Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 01 February 1990 vol 515 cc482-92

House again in Committee on Clause 37.

Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178ZCB:

Page 30, line 13, at end insert — ("( ) requiring authorised practitioners who or which are willing to add the costs of conveyancing services to loans being made to their clients to be prepared to add the costs of such services to such loans whether or not the conveyancing services are provided by the authorised practitioner").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may move this amendment to a crowded Chamber. I shall do so briefly. An obvious ill could be caused if we are not careful. Lenders could say to borrowers, "We realise that you do not have a lot of money. We would be perfectly prepared to lend, in addition to the loan, the conveyancing costs provided that you use our conveyancing department". That would lure the borrower quite unfairly into that conveyancing department unless there were a regulation specifying that such an offer of an additional loan for conveyancing costs should apply regardless of whether the borrower used the conveyancing services provided by the lending institution or those of an independent solicitor. I do not believe that I need say any more in support of the amendment. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

Both in the Green Paper and in carrying the matter through it has been my view that something of that kind is required in the regulations. I believe that the powers that the Bill confers are sufficient to enable that to be done. I certainly have every intention of including a requirement on those lines in the regulations.

Lord Mishcon

Having regard to that very clear reply and the intention of the noble and learned Lord to regulate on precisely the lines of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi)

I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 178ZCC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 179 or 179A.

Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178ZCC:

Page 30, line 14, leave out paragraph (f).

The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the Committee, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 180E and 180F. The amendments deal with the obvious necessity that proper care should be exercised, regulated by the Bill, regarding clients' money. The handling of clients' money by authorised practitioners should be covered by the same rules as at the moment govern solicitors and licensed conveyancers. I hope that the Committee and the noble and learned Lord will feel that in drawing up the new clause which forms part of the amendments we have carried through those provisions which relate to solicitors and licensed conveyancers. We have done so with the object of safeguarding the public in the same way as they have been safeguarded by statute with regard to those other callings. I beg to move.

The Earl of Shannon

The noble Lord has rather beaten me to the post. Although his amendment, Amendment No. 180C, comes after my amendment, Amendment No. 179, obviously it covers very much the same ground. Should my amendments (Amendments Nos. 179 and 180) fail, I shall very strongly support Amendment No. 180C to which the noble Lord has spoken but not yet moved.

The Lord Chancellor

Paragraph (f), which is the last paragraph of subsection (2), provides that the regulations may deal with the handling by authorised practitioners of their clients' money and it will be possible for regulations to be made on the lines of these amendments if that is what seems to be required after full consultation.

I certainly intend the regulations to be as full as is necessary appropriately to deal with this matter. The matter is exactly covered by paragraph (f). I believe that that is in sufficient detail for the purposes of the primary legislation.

In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe that what I have said also covers the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

As I might have done on the previous amendment, I merely remark that my noble and learned friend has very properly said what he proposes to do, which is a perfectly adequate way of dealing with these matters of detail, rather than to have a permissive clause stating that the Minister may in particular do so and so.

I am glad to say that there were only two words of difference between my noble and learned friend and myself. I ventured to say that the whole of that subsection was unnecessary. My noble and learned friend said that strictly speaking it was unnecessary. I am glad that only two words remain between us. I shall return to the matter at the Report stage.

Lord Mishcon

In view of the very clear statement made by the noble and learned Lord, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Shannon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 179:

Page 30, line 14, after ("handling") insert ("and financial surveillance").

The noble Earl said: I would have asked leave of the Committee to speak to both my amendments, Amendments Nos. 179 and 180, but as they have recently been very well spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he dealt with an earlier amendment which he has withdrawn, and in view of the clear, very convincing and reassuring statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not intend now to propose an amendment which would merely add a belt to an otherwise perfectly satisfactory pair of braces. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]

Lord Evans of Claughton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 179A: Page 30, line 15, at end insert ("and interest on client's money and commissions").

Lord Foot

This amendment is very largely covered by the next one which appears on the Marshalled List. In those circumstances it is not moved.

[Amendment No. 179A not moved.]

8.15 p.m.

Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 179B:

Page 30, line 15, at end insert — ("( ) as to the disclosure of and accounting for commissions.").

The noble Lord said: Following the usual courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which I much appreciate, I move this amendment. Clients who deal with institutional conveyancers should obviously be able to expect the same rules as to disclosure and accounting for commissions as if they were dealing with a solicitor. The matter is as simple as that. Accordingly I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

A power to make arrangements along these lines is already indicated, as it were, as a particular in subsection (2)(e). This is a matter on which I should certainly wish to consult in detail because there are many detailed matters that would have to be dealt with in relation to this area if it were to be the subject of regulations. The noble Lord may therefore take it that I shall have this very much in mind as a matter to be considered in relation to the reglations. I shall undertake full consultation upon them when they are drawn.

As I said, there are a number of difficulties inherent in this area which I need not elaborate at this stage but which I shall certainly bring out in the consultation on the regulations. In the light of that reply I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mishcon

Perhaps I may respectfully tell the noble and learned Lord why I am in some difficulty and I hope that he will understand my position. The ambiguous wording of the White Paper causes me some problems because in the White Paper the statement is made that: Authorised practitioners will be required to disclose to the client any commissions or like benefits". In the Green Paper it seemed that there would also be an obligation to account. Disclosure is one thing, as the noble and learned Lord very readily appreciates; accounting for it in exactly the same way as solicitors have to do is an entirely different matter. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help me by making it quite clear to the Committee that it is not just the question of disclosure at which he will be looking but he will also be looking at the question of accounting.

The Lord Chancellor

I have the question very much in mind and in that sense I am looking at it. I propose to make it necessary to separate out the cost of each item and each part of any services which a building society, for example, may offer. That may well be a way of dealing with this point. I shall certainly keep in mind all that the noble Lord said. As I observed, there will be full consultation on this matter as we draft the regulations.

Lord Mishcon

I obviously do not want to indulge in cross-conversation of any length with the noble and learned Lord. But as this is a consultation on principle and not a consultation on the wording of any regulation, does he intend to have those consultations during the various stages of this Bill in this Chamber so that at all events by the end of Report stage we should have an opportunity to have a statement from him which at least would enable us to say what the principle ought to be when we reach Third Reading?

I say respectfully to the noble and learned Lord that I well understand that the wording of regulations may require great care. However, he has shown in his remarks quite clearly that there may be an issue of principle involved in this matter. Can the principle at least be announced in very definite terms before the Bill reaches this Chamber so that the opinion of noble Lords on this matter may be taken if, by some mischance, the noble and learned Lord were to decide the principle in a way which was not acceptable?

The Lord Chancellor

I doubt very much whether it would be possible to produce the draft regulations at this stage. I feel that we must try to get right first the primary legislation. Certainly I undertake to have full consultation about the principle. Also, these regulations would come under the affirmative resolution procedure.

The point of principle and the point of detail in this area are very closely connected. So far as I am concerned, in principle I should find it perfectly easy to think of something along the lines of the noble Lord's amendment. The difficulties arise from the way that that might be applied. Therefore I think it quite difficult to dissociate the detail from the principle in this situation. I therefore believe that the best I can do is to make it absolutely plain that very full consultation on the regulations will be afforded before this part of the Bill becomes effective and the regulations are produced.

Lord Mishcon

I know that the noble and learned Lord is trying to help me. He will not think me in the slightest degree discourteous if I say that he has only gone a very small distance down the path to helping me. What I believe is so essential is that the principle of not only disclosing but accounting for commissions, which solicitors have to do —and I am limiting it to that —should be the rule in regard to other institutions that are enabled by this Bill to take the place of solicitors.

If the noble and learned Lord will go a little further down the road to help me by saying that he accepts that there should be a principle —and I ask for it only in general terms —to disclose and account by the institutions about which we are talking, then I leave the question of consultation as to how it is done and the wording of the regulations until a later date, the timing of which I do not even ask for. But I cannot leave the principle, which is such an important one for the public safeguard and for equitable treatment, unanswered.

If the noble and learned Lord can go that distance with me on the general principle, I can obviously take a certain course. If he does not go down the road with me by agreeing to the principle, then I have to consider the position very carefully.

The Lord Chancellor

I have said as much as I reasonably can at this juncture.

Lord Mishcon

It is a great shame. I thought that I had opened a door that the noble and learned Lord could have entered with ease. However, unless he can reconsider his statement, he has given me no alternative but to divide the Committee.

8.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 179B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Ackner, L.	Lockwood, B.
Boardman, L.	Lytton, E.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Bridge of Harwich, L.	Mishcon, L.
Byron, L.	Monson, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Coleraine, L.	[Teller.]
Craigavon, V.	Prys-Davies, L.
Donaldson of Lymington, L.	Renton, L.
Foot, L.	Roskill, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Shackleton, L.
Hacking, L.	Shannon, E.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Lawrence, L.	Templeman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Belstead, L.	Henley, L.
Blatch, B.	Hives, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Hooper, B.
Butterworth, L.	Joseph, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Long, V.
Carnock, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Lyell, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Mountevans, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Strathclyde, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Strathmore and Kinghorne,
Ferrers, E.	E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Ullswater, V.
Hastings, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 179C:

Page 30, line 15, at end insert — ("( ) Any solicitor who is carrying out conveyancing services on behalf of an authorised practitioner or who is supervising the carrying out of such services must have in force a practising certificate.").

The noble Lord said: The object of the amendment is to require any solicitor who is carrying out or supervising conveyancing services on behalf of an authorised practitioner to hold a practising certificate. Members of the Committee will know that it is only through the requirement that a solicitor holds a practising certificate that the Law Society is able to impose certain necessary controls.

The practising certificate is fundamental if the Law Society is to ensure the maintenance of standards of competence, conduct and integrity of solicitors. It is in the interests of the clients of authorised practitioners that such standards be maintained; otherwise some people could cause considerable damage to clients. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

As I explained earlier, the provisions of subsection (2)(b) make it appropriate to prescribe the nature of the qualifications that are to be required. One would take the qualifications in relation to solicitors on the basis of the Law Society's statutory requirements. Accordingly, the powers properly to prescribe qualifications are already contained in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that the amendment is unnecessary.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington

Perhaps the matter can be looked at in a wider context. Ought a solicitor to be allowed to carry on any practice as a solicitor —as he would be if he were using his qualifications to carry out conveyancing work—without a practising certificate? That will require the amendation of various sections in the Solicitors Act.

The Lord Chancellor

I agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend has said. Primarily the question must be settled in the legislation dealing with solicitors. However, the prescribing powers enable me to follow that in prescription under the Bill.

Lord Prys-Davies

I am grateful for an indication of the noble and learned Lord's thinking. I do not propose to pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Shannon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180:

Page 30, line 15, at end insert — ("(g) as to the establishment of a compensation fund to recompense any member of the public who has sustained financial loss.").

The noble Earl said: The amendment is similar to my previous amendment. In view of the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord with regard to the handling of clients' money, I do not seek to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 180A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 180B:

Page 30, line 15, at end insert — ("(3) Prior to making any regulations under this section the Lord Chancellor shall consult with his advisory committee and the regulatory bodies governing the Bar, Solicitors, Notaries and Licensed Conveyancers.").

The noble Earl said: I do not know whether I should move the amendment because it is not mine. It has been tabled in my name in error. I do not know whether any Member of the Committee wishes to speak to it. In a previous issue of the Marshalled List it was tabled under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. However, in case any Member wishes to speak to it —I do not understand it —I formally beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

I intend to have wide consultation as regards making regulations under the clause. All the interests referred to in the amendment would be among those to be consulted. The advisory committee has no specially important role but we should wish to have its views as well as those of the governing bodies of the Bar, the Law Society, notaries and licensed conveyancers.

The Earl of Shannon

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I am sure that the Member who tabled the amendment will be pleased to read that in Hansard. In view of the fact that no one wishes to speak to it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Foot

I should like to offer a few observations on Clause 37. It is of immense importance because it seeks to outline and define the obligations of an authorised person and a solicitor. More importantly, it seeks to provide safeguards for the interests of the lay client.

I acknowledge that this afternoon we have had a debate of considerable importance. However, I am left with the feeling that there is an air or unreality about the clause. Subsection (1) merely states the purposes of the regulations which the Lord Chancellor will make. Subsection (2) sets out the various matters which may be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in his regulations. However, no indication is given of the substance of the regulations. For example, we have had a long debate about the regulations being designed to avoid conflicts of interest yet we still do not know the regulations which will achieve that object.

It is impossible for the noble and learned Lord to tell us what the regulations will be because he may not be the author. Unhappily, he will not be with us for ever. Presumably in the course of time regulations will be made by other Lord Chancellors.

After our long debate we have no indication, guarantee or assurance about what the regulations will provide. Therefore, we move on to the rest of the Bill with no confident knowledge of what will happen in reality and in practice as a result of the clause.

I do not know whether it would have been possible for the clause to have defined more precisely the contents of the regulations. During the course of the debate suggestions have been made from more than one side of the Committee as to what the regulations should contain and provide. On each occasion the noble and learned Lord has resisted the suggestion that he should define the way in which the regulations will be framed. That appears to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I believe that it is possible to indicate not only the subjects upon which regulations are to be made but also the nature of the regulations.

The Lord Chancellor

I have endeavoured to do that in so far as I possibly can in relation to the various matters raised. The White Paper sets out the thinking as far as it was developed at that stage in relation to regulations.

What I have said —and I think this is important —is that I undertake to bring back on Report an amendment making the regulation-making power subject to the affirmative procedure. I have also said that there will be wide consultations on these regulations before they are put forward for approval by both Houses of Parliament.

I believe that that is as full a description of the situation as is reasonably possible at this stage. I have sought to indicate, where I have been asked, what I am able to do. The reason that we had a Division on the last amendment was that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, felt that I had not been able to go far enough. I have tried to be absolutely clear to the Committee at every stage as to what is my state of thinking at present.

The noble Lord is right. This is a matter which will go into the future, but as regards the making of the regulations I cannot do more than indicate. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale put the point that the headings are perhaps not necessary. I said that they are not strictly necessary and he said that they are not necessary at all. I said that they are not strictly necessary but I put them in to indicate the headings so that Parliament may go forward on the basis that these are matters which will be considered in relation to making provisions. Those are the headings under which, as at present advised, provision is required. I hope the noble Lord feels that that is as far as we can reasonably go.

The desirability on making the list is to give as much indication as one can in the primary legislation of the matters which the regulations are designed to cover.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180C: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

("Compensation for losses caused by authorised practitioners

.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules establishing a fund for the making of grants or other payments for the purpose of relieving or mitigating losses suffered by persons in consequence of —

1. (a) fraud or other dishonesty on the part of authorised practitioners, or of officers, employees or associates of theirs, in connection with their practices (or purported practices) as authorised practitioners; or
2. (b) failure on the part of authorised practitioners to account for money received by them in connection with their practices (or purported practices) as authorised practitioners.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section may —

1. (a) provide for the levying of contributions from, or from any class of, authorised practitioners and otherwise for financing the scheme and for the payment of contributions and other money into the fund;
2. (b) specify the terms and conditions on which, and the extent to which, compensation is to be payable and any circumstances in which the right to compensation is to be excluded or modified;
3. (c) specify the circumstances in which authorised practitioners are exempt from the rules and in particular may specify the circumstances in which bonding arrangements made by an authorised practitioner may be regarded by the Board as sufficient to exempt that authorised practitioner from the rules; and
4. (d)) contain incidental, procedural or supplemental provisions.

(3) Where the applicant is —

1. (a) a bank which is authorised by the Bank of England, under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to operate a deposit taking business;
2. (b) a building society which is authorised by the Building Societies Commission, under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986, to raise money for its members; or
3. (c) an insurance company which is authorised under section 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982,

the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the fact that it is so authorised in determining whether it should be exempt from the compensation fund rules.").

The noble Lord said: The whole subject of compensation is dealt with hereafter in certain amendments. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 180C not moved.]

Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180D: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

("Rules concerning indemnity

—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules concerning indemnity against losses arising from claims in respect of any description of civil liability incurred by an authorised practitioner or former authorised practitioner in connection with the provision of conveyancing services.

(2) For the purpose of providing indemnity the rules —

1. (a) may authorise or require the Board to establish and maintain a fund or funds;
2. (b) may authorise or require the Board to take out and maintain insurance with insurers authorised to carry on insurance business under the law of the United Kingdom or any other member State; and
3. (c) may require any authorised practitioner to whom the rules apply to take out and maintain insurance with any such insurer.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the rules may —

1. (a) specify the terms and conditions on which, and the extent to which, indemnity is to be available, and any circumstances in which the right to it is to be excluded or modified;
491
2. (b) provide for the management, administration and protection of any fund maintained by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above and require authorised practitioners to whom the rules apply to make payments to any such fund;
3. (c) require authorised practitioners to whom the rules apply to make payments by way of premium on any insurance policy maintained by the Board by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above;
4. (d) prescribe the conditions which an insurance policy must satisfy for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above;
5. (e) authorise the Board to determine the amount of any payments required by the rules, subject to such limits or in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed by the rules;
6. (f) specify circumstances in which, where an authorised practitioner for whom indemnity is provided has failed to comply with the rules, the Board or insurers may take proceedings against him in respect of sums paid by way of indemnity in connection with a matter in relation to which there has been a failure to comply with the rules;
7. (g) specify circumstances in which authorised practitioners are exempt from the rules;
8. (h) empower the Board to take such steps as it considers necessary or expedient to ascertain whether or not the rules are being complied with; and
9. (i) contain incidental, procedural or supplemental provisions.

(4) Where the applicant is —

1. (a) a bank which is authorised by the Bank of England, under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to operate a deposit taking business;
2. (b) a building society which is authorised by the Building Societies Commission, under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986, to raise money for its members; or
3. (c) an insurance company which is authorised under section 3 or 4 of the insurance Companies Act 1982, the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the fact that it is so authorised in determining whether it should be exempt from any rules made under this section.").

The noble Lord said: Again, the question of indemnity has been discussed on a previous occasion. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 180D not moved.]

Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180E: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

("Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients' money

.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules with respect to the handling by authorised practitioners of their clients' money.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section shall —

1. (a) require authorised practitioners (except in such cases as may be specified in the rules) to open and keep at an institution of a kind specified in the rules acounts for clients' money;
2. (b) require authorised practitioners (except in such cases as may be specified in the rules) to pay clients' money into such an account;
3. (c) require authorised practitioners to keep accounts containing particulars and information in respect of clients' money; and
4. (d) require any such accounts to be examined by an accountant having such qualifications as are specified in the rules and shall require the accountant to report to the Board whether in his opinion the provisions of the rules have been complied with and on such other matters as may be specified in the rules.

(3) Where an authorised practitioner is required to have an auditor, whether by virtue of any provision contained in or made under any enactment or of the rules of any professional' or other body, the rules may require the examination and report referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) to be carried out and made by that auditor.

(4) For the purposes of this section and section (Accounting for interest on clients money) "clients' money" includes money held by an authorised practitioner as a stakeholder (whether or not paid by a client of the authorised practitioner).").

The noble Lord said: Again, the principle has been spoken to earlier in the debate. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 180E not moved.]

Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180F: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

("Accounting for interest on clients' money

.—(1) Rules made under section (Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients' money) shall make provision for requiring an authorised practitioner who has received clients' money to account, in such cases as may be prescribed by the rules, to the person who is or becomes entitled to the money for the interest which was, or could have been, earned by putting the money in a separate deposit account at an institution authorised for the purposes of rules under subsection (2)(a) of that section.

(2) The cases in which an authorised practitioner may be required to account for interest by rules made by virtue of subsection (1) may be defined by reference to, among other things, the amount of the sum held or received by him or the period for which it is likely to be retained, or both; and any such rules may include provision for enabling a client (without prejudice to any other remedy) to require that any question arising under the rules in relation to the client's money be referred to and determined by the board.

(3) Except as provided by any rules so made and subject to subsection (4), an authorised practitioner who maintains an account in pursuance of section (Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients' money) (2)(a) in which he keeps money received or held for or on account of his clients generally shall not be liable to account to any person for interest received by him or it on money in that account.

(4) Nothing in this section or in any rules shall affect any arrangement in writing between an authorised practitioner and his or its clients as to the application of the clients' money or the payment of interest on it.").

The noble Lord said: The same applies to this amendment, which I do not intend to move.

[Amendment No. 180F not moved.]

[Amendment No. 180G not moved.]

Clause 38 [The Conveyancing Appeal Tribunals]:

[Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 184A not moved.]

Schedule 6 agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 184B: After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule: