the relevant professional expertise. The code of conduct was to have provided that one individual must be responsible for the direction and supervision of the conveyancing services. Neither the legislative requirement nor the code of conduct appears to have come through into the Bill.

It may be that between them both subsections are intended to provide the proposals contained in the White Paper, but I find it difficult to see how. In an effort to resolve my difficulty I trawled through the briefs that I received. In a critical analysis of the Bill published by the Society of Licensed Conveyancers, I read that subsection (2)(c) is intended to replicate the provisions contained in the code of conduct —I am not too sure about that —and that subsection (2)(b) is a deliberate obfuscation which caused the society concern. That is just so. I note also from its briefing that the society considers Clause 37 to be the single most important clause of the Bill's conveyancing provisions; and it may be right.

We shall come to several important amendments to the clauses I have mentioned, and I do not wish to pre-empt the debate. However, it would be helpful to the Committee if, in answering this amendment, my noble and learned friend could explain the drafting of the clauses and say what they are intended to accomplish.

The amendment on the Marshalled List standing in the name of the noble Earl proposes to substitute "shall" for "may" in line 1 on page 30. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

I gave an explanation of the amendment when it was spoken to by the noble Earl. However, for completeness I shall refer to the matter in answer to my noble friend Lord Coleraine. First, the general purpose of the regulation-making power is set out in Clause 37(1)(a) and (b). Subsection (2) is the actual regulation-making power and I have sought to set out the headings under which, as I now see matters, the regulations may be required.

As regards subsection (2)(b), I have in mind the description of the qualifications referred to in the White Paper; namely, holding the proper degree of legal qualification either as solicitor, barrister or licensed conveyancer. I believe that it may also be desirable to have power to make quite clear which are the descriptions of work. My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked the other day about conveyancing services. Of course, there is a definition of that sort in Section 22 of the Solicitors Act. Therefore, I believe that it may be useful in the conduct of the work, particularly in the initial stages, that descriptions of work are set out in fair detail so that those operating this scheme may know what is wanted. The idea is to direct attention to the particular type of qualifications which are required on the lines which I have just described.

The object of subsection (2)(c) is to enable me to make regulations putting the particular transaction under the control of a particular individual. I have a fear, which I wish to avoid, that if a large organisation does conveyancing, one might find one's transaction passing from one person to another. It is desirable to ensure, so far as practicable —and obviously there are situations where a person may be taken ill in the middle of a transaction, which happens even in the best regulated firms of solicitors —that the client should be able to have recourse to a particular person whom he recognises as being responsible for the supervision of his transaction and to whom, if the client has taken up the offer of a personal interview (which I believe is quite an important aspect of this) the client would expect to speak if he had another matter to raise. Therefore, that is the purpose of subsection (2)(c).

As regards replacing "may" by "shall", or splitting the clause, I believe it would be right to make provision under all of the subsections so that that sort of distinction would not be justfied on my present understanding of what is required. However, I also believe that "shall' is not an easy word to have in this sort of situation where, in the light of experience, there also needs to be power to alter the regulations. Of course, to be completely effective the word "shall' requires some form of time limit and that would not be practical.

I believe I am right in saying —and no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong —that that form of drafting powers is quite common and reasonable. I know that sometimes even the giving of headings is regarded as unnecessary, but I believe that that is a proper method of indicating to Parliament what we believe should be required in the form of headings as we stand at this stage. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Selkirk

I thank my noble and learned friend for what he has said but how far is this to go? It is not very difficult to do a conveyance as such, but there are all sorts of matters such as inheritance and ownership of one kind or another which can complicate the issue. Would the conveyancer be expected to go into all those questions, because those matters would normally be the responsibility of a solicitor?

The Lord Chancellor

I suggested in the White Paper that the qualified person in charge of the transaction should have a responsibility at the initial interview to explain precisely the nature of the service to be offered. Obviously, the essential part of that is the preparation of the conveyancing documents, but solicitors in private practice might, for example, give a much more ample service by giving advice on matters related to the transaction.

Therefore, I believe it right that there should be an obligation on those providing the service as authorised practitioners to state exactly the scope of what they are able to provide. If there are matters which appear to be related to the transaction upon which legal advice is required but which they are not able to offer, the client should be so advised. He will then have an opportunity to go elsewhere to cover the whole matter.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

Is the problem not what they are able to provide but what they think they are able to provide, which may be totally inadequate?

The Lord Chancellor

I hope that the professional standards of those carrying out the work will be such as to enable them to communicate effectively. They are to be solicitors, licensed conveyancers or barristers and I believe that they are the most satisfactory people in whom to repose confidence on this point. I believe that that is justified confidence. I cannot think of anybody else upon whom I would wish the responsibility of explaining this matter to rest but a professional person with a responsibility for the transaction.

The Earl of Selkirk

Is my noble and learned friend suggesting that the licensed conveyancers would normally be working under the general supervision of a fully qualified person?

4.15 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

Parliament decided some considerable time ago that to be a licensed conveyancer is a sufficient qualification to do conveyancing. Therefore, an option available here is to have licensed conveyancers in charge of the conveyancing transactions.

However, if they are in charge of a transaction, they will be obliged, at the first interview to explain to the client the limitations of the service which they are able to provide. If legal advice is required beyond that, then that is for others to do. However, the setting up of a profession of licensed conveyancers has been accomplished and there are quite a number of licensed conveyancers in action at present. They do not and cannot profess to offer the full service which a solicitor can give because they are not qualified in the whole range of professional expertise of a solicitor.

Lord Mishcon

I have no wish to enlarge this debate beyond reason. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is very real and practical. I say with deep respect that, very largely we are living in a dream world.

First, the person who comes along to the licensed conveyancer or authorised practitioner does not know in the normal way what questions to ask at the consultation. It would be a very intelligent and experienced layman who would know the limitations of the advice of the conveyancer.

Also someone who does not have the knowledge will not know what he should warn the client about in regard to the limitations of his knowledge. To a large extent we are really operating in a dream world. Nevertheless, the Bill is before us, the Second Reading has taken place and one can only pray.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Yesterday evening on an Unstarred Question there were protests from all sides of your Lordships' Chamber about the prolixity of statutes and in particular about the insertion of unnecessary provisions. I venture to ask my noble and learned friend a question about the necessity of subsection (2) in its present permissive form.

Subsection (1) is permissive. It states: The Lord Chancellor may by regulation", carry out paragraphs (a) and (b). Subsection (2) states: The regulations may in particular", and then there are 15 lines of, presumably, particular examples of what he could do under subsection (1).

The question therefore arises: if these words —the whole of subsection (2) —were removed, could not my noble and learned friend exercise precisely by regulation all the powers that are mentioned therein? If the answer is inevitably yes, why are the words there? My noble and learned friend said that this form of legislation was common and reasonable. I personally had not noticed it until last Session when it is true it came into a number of Bills, I think for the first time. Whether it is reasonable is altogether another matter. If it is a prolix form of legislation, it is clearly unnecessary, unreasonable and undesirable.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I willingly join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in prayers; whether or not those prayers will be answered I am not certain. However, I certainly share his anxiety.

Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether the authorised practitioner, in describing the services he offers, will be required to do so in writing? That seems to be particularly necessary having regard to subsection (2)(c), which only requires, authorised practitioners to arrange, so far as is reasonably practicable, for each transaction to be under the overall control of the same individual". It therefore seems to me that without something in writing the possibility of confusion becomes virtually a certainty.

The Lord Chancellor

There is at the present time in existence —and there has been for some time —a profession of licensed conveyancer. If a member of the public goes to a licensed conveyancer he is entitled to an explanation of the services the licensed conveyancer can offer. There is nothing of a dream world about that. If he goes to a solicitor he can expect the solicitor to explain to him what services he offers. If he wishes to make a comparison he should be able, by comparing what the two professional people have told him, to ascertain the difference between those services. That is a practical matter and I have no doubt that it happens.

It may well be, for all I know, that some who go to solicitors may be left somewhat hazy about the services offered, but, if so, that particular aspect of dreaming should be resolved at the earliest possible moment. The art of communication is an important part of satisfactory legal services, whether they be conveyancing or other matters.

With regard to my noble friend Lord Peyton, I appreciate that he is willing to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in prayer. I certainly hope that his prayers will be answered and that the legal profession and the profession of licensed conveyancers will be able to carry out the desires of the noble Lord.

It is certainly my intention that the services should be described in writing and that at the conclusion of the interview the client should have the necessary advice in writing from the practitioner, the professional person. I believe that will be of considerable assistance. Where the client does not wish to take advantage of the personal interview, writing would also be necessary.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Will my noble and learned friend kindly answer my original question; namely: if the 15 lines were removed would he not be able to do everything contained in those 15 lines?

The Lord Chancellor

I thought I had dealt with that matter, but I shall try to do so more directly in answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Strictly speaking, I think it is true that if those 15 lines were omitted I could still do what I have in mind. As I said earlier, it is right that where regulation-making power is being conferred by Parliament on the Lord Chancellor —or on anyone else, for that matter —the heads under which it is anticipated the power may be used should be indicated. I believe that is part of the way in which Parliament may be reasonably assured of what is in mind.

It is obvious, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, believes that to do that has an effect. It is not just the addition of unnecessary words; it is also indicating that Parliament has in mind that this is a power which would be useful and which it may well expect to be exercised. The purpose of this, therefore, is to give some degree of detail about the areas in which Parliament in particular has it in mind the powers will be exercised. I believe moist of your Lordships will find that useful in considering whether these powers should properly be granted.

Baroness Elles

Perhaps my noble and learned friend will reconsider this clause. He is aware of clients who know what solicitors and conveyancers say and they understand what is said to them. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to a dream world; but I would not call it a dream world —I would call it the world of reality. The vast number of people I have assisted in my voluntary social work over many years in south London simply do not understand the beginning of what a conveyance is, even when they have to move house. We have tremendous trouble trying to explain such matters to ordinary people. whom I thought it was the purpose of this Bill to help. I do not think this clause helps those people, though it may help the kind of people my noble and learned friend possibly has in mind. I should be most grateful if he would reconsider the objective of this clause and the people it is meant to help.

The Lord Chancellor

My noble friend expresses exactly what I wish to achieve; namely, that I can make regulations under which it will be the responsibility of the professional person to tell these people in plain language what it is the professional person is prepared to do for them. I do not imagine for one moment that the professional person —at least, I hope not —will proceed by trying to explain the matter to the ordinary client in technical language. The purpose of the interview is for the client to understand what is happening and what the solicitor or licensed conveyancer is to do for him. The purpose of this clause is to enable me to make the necessary regulations.

I believe the objective that my noble friend has stated is precisely what we want to achieve. I believe that a great deal of the trouble between the legal profession and its clients is in failure properly to explain the nature of the service. That is one reason I believe it is right that the advisory committee, which has general responsibilities under Part II, should be lay dominated. It should have in the majority people who are not lawyers and who will do what they can to make sure that when lawyers talk to them they do so in language that ordinary people can understand and appreciate.

Baroness Elles

My noble and learned friend makes a very valid point. Regulations made by him do not actually teach lawyers to speak simple and plain English. If he could put that into regulation he would provide a great benefit to the people of this country.

The Lord Chancellor

I shall certainly have in mind including in the regulations that the advice should be given in language that clients can understand.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

I made, in effect, a Second Reading speech when we had an amendment to Clause 16, but I express the hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have regard to what my noble friend Lady Elles said. My view is that the ordinary person seeking help in buying or selling a house is better protected by the law as it stands than he would be by the Government's proposals.

Lord Coleraine

I agree with my noble friend Lord Rippon. I also very much agree with my noble friend Lady Elles. It is absolutely vital that lawyers should talk in a way which everyone can understand. As my noble and learned friend said, there is nothing in this clause which casts doubt upon that.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will forgive me when I also say that it seems that where these provisions are not to be in private legislation —it is a pity that they are not —it is very much better that they should be set out in the clause even if that lengthens it. Having said that, I wish to thank my noble and learned friend for confirming that he is minded to put these provisions into effect. I thank him also for his very useful explanation of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Ullswater

I think that this would be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.