Lords Sitting of 24 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Radar Transmitter, St. David's Peninsula
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have recently re-examined the case for the over the horizon radar transmitter at St. David's in Pembrokeshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, no. The Government see no reason at present to re-examine the case for the over the horizon radar transmitter at St. David's.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but naturally I am disappointed by it. I had hoped that, in view of the changing world circumstances, the Ministry might have thought again. Does the Minister realise that that installation will be visible from the whole of the coastal path around St. David's Head; that that is a national park; that the entire population of St. David's is up in arms against it; and that apart from the health risk there is a great fear that it will have a destructive effect on tourism which is one of the great industries of that part of the country? Is it too late to ask the Ministry to think again?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of all our defence commitments, the direct defence of these islands is one that we should never contemplate abandoning. In maintaining it, we need to maintain our ability to provide early warning of any military activity in or above the huge expanse of the Norwegian seas to the north of the United Kingdom. We believe that OTHR can make a substantial contribution to that difficult surveillance task.
As regards the second part of the noble Baroness's question, of course we are sensitive to the objections relating to national parks. We are committed to consulting fully the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission over any significant development within a national park. Military use and tourism are by no means incompatible, as, for instance, at Fylingdales in the north Yorkshire moors national park.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while I do not share the views of those who think that the risk has disappeared from the world or that it is unseemly to have a defence installation near the holy place of St. David's, I am deeply sceptical of the view that it is impossible to consider a location that will do less environmental damage? Will he accept from me, as one who was a local Member of Parliament and lived for a number of years less than a mile from the site, that there is well justified concern at the serious damage that that siting would do to the
1328
beautiful and extremely important environment of the St. David's peninsula, which, as he has reminded us, is part of a national park?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I fully appreciate the local concern upon which my noble friend comments. An environmental impact assessment will be done. That is essentially a technique for ensuring that the likely effects upon the environment of a new development are fully understood and taken into account. By providing a full analysis of the proposal's likely effects, an EIA can help to allay fears created by a lack of information. At the same time, it can help to inform the public of the main issues that the local planning authority will have to consider in reaching a decision on the planning application.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the recess I walked the 200 miles of the Pembrokeshire coastal path in 10 days? I can inform him, without fear of successful contradiction, that St. David's peninsula is one of the most beautiful, magical and holy parts of that extraordinarily beautiful area. Is he further aware that I would willingly walk it again, if he would agree to accompany me, to point out to him a dozen sites in that area which, from an environmental point of view, would be infinitely better as a site for his equipment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord had such an interesting recess; that he covered 200 miles; and that he is willing to cover it again. Equally, I am aware of the sensitivity of that location and the strength of local feeling about it. I can say categorically that St. David's was selected as a location for the transmitter only after an exhaustive search for suitable sites. In fact, 160 other sites were considered.
Our proposals will be submitted to the local planning authority—in this case the Pembrokeshire coast national park—and will fully address the need for appropriate landscaping to minimise the impact upon the environment. The point is that the distance between the transmitter and the receiver should be on a latitude of between 50 miles and 150 miles. That site was thought to be the only one that fitted those requirements.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, in his categorical reply was the Minister taking into account the fact that last week the American Congress cut out of the Pentagon's budget expenditure for that purpose? If he is so certain that it is necessary, what will he do if that disagreement persists and Congress has its way?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is our understanding that as part of the scrutiny of the United States Government spending proposals for the fiscal year 1991, Congress has requested that the United States Navy should re-examine the requirement to locate the radar in the United Kingdom. The response to that request is a matter for the United States Government. However, we understand that they remain fully committed to the proposal to undertake a joint two-year trial of OTHR in this country.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is purely a bilateral arrangement between the military authorities of Great Britain and those of the United States, and that it has nothing to do with, for example, any NATO commitments that we may have? Does the Minister understand that if he tried his hardest he could not have found a more sensitive site in the whole of Wales for this installation? This is not just a matter of local opposition. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is fully aware of that fact. To put the matter at its lowest, does the Minister recognise that if the Government want to lose the few Conservative seats that they still hold in Wales, this is an excellent way to start that process?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not accept the final point that the noble Baroness made. I must repeat that we are extremely sensitive to all the implications of this matter. As regards the first point that the noble Baroness made on NATO, I must emphasise that this is a trial project. We would not normally expect to seek or to be granted NATO funds for such a purpose. However, the air defence of the United Kingdom region is an important NATO endorsed task. We are confident that the alliance will be interested in the implications of a successful outcome of this trial.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister recognises that the United States Congress does not like this project. He has said that the Government will apply for planning authority through the normal channels. Given that this application will inevitably be opposed, will the Minister give an undertaking to this House on behalf of the Government that if the application is turned down the Government will not override that decision on defence grounds?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the project were turned down, any decision that was taken would be entirely a matter for the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister accept that although many Members of your Lordships' House are not Welsh they are nevertheless greatly disturbed by this development? Many of us have spent time on that coast and recognise how beautiful it is. We recognise that it should not be disturbed except absolutely as a last resort. Will the Minister please go away and tell his honourable and right honourable friends in the Government that they must think again about this matter because considerable concern is felt by noble Lords in all parties and in all parts of the House, whatever their nationality?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I trust that when the noble Lord told me to go away he meant it metaphorically. I must repeat again that once we have submitted the planning applications we intend to give full public presentations of our proposals. There will be a 16-week statutory limit on that. I assure noble Lords that no construction work will begin before the planning process has been completed.

Housing Account: Subsidy Determination
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost to public funds of the error in drafting of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 1989, and what action is being taken in respect of those responsible for the error.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there have been some very misleading press stories recently, making allegations of error based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the subsidy rules. There is no error of the kind alleged and the drafting of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 1989 fulfilled the department's policy intention at that time. The department now considers, however, that the rule in question should have been tougher in certain circumstances. We might save another £2 million to £3 million by that means. We are consulting on the change.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is it not a fact that if the original order had been drafted as my noble friend now suggests it will be, that would have saved between £2 million and £3 million of public expenditure? Is it not quite clear that the department failed to provide for the case where overspending by local authorities should be counterbalanced by a governmental charge as is now proposed? In view of the fact that £2 million to £3 million of public expenditure is of considerable importance, will my noble friend take this matter back to the department and ask it to do better?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to make a distinction between the £2 million to £3 million referred to by my noble friend and the allegations that have been made about £250 million. Those two sets of figures are quite separate and distinct. However, the matter could have been thought through and the point at which the subsidy cut-off was made could have gone on to infinity; in other words, the subsidy could have been phased out altogether. Had that been done when the legislation was implemented, it would have saved £2 million to £3 million. However, speedy action was taken. The situation was spotted very quickly. I am pleased to say that it is proposed that the change will come into effect on 1st April 1991.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I do not wish to condone any mistake where the cost of that mistake has to be borne by the public purse. However, could the mistake have been made as a result of the complexity of the legislation which was being implemented? As we pointed out during the passage of that legislation in your Lordships' House, it is complicated. Is it the case that what happened was more the result of a misunderstanding than of a mistake?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I refute very strongly the suggestion that there was a mistake. We are not talking about a mistake; nor did I concede to my noble

1331
friend that there had been a mistake. When the 1989 Act came into effect some subsidy was left, at whatever level authorities spent. It has subsequently been thought fit that subsidy should be phased out altogether for the period between 1988 and 1990. That was an adjustment of policy and not the correction of a mistake.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am glad to accept from the Minister that there was not a mistake. However, I wonder why the Question was raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what she said was not a mistake was the failure to do what she said will now be done, and that that failure has cost the British taxpayer between £2 million and £3 million? If that is not a mistake I wonder what my noble friend regards as a mistake.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to note that at the time the Act was implemented it was felt that some subsidy should be left in the system, at whatever level a local authority spent. It has been determined subsequently in the light of the levels of spending of some local authorities that the subsidy should be phased out altogether. It is that adjustment of policy and not the correction of a mistake with which we are concerned.

Cambodian Conflict
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to bring about an end to the war in Cambodia.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council we played a full part in negotiating the Five's Framework for a comprehensive political settlement which the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have endorsed. Although the Cambodian parties have accepted it in its entirety as the basis for settling the Cambodian conflict, civil war continues. We call upon the parties to the conflict to stop the fighting and co-operate to the full in working out the details of a comprehensive political settlement.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, does he agree that in the absence of a UN Security Council requirement for a cease-fire there is a very real danger that the Khmer Rouge will continue to keep the war going as it is in its interests to prevent the UN peace framework from being put in motion? Will the Minister say what Her Majesty's Government are doing in order to bring about a cease-fire? In view of the appalling poverty in Cambodia, the hundreds of children who are dying each day from preventable diseases, the fact that 80 per cent. of the water is contaminated and the enormous number of amputations carried out daily as a result of injuries caused by minefields, will he also say when Her Majesty's Government will restore bilateral aid to Cambodia?
1332
Will he also say when the UN Development Programme will allow Cambodia to have the 40 million dollars set aside for that purpose?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that a cease-fire is an essential part of a comprehensive political settlement. As I said in my original Answer, we have repeatedly called on all parties in the conflict to stop fighting and co-operate to the full in working out details of such a settlement.
With respect to aid to Cambodia, we have committed £565,000 in support of 12 NGO projects inside Cambodia under the joint funding scheme. We have also given support for the humanitarian needs of the coalition members, excluding the Khmer Rouge, outside Cambodia. We contributed £780,000 to British NGOs and multilateral agencies in 1989–90 and are considering how best to contribute to their activities in the future.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, at the present time is there any sign whatever of a settlement taking place?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the five Permanent Members of the Security Council will continue their work to prepare for detailed discussion of a settlement based on the New York framework. That includes pressure being brought on the Cambodians to settle their differences over the appointment of a chairman to the Supreme National Council. Against that background we hope that the co-ordinating committee of the Paris International Conference on Cambodia will reconvene soon to agree details of the settlement and we hope that that could lead to a plenary session of the Paris International Conference on Cambodia before the end of this year to sign agreements which will lead to such a settlement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we appreciate the acute difficulty of those negotiations and support the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to bring the matter to a conclusion. Can the Minister say whether the Government support the proposal that the proposed Supreme National Council for Cambodia should contain representatives of the Khmer Rouge? As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs about the appalling suffering of the people of Cambodia, can the Minister say when the UN Development Programme money, which I believe amounts to 40 million dollars, will be released to help the people of Cambodia?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the composition of the Supreme National Council, which was agreed by the Cambodian parties in Jakarta on 10th December, is a matter for those parties to decide in accordance with the New York framework agreement. That agreement specifies that it should be composed of representative individuals with authority among the Cambodian people. Members of that council will not represent any faction or party. Also, in accordance with the framework agreement, they have to be acceptable to each other.
Regarding the question of the United Nations development aid, the planned allocation to Cambodia

1333
for the five-year period will be 41 million dollars but a number of United Nations agencies are active there and we support them.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, regarding support for the Cambodian economy, can the Minister say what trade we have with Cambodia—what exports go to Cambodia from this country and what imports come here?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have with me figures on our trade with Cambodia. However, I can add that we make emergency relief funds available in addition to the funds which I indicated. The comprehensive settlement is likely to be very expensive and we shall be making a substantial financial contribution to it which will probably run into millions of pounds.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is no truth in the suggestion in newspaper articles that the SAS has been training Khmer Rouge people?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot comment on that allegation. However, I can say that we have given no assistance of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.

Bird Control Measures: Proposals
2.57 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to seek an amendment to the EC Birds Directive to ensure the continuing availability of measures to control bird species listed as pests in Schedule 2, Part II, to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have consistently urged the European Commission to bring forward proposals for amending the directive which, without compromising its conservation objectives, would permit member states to control effectively the problems and damage caused by pests such as crows and magpies. We raised the matter in the Agriculture Council only last month. Very recently the Government have learnt that the Commission may intend to come forward with a proposal to address the problem. Any such changes would need the unanimous approval of all member states.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that it will come as a great relief to sheep farmers who suffer from damage caused by black-backed gulls and crows, arable farmers suffering from damage caused by pigeons and those interested in wildlife which may be wiped out by crows and magpies? Will the Minister do all she possibly can to try to have this matter placed on a permanent basis rather than subject to an annual licence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will come as a great relief to us all, and to the Government in particular, if we can bring about a change to the directive to deal
1334
with the problem of pest control. I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that we shall do all we can to press for such changes.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the commissioners and their officers are looking again at the birds directive, and that many representations have been made to them? Can she therefore explain why the Government are so insistent that the order must be made by 1st December this year? If there is no change of direction in Brussels, would it not be preferable to contest the European Commissioners' decision in the European Court rather than introduce a ridiculous, defective and unenforceable licensing system for the control of bird pests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have absolutely no choice in the matter of conforming with the directive. We have recently received formal notification that we are in breach of the directive. We have to respond to that formal notification and we are doing so. I repeat that we shall do all that we can to make sure that the changes to the directive are brought about. I am assured by much legal advice that we should stand no chance whatever in the European court. Knowing that our chances are somewhat slim, it would not be a good idea to continue in breach. We should use all our energies to bring about a change in the directive.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that if a review of the present lists were accompanied by improved monitoring, the result would be very acceptable to the RSPB? That has long stressed the need for continued monitoring of the species on the list of pests. The RSPB take a sensible view about the need to control certain bird species. However, the necessity to re-examine the list is illustrated by the fact that golden plovers, for example, can be shot by someone without a licence and those birds are now becoming very rare. Whatever happens about the list generally, can she assure the House that there will be continuous monitoring of birds which are either included or excluded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Wildlife and Countryside Act has served very well in terms of making sure that if we are to kill birds, it will be pests that we kill. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I am the first to say that if we are able to bring about a change in the directive, we shall do so after severe scrutiny of any birds prescribed for the list.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Scotland the wood pigeon is a big pest, but magpies cannot get a living? The wood pigeon does enormous damage all the year round. Wood pigeons can clean out a field of oilseed rape in two nights. Does she agree that if this order is not amended, the Government, along with the Commission, will be stigmatised in most rural areas and constituencies as stark raving mad?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say "Caw!" I learn something every day at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to the noble Lord for improving my education on these matters. We are talking about a

1335
very serious problem. It is not about conservation but about pests. My understanding is that there has been a great increase in the number of magpies, for example, and if we are not allowed to bring about this change and operate sensibly, as we do in this country, we shall have a very serious problem here. That gives urgency to the need for a change.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, does my noble friend agree I that she could usefully bear in mind when encouraging the European Commission to bring forward an amendment that several of the species in Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act are preyed upon by these species which are now to be afforded further protection in Part II of Schedule 2? Is not that in itself a major nonsense?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have now learnt something else. I note what the noble Lord said, and in any representations that we make we shall bear it in mind.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in this country we suffer from a torrent of regulations and directives which constitute an onerous burden on the British public and British business? Does she agree that it is about time that we had a close season on these regulations and directives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that we have spent so much time recently discussing matters in the Chamber, I do not believe that anybody could argue against a European approach to protection of wildlife. That is what we are talking about in this directive. We are full members of the Community and if we believe that there is a nonsense, as we do in this case, we should do what we can and use all our energies to remedy the situation.
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I must put it to your Lordships that this Question could continue for a very long time indeed. Possibly this is one occasion on which we should resort to a little rough justice. Perhaps I may suggest to the House for once that we end this Question now. We can always return to it on another occasion.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Reay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Middle East which will be made in another place. After that, my noble friend Lord Henley will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on social security benefits up-rating.
City of Dundee District Council Order Confirmation Bill

  Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund Order Confirmation Bill
  3.6 p.m.
  Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill

  London Docklands Railway Bill
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, these are two Commons Bills that are still passing through that House, which the Commons have agreed to carry over. We are asked to concur. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of 18th October.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
  Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]

    Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.]
    The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, these are three Lords Bills which are now in another place, which it has agreed to carry over. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Commons Message of 18th October be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
    That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
    That the proceedings on such Bills shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to

    1337
    every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
    That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Underground (Victoria) Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this is a Commons Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading yesterday and which I hope noble Lords will agree to carry over. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Midland Metro Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this is a Commons Bill which is also still going through its passage in another place and which the Commons have agreed to carry over. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the' Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise with considerable sorrow and only a modicum of anger in regard to this Bill and the way in which this House is asked to consider 300 or so amendments from another place. I find it very easy to be angry with the Government and extremely difficult to be angry with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, from my point of view as well, I hope, as from that of your Lordships he is the object of sympathy. It is an impossible situation in which this House has been placed.
I do not know to what hour we shall sit but we have here one of the greatest reforms, whether we like the measures or whether we do not, to be made in our courts and the legal profession. I appreciate that there are undertakings which have to be observed and which the noble and learned Lord has observed with regard to the proceedings before your Lordships' House to see that certain amendments were effected in the other place. However, it is impossible for your Lordships' House and for the reputation of your Lordships' House to deal with important legislation of this kind in this way. I can only conclude that there is something rotten in the state—and it is not Denmark.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has raised the matter, and in such a cogent way. Many of the amendments are welcome. Indeed many are in response to points made in your Lordships' House when the Bill was before your Lordships. But it is, first, the sheer bulk of the amendments which is questionable. Secondly, the problem is compounded by continuation of a style of drafting which stands in defiance of the recommendations of the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation. Thirdly, in this respect the Bill does not stand alone; nor does this year stand alone. Your Lordships returned one week before the other place resumed. We had to deal with three important Bills and a great mass of other legislation. The notice of business warned almost every day,
"The House may sit late or very late".
"Late" means after 10.30; "very late" means after midnight; and so it has been.
This situation is an annual performance. Last year it occurred during debate on the Children Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made a notable contribution. Then the Commons amendments—almost all government amendments, like these—exceeded in length the Bill that was sent by your

1339
Lordships. This year the position is almost as bad. The Bill runs to 130 pages; the Commons amendments run to 99 pages.
It is almost an annual event. Your Lordships are fortunate in having leaders whom we hold in high respect. When we are assured annually that this situation will not recur, we listen readily. However, unfortunately it does recur. It recurs every year except when legislative decks have to be cleared to allow for a possible general election. I do not know how the next Session will stand in that respect. This year has been very bad.
I have referred to the style of drafting. The Renton Committee had a very important memorandum from the then Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie, and the late Lord Wheatley. They stated that if one tries to cover in a Bill every detail that can be envisaged one is sure to miss some important points and the courts will then be left in great difficulty. They continued, "We, the courts, are used to applying general rules to specific situations. If we were given general rules to apply it would be very much easier". That recommendation was endorsed by the Renton Committee but has been totally disregarded.
That memorandum has not only been disregarded in this Bill. Last year we debated the Children Bill where Commons amendments sponsored by the Government ran to more pages than the Bill. But the matter did not rest there. By the time the present Bill was pat forward it was discovered that more amendments were needed to the Children Bill. A long schedule, Schedule 12, made further amendments. The matter did not rest there. Another four and a half pages of amendments have been made in the Commons to Schedule 12 to this Bill, amending the Children Bill.
I venture therefore to ask this question. What will be done to relieve the burden of legislation on Parliament and in particular on your Lordships' House in the autumn? What will be done to ensure that the drafting is more in accordance with what was recommended by the Renton Committee?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what the noble and learned Lord said about the method and style of drafting. However, it is only right to place on record that nearly all of the Commons amendments result from criticisms and representations made by your Lordships when the Bill was before us and further representations made in another place. The Government were very responsive to the representations made in another place. However much one may regret the style of drafting and the mass of amendments to be considered, it is only fair to record on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and others in the Government who have co-operated with him that in substance we shall welcome nearly all the amendments. The amendments to the amendments are of a very limited character, which shows that for the most part we should be able to welcome them.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, from these Benches I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said by way of protest. In referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it is only right that one should point out that throughout the proceedings in this House protests were made from all sides as to the scope of the Bill. It was argued that Part I should have formed part of a quite different Bill and should not have been included in the current Bill.
I note that more than 90 amendments refer to Part II of the Bill. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that because of the extraordinary complexity and bureaucratic nature of the mechanism which has been set up in the Bill to govern the supply of legal services, this enormous number of amendments was absolutely inevitable from the beginning. To that extent, although we are grateful for the changes that have been made, it must be said that the Government have brought this situation upon themselves.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am surprised at the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Despite the number of amendments involved, is he suggesting that the other place is not entitled to do what it considers right to legislation that is published in its name as well as ours? To object to the length of time involved in doing what is right is splitting hairs in a way that is not helpful to general procedures.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the Marshalled List to be considered by your Lordships' House is a weighty document. If the House sits particularly late, I shall regret that as much as anybody. However, with respect to the noble Lord, I disagree that there is, as he said, something rotten in the state of Denmark. My noble friend Lord Renton put his finger on the point. Many of the amendments to be considered today by your Lordships are in response to points that were made in your Lordships' House. Quite rightly, your Lordships would be the first to point out if the Government had not endeavoured so to respond.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, will forgive me if I do not follow them down the roads of discussion about parliamentary drafting or the scope of the Bill, enormously important and relevant though both subjects are.
I wish to make two quick points. This is not a Bill which has just arrived from the Commons. Your Lordships have had time to think about what the Commons has done because the Bill left there at the end of July. Secondly, realising the weight upon your Lordships' House, my noble and learned friend characteristically sent out a massive briefing on a personal basis to all noble Lords who have been involved in the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS AND MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 22, at end insert:
'(3A) An order under subsection (1) (b), (e) or (g) may specify one or more particular county courts in relation to the proceedings so specified.
(3B) Any jurisdiction exercisable by a county court, under any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A), shall be exercisable throughout England and Wales.
(3C) Rules of court may provide for a matter—

(a) which is pending in one county court; and

(b) over which that court has jurisdiction under any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A),

K2 be heard and determined wholly or partly in another county court which also has jurisdiction in that matter under any such provision.'.
2 Page 3, line 4, leave out 'High Court' and insert 'Supreme Court'.
3 Clause 2, page 5, line 27, after 'any' insert 'judge, district judge or'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc. The amendments concern the first two clauses in the Bill, which deal with the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts, and the transfer of proceedings between courts.
Amendment No. 1 would enable me, when conferring jurisdiction in a particular area of law on the county courts under subsection (1) of Clause 1, to choose one or more county courts which should exercise that jurisdiction rather than conferring it upon all county courts. This follows an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, during Report stage to consider whether the Bill in its present form would allow specialist jurisdiction to be conferred upon particular county courts. Your Lordships will know that we have done that in relation to patent jurisdiction in respect of a county court.
Amendment No. 2 concerns subsection (9) of Clause 1, which presently requires me to report to Parliament annually about the business of the High Court and the county courts. The amendment substitutes for the reference to the High Court a reference to the Supreme Court, thus including the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court as well as the High Court. These courts are all part of the court service for which I have responsibility and are already covered in my annual report on the court service. It is appropriate that the report made to Parliament should deal with the court service as a whole. Your Lordships will have seen my report since we last discussed this matter.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to clarify Clause 2(4) to make it clear that judicial officers, judges or district judges may make an order for transfer to another county court in the course of some other action on the case.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, these amendments are most welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 4, page 6, line 35, after legal' insert 'or other'.
5 Page 6, line 41, at end insert:
'(5A) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (I), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court.
(5B) In subsection (5A), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

6 Page 7, line 26, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
7 Page 7, line 29, at end insert:
'(2) In section 52 of that Act (costs in Crown Court) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Subsection (5A) of section 5i applies in relation to any civil proceedings in the Crown Court as it applies in relation to any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) of that section".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159.
The amendments establish in primary legislation an identical power and identical test for its exercise in each court whereby legal and other representatives may be ordered to compensate others for costs resulting from the representative's fault. In so doing, the amendments clear up existing confusion in the law about the applicable test in such cases in the Supreme Court. Following earlier debate in this House the Government are in no doubt that the applicable test ought to be one of simple negligence and that the test needs to be clearly established in primary legislation. In plain terms, justice surely demands that all the courts have power to shift the loss from an innocent party to the representative whose negligence has caused it.
Amendment No. 5 establishes the simple negligence test for the High Court and the Court of Appeal Civil Division as a gloss on the general costs power in Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Amendment No. 7 achieves the same result for civil cases in the Crown Court through Section 52 of the same Act. Amendment No. 154 brings Clause 86 into line for the magistrates' civil jurisdiction and Amendment No. 153 does the same for criminal proceedings in the Crown Court and magistrates' courts by means of a new section in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. During debate on Report in another place the Government accepted an amendment to provide an appeal from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 155 and 157 apply the power to representatives who are not lawyers.
Amendment No. 159 and subsection (2) of Amendment No. 153 provide the important new

1343
safeguard of an appeal from the magistrates to the Crown Court. Amendments Nos. 156 and 158 are purely consequential on the other amendments.
Finally, I should be clear about the relationship between these amendments and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wherever costs are incurred through the fault of a representative, the power which is the subject of these amendments will be available. It will not be affected in any way by the inherent disciplinary power of the Supreme Court. Conversely, the latter remains intact and the negligence test applicable under these amendments in no way affects any stricter test applying under the inherent jurisdiction.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will appreciate that in the midst of subsection (5B) of Amendment No. 5 there appears the word "unreasonable". It is necessary to say a few words about that and I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm my view. It is important to realise that this is a provision in regard to wasted costs which can be made against a professional man, a solicitor. The word "unreasonable" needs a little attention.
It may be that as regards one's opponent in a case one may be deemed to be unreasonable and the court may believe that to be so. However, if there is no breach of any rule a professional man handling the case of his client has no duty whatever to his opponent except to act in accordance with the normal laws of professional etiquette and in accordance with the rules of court. That should be made clear so that judicially— I say this with deep respect—no doubt exists as to the meaning of the word "unreasonable".
I wish to make one other point. There is an appeal procedure from the Crown Court where such an order has been made. Your Lordships will appreciate that if a lawyer has such an order made by a court it is equal to a stern disciplinary rebuke which affects his reputation. Therefore, it is absolutely correct that there should be a right of appeal. However, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out in recent cases, when the appeal is successful it is not possible for the Court of Appeal to award costs to the appellant out of common funds.
That appears to me to be entirely wrong. The professional man has appealed in order to save his reputation. He has succeeded and he is left to bear the costs. That is not analogous with the ordinary case where one says, "There was a judicial error and there it is. You cannot expect the state to pay for judicial errors when an appeal is successful. You can expect the other party in a civil appeal to have to pay them but not in the kind of case to which I have referred".
I cannot, and do not intend to, move an amend rent relating to that today but I hope that, in confirming my view about the word "unreasonable", the noble and learned Lord will also consider for the future the right of the successful appellant in these circumstances to have his costs paid by the state.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is becoming unreasonably excited about the inclusion of the word "unreasonable", bearing in mind that in the Commons amendment it is sandwiched between the words "any improper" and "or negligent act or omission". I believe that only exceptionally unreasonable circumstances would apply in this case. That would be something which the courts could handle very easily.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend for their comments on this amendment. The standard to be applied by the court in this matter will be the standard of the legal adviser for the party in question. Merely because the other side does not like it will not mean that the conduct is unreasonable. It is conduct which is unreasonable viewed from the standpoint of a legal representative in the position of the person whose conduct is in question. The courts know how to judge standards of reasonableness and I should have thought that the factors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be the principal factors in deciding that.
As regards costs from public funds, as I see it this is a matter not of discipline—I have mentioned that already: this is a matter of dealing with what are described as wasted costs. I believe that the rule is and should be that initial decisions are the responsibility of the judiciary and are to be carefully taken. If a decision is successfully appealed, the costs must be dealt with in accordance with the powers of the court as between parties. I hope that your Lordships will agree to these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 5, page 7, line 34, leave out 'lead' and insert `adduce'.
9 Page 7, line 39, leave out 'leading' and insert 'adducing'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc. I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 and Amendment No. 27. With the exception of Amendment No. 16, these are drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos 8 and 9 concern Clause 5 (witness statements). In the other place it was suggested that the word "adducing" should replace the word "leading" which appears in Clause 5 in relation to evidence, and which might be ambiguous in view of the common meaning of the term "leading evidence". The point was referred to the draftsman, who agreed that the substitution was wise.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 concern Clause 9 (representation in certain county court proceedings). Amendment No. 14 is a drafting addition designed to make it clear that the order removing any restriction on rights of audience for particular classes of county court proceedings may be limited in its application to particular sub-classes. My intention has always been that, for example, an order deregulating rights of audience in relation to proceedings for debt under

1345
subsection (2)(a) should be capable of being limited so that it applies only to debts below a certain sum. This is particularly necessary in view of my plans to use powers under Clause 1 to abolish the county court limit, which could result in very substantial cases being heard in the county courts.
Amendment No. 15 simply deletes paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 9(3) which, as a result of other consequential amendments, serve no further purpose.
Amendment No. 16 is a substantive amendment which allows county court judges to disqualify persons who have misled the court, or otherwise demonstrated that they are unsuitable to exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation, from taking advantage of any deregulation under Clause 9. The purpose of this amendment is to meet the anxieties expressed in this House that the clause did not adequately protect litigants in small county court cases against people who misuse the new right to offer their services as lay representatives. That was an anxiety expressed by, among others, my noble and learned friends the Master of the Rolls and Lord Ackner.
Clause 9 allows the Lord Chancellor to remove any restriction whatever on rights of audience in various specified classes of case in the county courts—principally debt, housing and small claims. This follows a recommendation of the Civil Justice Review.
The purpose of this clause is to allow litigants the freedom to choose the representative of their choice. It is not my intention here to set any standards of competence but to make it possible to disqualify people who have demonstrated that they are unsuitable to exercise these rights by having misled the court or otherwise misused their rights.
Amendment No. 27 alters the drafting of Section 75(3)(d) of the County Courts Act 1984, which deals with the power of the county court rules to prescribe cases in which functions may be allocated to judges, registrars and other officers.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 7, page 8, line 16, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
11 Page 8, line 20, at end insert:
'(1 B) Any enactment which authorises leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal being given by a single judge, or by a court consisting of two judges, shall have effect subject to any provision which—

(a) is made by Rules of the Supreme Court; and

(b) in such classes of case as may be prescribed by the rules, requires leave to be given by such greater number of judges (not exceeding three) as may be so specified.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. This is an important matter which again follows on discussions in your Lordships' House. The purpose of these amendments is to meet anxieties expressed in this House and the other place that the requirement to
1346
apply for leave would involve a risk of injustice, particularly in cases where the liberty of the subject is at stake.
On Report I suggested that that risk could be eliminated in practice by requiring applications for leave in certain classes of case, such as those involving the liberty of the subject, to be heard by three judges —the same number as would sit to hear a full hearing. These amendments empower the rules of court to impose such a requirement in appropriate classes of case.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the spirit of this amendment will commend itself to the whole House. However, there is a very dangerous precedent being set and I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to it.
The right of appeal to the Court of Appeal or, indeed, any right of appeal, is very much a sacred matter which should be dealt with by Parliament. For the first time as far as I know—and the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but even if there is a precedent it is a bad precedent—we are here saying that the Rules Committee can legislate for the number of judges who might constitute a proper Court of Appeal in certain cases. That is a bad precedent because I and my colleagues in the profession believe it should be a matter for Parliament and dealt with by primary legislation and not as is envisaged in this amendment by the Rules Committee. That is the comment which I feel it is proper for me to make to your Lordships' House. However, I do not intend to resist the Commons amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the present position is that where leave to appeal is applied for to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, so far as statute law and Parliament are concerned, in every case it would be dealt with by a single Lord Justice sitting by himself. Furthermore, his decision is final.
We have domestically—if that is the right word—made some exceptions to that and on occasion applications for leave to appeal are dealt with by courts consisting of two or three Lord Justices. However, the purpose of this amendment is to relieve anxieties such as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by providing in terms in what categories of cases such applications shall be heard by more than a single Lord Justice, which represents the present law of Parliament.
Therefore, it is not a case of Parliament delegating to the Rules Committee a power in any way to restrict the rights of the litigant. If one were to stand it on its head and be a little inaccurate, it is giving the Rules Committee the power to restrict the freedom of action of the judges.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, as always, has answered an argument with great ability. But it was not the

1347
amendment to which I was objecting—I said I would not oppose it—it was the precedent by which the Rules Committee was given some jurisdiction over the numbers of judges of the Court of Appeal, whether increasing the numbers or otherwise. That was the point I wished to draw to the attention of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls pointed out, the amendment concerns leave to appeal. As I understand it at the moment that is at large for the Court of Appeal to decide. It is therefore a step in the direction in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to go; to provide power to the Rules Committee to vary the numbers of judges in specific cases. It is a response to what was said. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wished to put the position on record. It is more in relation to the material already in the Bill and not covered by the amendment that the matter arises. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is content that the amendment should go through.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Middle East
3.40 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the Middle East. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about developments in the Middle East since the emergency debate on 6th and 7th September.
"Then, the House endorsed the Government's policy, which is that of the entire international community. Saddam Hussein must leave Kuwait and the legitimate government must be restored. Iraq must release our hostages.
"Since the House met, at the United Nations we have applied growing pressure to Iraq. Negotiations are now under way in New York for a further resolution, to hold Iraq liable to pay compensation for the damage resulting from its actions, including the maltreatment of foreign nationals and property.
"Sanctions have been enforced, in particular by the effective blockade by allied ships now operating in the area. Over 100 ships from twelve countries are on constant patrol enforcing the embargo. The Royal Navy has challenged over 1,100 vessels and hay taken part in 10 boarding operations. The House will wish to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the Royal Navy.
"The United Nations will continue to tighten the screw of sanctions. We cannot relax our determination to ensure Saddam Hussein's complete and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. Since the House met, there have been many more examples of his tyranny. All the evidence suggests that, far from being under strict orders to behave with discipline in Kuwait, Iraq's soldiers have been
1348
allowed complete licence. The House will be aware that many Kuwaitis who have been able to escape their occupied country have testified to wanton destruction of property and to cruel and inhuman treatment of Kuwaiti citizens, including several murders carried out in front of wives and children, rape and torture. I remind the Iraqis once again that at all levels of authority, military or civilian, they are personally responsible under the Geneva Convention for illegal acts committed as occupiers in Kuwait.
"In these circumstances, one of our first concerns has been the welfare of the 800 British people still in Iraq, and of the remaining substantial British community in Kuwait. In Kuwait, our Embassy, one of the last to stay open, is now staffed by the Ambassador and one colleague. They will continue, through the warden system, to help Britons in Kuwait as long as is physically and practically possible.
"We welcome the release of British nationals in response to the humanitarian appeal by my right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. But I find it grisly and repulsive that the Iraqis should set about deciding who is so sick and so old that they should be released from a position in which no human being should ever have been placed and in which hundreds still remain. All our nationals—all foreign nationals—should be allowed to leave Iraq. I admire the courage of those detained or in hiding in Iraq and Kuwait and of their families here. Our Embassies have helped organise the evacuation of over 900 women and children and we are doing what we can to ensure that those who remain in Iraq have the money and comforts they need.
"The situation is particularly agonising for families here at home. We are working closely with the Gulf Support Group to provide as much help and information as we can. We cannot work miracles. But my staff and that of the Embassy in Baghdad are working round the clock on these problems. Where complaints have been made, we are investigating them urgently. Where there is room for improvement, we are making those improvements as quickly as we can.
"We should not forget that the plight of our hostages is caused by Saddam Hussein. It is he who is playing cat and mouse with them. The British Government and this Parliament cannot be blackmailed.
"The United States and Britain moved fast immediately after the invasion of Kuwait to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries from the threat of attack. Since then, a unique coalition of forces from 25 countries has been established in the Gulf. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 14th September the deployment of the 7th Armoured Brigade (the Desert Rats) and of more Tornado aircraft. This will bring the total number of British forces committed to the Gulf to some 16,000.
"Saddam Hussein will seek to cling on to the country which he has acquired by force or perhaps to negotiate his way out so that he can claim some gain from his aggression. He has tried to sow disunity among the coalition ranged against him, with a variety of bogus peace plans, delaying tactics and smokescreens. One of these is his attempt to present himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause. In fact, the Palestinian cause has been set back by Iraq's aggression and the credibility of the PLO has been damaged by their ambivalent response to it.
"Some have suggested that Saddam Hussein should be persuaded to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an international conference on the Middle East. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the countries of the Gulf and the government of Kuwait have all firmly rejected that suggestion. Iraq's withdrawal must be complete and unconditional. Members of this House and the British Government have long argued the urgent need to find a lasting settlement in the Middle East. Once Iraq is out of Kuwait, we must return to this issue. The policy of the British Government is clear and is the one I restated during my recent visit; that is, self-determination for the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders.
"The killing of 21 Palestinians on the Dome of the Rock or Temple Mount on 8th October and the latest murder of Israelis underlines the tragedy of the Arab/Israel dispute. The cycle of violence is repeating itself. I hope the government of Israel may yet agree to accept the UN Secretary General's mission to investigate those killings. To do otherwise will risk diverting the Security Council from its main task—getting Iraq out of Kuwait—and will give Saddam Hussein a cause which he will exploit ruthlessly.
"Mr. Speaker, our aim remains Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government. At a meeting of the Kuwaiti ruling family and their people in Jedda earlier this month, there was an impressive display of the loyalty of all Kuwaitis and of the unity which the crisis has produced. The Kuwaitis have announced their intention to implement in full the 1962 democratic constitution when the legitimate government is restored. Many will welcome that decision, which was taken freely by Kuwaitis. In the meantime, the pressures on Saddam Hussein remain diplomatic isolation, the economic blockade and the threat of forcible expulsion from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein's choice is simple: retreat or defeat. The Government, and doubtless this House, strongly hope that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed. But the daily destruction of Kuwait and the murder of its people continue. We are tightening the screw of peaceful pressures but we cannot shirk our part in the alternative course if that course finally becomes necessary."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. In the Statement the Foreign Secretary refers to the objectives of the United Nations laid down in the Security Council Resolutions 661, 665 and 670. It speaks of the effective blockade now in operation.
We join the right honourable gentleman in paying tribute to the Royal Navy and our other forces now stationed in the Middle East. However, can the Minister go a step further and say what evidence there is of that effectiveness? Can he confirm that there have been no serious breaches of the sea, land and air blockades? That is a point of some importance. We see a great deal on television, with some evidence that there is no lack of foodstuffs in Iraq. To what extent is that true, or is that propaganda? We know that Saddam Hussein is an expert propagandist.
Can the Minister give an estimate of how long the Government consider it will take for the sanctions to force the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait? In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to continuing to tighten the screw. What does that mean? Is any further or different action from that now taking place proposed for our forces or the United Nations forces?
We join with the Secretary of State in condemning the Iraqi troops who are guilty of barbaric acts of cruelty towards the innocent population of Kuwait. If justice is to mean anything in the international community then Saddam Hussein must answer to that at some stage.
In regard to Israel and the occupied territories, does the noble Lord agree that the recent Temple Mount shootings and the present disturbances threaten to deflect attention from the main cause of the current crisis in the Middle East; namely, the unprovoked aggression by Saddam Hussein? Further, while appreciating the extreme delicacy of the situation in Israel and throughout the Middle East as a whole, is the noble Lord able to tell the House when the Foreign Secretary will be able to meet Palestinian representatives? Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Israeli government on the present curfew that is being enforced in the occupied territories?
The House should be grateful to Mr. Heath for his personal efforts to secure the release of 33 British hostages who have been held in Iraq. While not losing sight of the fact that the retention of hostages by the Iraqis is a flagrant violation of international law and an act of historic cruelty, against that background can the noble Lord tell the House how many more hostages he expects to be released? Can he also inform us of what further steps the Government are taking? I believe that Mr. Heath referred to possible constitutional measures, but what he was thinking of I do not know. Are the Government prepared to take any other steps to secure the release of the remaining hostages?

1351
Finally, in the Statement the Foreign Secretary expresses the hope that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed. We echo that hope and will support all steps taken to that end.
Lori Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for repeating the Statement and I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in looking forward to the answers to the questions that he has put to the Minister.
We on these Benches agree with the Statement in so far as we agree that the pressure of sanctions must be maintained. We also associate ourselves with the tribute paid in the Statement, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to the work of our armed forces in that area. We also agree that the Government must maintain pressure in connection with the 800 British nationals still in Iraq. I pay tribute to the efforts made by Mr. Heath to secure the release of all too few of them.
The aim of the Government's policy—and we are in total agreement with it—must be to secure the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. There are, of course, many other issues which need to be discussed, but a Statement is hardly the right occasion on which to raise them. However, I hope that the debate on the Queen's Speech will provide that opportunity and that the subject can be debated more fully.
I must confess that one aspect of the Statement surprises me. When we were told that the Statement was to be made I drew the conclusion that it would be about the Foreign Secretary's visit, on why he went, what he expected to achieve and what in fact was the outcome. The Statement covers none of those aspects. That is rather odd. The Foreign Secretary has made an important visit to the Middle East—a very important visit— and I am sure that it was not his fault that it was hardly one of the most successful diplomatic ventures in which he has been engaged. If a Statement is made about the Middle East within a week of such a visit, surely some reference should have been made to that visit. For example, the Statement says:
"The policy of the British Government is clear and is the one I restated during my recent visit; that is, self-determination for the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders".
Your Lordships know that this was a critical matter during the course of the Foreign Secretary's visit. As a result of a statement which he made, which he says was misreported, his meeting with the Palestinians was cancelled. I should have expected to hear the contents of the statement he had intended to convey and what the outcome has been as a result of the misreporting.
I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I look forward to hearing his answers to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, but I must register my surprise that a Statement made after such an important visit should be so uncommunicative.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his reception of the Statement and also for much, though not all, of what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had to say.
1352
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked what information the Government have on sanctions and the breaching of sanctions. Our monitoring shows that some limited supplies are still getting through. We are following up all reports of breaches either bilaterally in the capitals or through the United Nations. We do not believe that there is systematic breaching of sanctions by any government, but the noble Lord will appreciate that it is virtually impossible to prevent all breaches of the sanctions. The key point is that Iraq is exceptionally vulnerable to sanctions and that the current embargo is exceptionally tight. There is no question but that it is making life extremely difficult for the Iraqis and that it is bringing home to Saddam Hussein the extent of his international isolation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about the effect of sanctions. I can say that all the outlets for oil are now effectively blocked. Neighbouring countries—Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan—have all announced that they are implementing sanctions. That is the information I have for the noble Lord and for the House on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred to Israel and the Israeli/Arab conflict. Our concerns about the situation in Israel have been made clear to the Israeli Government and we hope that they will receive the United Nations mission as called for in Security Council Resolution 672.
The noble Lord also asked about the hostages. There is intense international pressure on Iraq to allow all foreign nationals who wish to do so to leave the country. We have appealed frequently and vigorously to the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and to the Iraqi ambassador in London for the release of all British nationals.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he was surprised about the nature of the Statement and complained that it is not very informative. On the contrary, it is an extensive Statement giving a considerable amount of information. It explains why it was made; namely, to bring the House up to date since we had the emergency debate in September on the Middle East generally.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, was not my noble friend right to draw attention to the fact that the Statement does not cover the very important but disappointing events that followed a remark made by the Foreign Secretary to some Knesset members when he visited Israel? The remark implied, rightly or wrongly, that the Government were antipathetic to the idea of a Palestinian state. Can the noble Lord clarify that? He said that the Government support self-determination for the Palestinians. That surely must mean that, when the Palestinians are free to decide, if they decide on a independent state, then the British Government believe that they have a right to do so. Is that not the case? Can the Minister say how it came about that the Foreign Secretary was misunderstood as being antipathetic to the idea of an independent Palestinian state?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our position on this matter has not changed. It is still one of belief in self-determination.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has just put? In the Statement the Foreign Secretary says that he made it plain that it was the continued policy of Her Majesty's Government to support self-determination for the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Does that mean that the British Government do or do not support the concept of a separate Palestinian state? Further to that point, I understand that the luncheon for the Foreign Secretary and the Palestinian representatives was cancelled because of what the Foreign Secretary held to be a misrepresentation of what he had said at a meeting with a number of Israelis. That interpretation was broadcast on Israeli television at nine o'clock in the evening before the day of the luncheon. Can the Minister say what the British diplomats in Tel Aviv and the Foreign Secretary's entourage were doing if they did not bring that statement to the notice of the Foreign Secretary so that he could contradict it if he had been falsely reported? I ask the Minister to answer those two questions. Does self-determination include the right to a separate Palestinian state? What were the details concerning the cancellation of the luncheon with the Palestinian representatives?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that there has to be a freely-negotiated settlement. Only by that means is there a route to Israeli security and the satisfaction of Palestinian aspirations. We must first get Iraq out of Kuwait; then we can return to the peace process. We believe that is the right procedure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the Minister give some further elucidation on the position in Jordan? What is the latest position concerning refugees coming out of Iraq? Can the Minister say what the conditions are in the camps at the moment? Do the Government foresee a further flood of refugees in the near future? Further, is the noble Lord aware that the happenings in Israel and the stopping of Palestinians going about their lawful occasions and going to work, will put even greater economic pressure on the Palestinian community there which is already suffering because of the loss of remittances from Iraq? Can the Minister say what can be done about that and what pressures have been put on the Israeli Government for them to understand that situation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the vast majority of refugees in Jordan have now been returned to the home nations. Apart from that a considerable amount of assistance is being made available to them through various international organisations in which we play our full part.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there appears to be a growing divergence at least in atmosphere between some of the countries in the area and the United States and Great Britain concerning the issue of whether Saddam Hussein should be made to disgorge Kuwait through the process of negotiation or whether we should merely stand firm and pat on the issue of seeing whether sanctions work and, if
1354
necessary, use force? Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are satisfied that the alliance, so painstakingly and successfully set up after the invasion, is still holding firm? Can the Minister further say whether the basic attitude of all the countries in that alliance still remains the same? I am sure that he will appreciate that if there are divergences of opinion we should consider them very seriously indeed.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I repeat that our objective, which is shared with the United Nations, the United States, our European friends and allies and most of the Arab states, is to secure the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Iraq. We do not believe that there is anything to negotiate about. The international community has made perfectly clear its requirement that Iraq should comply with the Security Council resolutions. We have seen remarkable determination and purpose in the role of the United Nations. It has responded with unprecedented solidarity and vigour to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. We fervently believe that that will continue.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether—
Noble Lords: Lord Callaghan!
Lord Callaghan: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government's belief and hope—and I believe it is also the belief and hope of all of us—is that sanctions will be sufficient in the end to compel the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein without war. I hope that we all trust that that will be so. In those circumstances, will the Minister convey to all his Cabinet colleagues that it is of supreme importance that the British and American public understand that sanctions will not work in the short run? I trust that that is a viable policy and will produce the required results. If that is so, then that policy must be given a long time to work. We cannot expect to produce a withdrawal within a short period of time. If that policy does not work then we shall be faced with some very difficult questions.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the House will wish to ponder carefully the words of the noble Lord. We strongly hope, as I said in my original Statement, that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He will doubtless be as surprised as I am at his popularity on the Government Back-Benches. It has not always been the case. Will the Minister now answer the question I put to him concerning the situation in the occupied territories?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have any further information to add to what I said regarding the situation in the occupied territories. I repeat that we hope that Israel will agree to receive the United Nations' mission.
Lord Morris: My Lords, we bear in mind the very wise remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as to the general hope that sanctions will work. Have Her Majesty's Government worked out how much this crisis costs per diem as it continues? Can the Minister say how much it is costing the Western world each day?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot put a figure on our contribution to the costs of the Western effort. I can assure the noble Lord that we are carrying our full share of the burden.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, has the Minister seen reports that it is estimated that Iraq will be able to withstand sanctions for as long as 14 months? Has he also seen other reports that Iraq is now capable of producing not only chemical weapons, but also biological ones? In addition, Iraq may well have the ability to deliver such weapons. Is it not a fact that as well as causing strains within the alliance, the longer the crisis continues the greaten the length of time that will be given to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis further to develop biological and chemical weapons to the detriment of the alliance?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have no evidence of Iraq having, usable biological weapons.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I wish to press the noble Lord on the very disappointing answer he gave on the question of the Government's attitude to self-determination for the Palestinians. From that answer it follows clearly that the Government believe that the Palestinians' right to self-determination is qualified. It is qualified by the noble Lord stating that their right to an independent state is subject to agreement between the parties concerned. That is the only possible interpretation of the answers he has given. In effect therefore the state is subject to an Israeli veto. That is a serious falling back by the Government on previous policy statements.
Lord Reay: My Lords, there has been no falling back by the Government on previous statements. I can assure the noble Lord that our policy remains unchanged.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, further to that point, surely the Minister should say either that self-determination includes the formation of a Palestinian state if the Palestinians so desire, or else that 11e does not know the answer, that he will find it and will then write to us.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have already given the answer. We believe in self-determination on the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, am I right in supposing that the West Bank is a piece of Jordan? What my noble friends propose is that a piece of Jordan should be given away to somebody else. Has not Jordan quite enough trouble on its plate at the moment without our trying to add to it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that may or may not be so. Self-determination may or may not result in an independent Palestinian state. That is the Government's view.
Lard Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not this attempt to move the emphasis of this Statement to the Palestinian question playing Saddam Hussein's propaganda game? That is what he is trying to do. I do not think that we in this House should help him by moving in that directon.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. This is a distraction from our primary purpose and primary goal today, which is to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the Statement is headed "Statement on the Middle East"? Is it not further the case that the usual channels were told that there was to be a Statement on the Middle East and not just a Statement on Kuwait?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think anyone was complaining about the noble Lord's right to ask questions on these other matters. Neverthless, the primary goal today is to see that Iraq leaves Kuwait; and to attend to other matters is a distraction from that goal.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the PLO is giving support to Iraq? It should be condemned for that; and, likewise, Israel should receive the United Nations mission. What are the Government doing to make the Israelis understand that they will be firm about Israel's right to exist? They should not give too much sympathy to the PLO.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the original Statement included a reference to Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries. In our view it is vital that the PLO should stick to the path of moderation which it agreed at Algiers in 1988. Its rejection of terrorism should remain unequivocal.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments and Motion to be moved on consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 After Clause 8, insert the following clause:
Allocation of family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts
'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, give directions that, in such circumstances as may be specified—

(a) any family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts; or

(b) any specified description of such proceedings, shall be allocated to specified judges or to specified descriptions of judge.

(2) Any such direction shall have effect regardless of any rules of court.
(3) Where any directions have been given under this section allocating any proceedings to specified judges, the validity of anything done by a judge in, or in relation to, the proceedings shall not be called into question by reason only of the fact that he was not a specified judge.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) "county court" includes the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court in so far as it is treated as a county court.
(5) In this section—

"family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;

"judge" means any person who—

(a) is capable of sitting as a judge for a county court district;

(b) is a district judge, an assistant district judge or a deputy district judge; or

(c) is a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court; and

1357
"specified" means specified in the directions.'.
13 After Clause 8, insert the following clause:
Family proceedings in magistrates' courts and related matters
'.—(1) In this section "family proceedings" has the meaning given by section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to any enactment mentioned in that section, rules made under section 144 of that Act may make, in relation to any family proceedings, any provision which—

(a) falls within subsection (2) of section 93 of the Children Act 1989 (rules of court); and

(b) may be made in relation to relevant proceedings under section 93 of the Act of 1989.

(3) In section 35 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (composition of committee of magistrates for inner London area), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) for the words "three members of the juvenile court panel" there shall be substituted "one member of the juvenile court panel"; and

(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(bb) two members chosen, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this subsection, from any family panel or combined family panel for the inner London area".

(4) At the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
"(7) No rules shall be made under subsection (3) (bb) above except on the advice of, or after consultation with, the rule committee established under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980."
(5) In section 37(1) (a) of that Act (justices' clerks) after the words "juvenile courts" there shall be inserted "and family proceedings courts".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I shall speak at the same time to Commons Amendments Nos. 161, 162, 217 to 226, 274, 283, 287 and 300 to 303.
These amendments are concerned with the Children Act. They are intended to assist the Children Act to deliver its aims and objectives more fully in all family proceedings. The new clause at Amendment No. 12 enables the Lord Chancellor to make directions about the allocation of family proceedings in county courts. The directions will fall into two parts. First, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a particular level of judge. The new clause will enable the Lord Chancellor to give a comprehensive direction covering all family business and to ensure that particularly sensitive proceedings, such as care cases, are heard by judiciary of sufficient standing.
Secondly, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a specific individual judge. The effect will be to create a nominated group of circuit judges and district judges who will specialise in specific types of family work in the county courts. The selection of the specialist judges will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor on the advice and with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division.
The new clause at Amendment No. 13 extends the rule-making provision in Section 93 of the Children Act 1989 to cover all family proceedings. This will ensure that children cases and other family proceedings cases brought in the magistrates' courts under the Children Act will be subject to the same rules of procedure. It also provides for representatives
1358
of the new commission-wide family panel for inner London, which is to be established under the Act, to be represented on the committee to appoint a chief clerk for the new family proceedings court.
Amendment No. 161 will ensure that the power to make rules of court contained in Section 93 of the Children Act 1989 will extend to the relevant rule-making authorities in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 162 provides for rules to allow for delegation of the duties or powers of a justices' clerk to someone who is his deputy or who assists him.
Amendment No. 218 honours a commitment I made during the later stages of the Children Bill to introduce a reserve power—this is an important power —for the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury to make a specific grant towards expenditure for the administration of guardian ad litem panels. This is intended to ensure that local authorities make sufficient funds available to provide an efficient and effective service for the courts, including a sufficient supply of guardians ad litem.
The remaining substantive amendments make further minor but worthwhile changes. Amendment No. 221 concerns Section 97 of the Children Act 1989, which provides for rules to enable a magistrates' court to sit in private in certain proceedings under the Act, and restricts the publication of material which might identify a child. These provisions are intended to supplement other statutory provisions concerning privacy and the amendment clarifies this. The amendment also removes the 90-day time-limit for complying with a direction made under a supervision order. This limit, which applies to criminal supervision orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, is thought inappropriate to civil supervision orders under the Children Act.
Amendment No. 217 makes it clear that when a young person is brought before the court for variation or discharge of his supervision order, or is arrested to achieve that objective, and the court at this stage is unable to reach a decision it can either release him or remand him to local authority accommodation if he is under the age of 18, or to a remand centre or prison if he has attained that age.
Amendment No. 222 will ensure that no child in care will remain a ward of court, following the Act's commencement. This brings into line all committals to care made prior to the Act. The remaining amendments in this group make the necessary consequential amendments and repeals and minor technical changes and correct some inconsistencies and technical errors in the earlier draft. The amendments will provide the necessary changes to enable the Children Act to deliver its aims more fully.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. -(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am absolutely sure that these amendments will meet with the sympathy, understanding and indeed the approval of the whole House. There will now be, as we have had in the High Court, specially trained judges to deal with family

1359
affairs at magistrates' level and at other levels. The old registrars will be brought into the matter under their new name. That is a very welcome step. It is also a very welcome step to know that in child abuse cases (which have concerned all of us so much, especially when the figures have been brought to our attention; and some dreadful cases have been brought to our attention of late) these may go straight away to the High Court instead of going through the procedure of being made wards of court, as in the past.
This is a very welcome step; and one can see also, one dreams, the beginnings of a family court where all this will be done in a unified way in one court, and we are preparing the way with our specialist judges for just that to happen. I hope your Lordships will not think t lat this is an inappropriate moment to mention a dream which has been very often spoken of in your Lordships' House, very often hoped for and is one which, pray God, will be realised one day.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I very much welcome this group of amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 12. The exercise of family jurisdiction demands the qualities which are always necessary judicially but in a special degree. I also echo what the noble Lord said about this being a step towards a unified system of a family court.
I have only one point, and that is to wonder why subsection (3) of Amendment No. 12 is necessary. I should have thought that a judge exercising judicially functions de facto, even if not de jure, will exercise those functions effectually without needing to say so. It would be a judge ex officio. The high authority in the New Zealand Court of Appeal, if my recollection is right, to that effect was a judge actually exercising criminal jurisdiction de facto but not de jure.
I only raise the point because I have already ventured to expostulate against the wording of our legislative system. I wonder whether really sufficient examination is made to see whether everything that is put into a statute is strictly necessary. In this case, I am convinced that it was unnecessary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate the general welcome which has been expressed for these provisions by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I believe these are important steps towards a unified family jurisdiction, which may be the right answer to the attainment of the goals which have sometimes been described under different phrases in the past.
So far as concerns the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale about the need for subsection (3), the judgment was made that this was a wise provision to make when we were laying down the need for specified proceedings to go to a specified judge. What is necessary is always a question of judgment. One can leave it to the court, but I believe this was a wise provision to make.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits: Up-rating
4.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the up-rating of social security benefits being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the up-rating of social security benefits. This will take place for most benefits in the first full week of the tax year—that is to say, the week beginning 8th April. The necessary statutory instruments applying both to Great Britain and Northern Ireland will in due course be laid before both Houses for debate.
"As is customary, I will deal first with the main national insurance benefits, including most notably the retirement pension which now goes to some 10 million people. The basis for the up-rating is the latest available figure for the increase in the Retail Price Index: the 10.9 per cent. rise recorded for the year to September 1990.
"The retirement pension will accordingly rise by £5.10 a week for a single person, from £46.90 to £5200, and by £8.15 a week for a couple, from £75.10 to £83.25. This increase alone will cost some £2.3 billion, underlining once again our clear and continuing commitment to maintaining the pension's value
"Unemployment benefit will rise from £37–35 to £41.40 for a single person and from £60–40 to £66.95 for a couple; and sickness benefit from £35.70 to £39.60 for a single person and from £5780 to £64.10 for a couple.
"National insurance invalidity benefit will go up in line with the retirement pension. There will also be a 10.9 per cent. increase in all other non-income-related benefits for disabled people or those who are sick for a long period—severe disablement allowance, industrial injuries benefits, war disablement pensions, invalid care allowance, mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The 615,000 people now receiving mobility allowance will see it rise by nearly £3 a week to £29.10. For the three-quarters of a million people now receiving attendance allowance, there will be an increase of £2.75, to £27.80, in the lower rate, and of over £4, to £41.65, in the higher rate.
"The age-related additions known as invalidity allowances, currently confined to those receiving invalidity benefit but being extended in December to give up to £10 a week extra to some 100,000 people receiving the non-contributory severe disablement allowance, will rise further in April to a maximum of £11.10.
"Similarly, 10.9 per cent. increases will take place in widows pensions including widowed mothers allowance, war pensions, and all public service pensions, together with the special Ministry

1361
of Defence payment to the pre-1973 war widows, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will raise from £40 to £44.36 per week.
"For the income-related benefits—income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit—the up-rating will be based, again as usual, on the RPI less housing costs. This is because, for those receiving these benefits, help with rent is available through housing benefit or help with mortgage interest through income support itself.
"This index rose by 8.1 per cent. in the year to September 1990, and the relevant benefit rates, with one exception to which I will come later, will go up accordingly. Thus income support for a single person under 25 will go from £28.80 to £31.15; the rate for an older single person from £36.70 to £39.65; and the higher pensioner premium from £17.05 to £18.45. For a family on income support with two children aged 10 and 12, benefit will rise by £7.75 a week to £103.30, plus full mortgage interest if they have been on benefit for more than 16 weeks, or full rent if they are tenants, and eighty per cent. of their community charge.
"I turn next to Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay, which as the House is aware, are both paid through employers. The link between the two schemes is frankly somewhat artificial resting more on considerations of administrative convenience than of consistency in structure or purpose. I have concluded that the sensible development of policy of both fields would now be better served by treating them separately.
"So far as SSP is concerned, I propose to build on the re-structuring undertaken last year, taking account of the considerations I outlined to the House at that time. Occupational sick pay schemes have grown to such an extent that over 90 per cent. of the work-force now work for employers providing this cover, reflecting what is in my view a proper acceptance by employers of a much greater responsibility to cover short-term sickness amongst their employees. This in turn means that, for the great majority of those in work, the rates of SSP bear little or no relation to the amount they actually receive when sick. In these circumstances it is better for additional resources from the taxpayer to be concentrated more clearly on those least likely to have occupational provision, or in other areas of social security for which employers cannot be expected to provide.
"I therefore propose to up-rate fully, from £39.25 to £43.50, the lower of the two SSP rates, which goes to the lower-paid employees who are generally less likely to be covered by occupational schemes; to extend the coverage of this rate across the whole range of earnings bands within which employers pay lower rates of contributions, which currently covers employees earning less than £175 a week; and to leave the higher rate of SSP unchanged at £52.50. These changes will reduce
1362
expenditure by about £100 million in 1991–92, while fully protecting the lower-paid and with little or no effect for the great majority of others.
"I intend also to adjust the arrangements under which employers are fully reimbursed, by deduction from their remittance of National Insurance contributions, for the whole of their expenditure on SSP plus an amount to cover payments of such contributions on SSP itself. I propose instead to move to 80 per cent. reimbursement. This will reduce public expenditure in this area by about £180 million in 1991–92 in addition to the £100 million to which I have just referred. At the same time however, I propose to make some offsetting reductions in the rates of employers' National Insurance contributions. Full details will be given in the normal Statement about contributions which is made at the time of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. But I can indicate now that my intention is to reduce each of the lower rates—those which currently apply in respect of employees earning up to £175—by at least one quarter of a per cent. and to reduce the standard rate by 0.05 per cent. These changes will reduce employers' contributions by something over £200 million, and take account also of the compensation employers currently receive for contributions paid on SSP itself. These go a considerable way in helping employers, particularly smaller employers who tend to have lower paid employees, to meet any extra costs which might otherwise arise from the new arrangements. Legislation will be required.
"The arrangements for statutory maternity pay, where occupational cover is very much less extensive, will be left entirely unchanged, except for any minor modifications needed in consequence of the separation from SSP. That separation, however, enables me to go further on the standard rate of SMP than I have proposed for SSP. I intend not only to increase it by the RPI, which would take it from £39.25 to £43.50, but a further £1 a week to £44.50. An additional £1 will also be added to the National Insurance maternity allowance, taking it from £35.70 to £40.60 instead of the £39.60 which an RPI up-rating alone would have indicated. There will thus be a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be in the course of a year, at a cost of about £5 million.
"Apart from this increase in maternity pay, my proposals on SSP, which I believe strike a sensible new balance in the partnership between the state and employers which has developed in this field, open the way to a number of other important improvements, both small and large.
"In turning to those improvements, I should make one point clearly to the House. This is that support for families does not relate only to families with children, important though that is. It must acknowledge responsibilities towards the old as well as the young, and not least the particular pressures families can face arising from disability,

1363
or the need for special care. In framing my proposals I have sought to take account of all those strands.
"I come first to the needs of disabled people and their carers, where we are already carrying through the major programme described in my up-rating Statement last year. Last April we made real increases in the disability premiums in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, including in particular those for children; extended mobility allowance to the deaf-blind; and extended attendance allowance to disabled babies under two. This month we have introduced a carers' premium in the income-related benefits, and extended attendance allowance to meet the special needs of the terminally ill. In December we shall make the increase in severe disablement allowance to which I have already referred. And we are preparing new benefits for introduction in 1992 to help those disabled people who wish to work and further extend help with disability costs.
"Against that background, I cannot of course propose further measures on the same scale. But what I can and will do is to make five more specific improvements particularly directed at the needs of some of the most severely disabled people and their carers.
"The independent living fund, now providing extra help—averaging £74 a week but in some cases several hundred pounds a week—to some 6,000 severely disabled people in the community, will have its resources nearly doubled to £62 million next year. It will thus have risen twelvefold, from an initial £5 million in only three years.
"We shall make an additional grant to Motability of £1 million a year to enhance the assistance it can give with the expensive adaptation of cars which severely disabled people often need.
"I intend too to modify the mobility allowance regulations to help those particularly unfortunate people who suffer the amputation of both legs. The House will be aware of two recent cases—Mrs. Sandra Stones in Durham and Sergeant Andy Mudd in Colchester—where either mobility allowance was withdrawn or doubt cast on continuing entitlement. While cases in doubt may be resolved by review or appeal—as I am glad to say has indeed already happened in the case of Sergeant Mudd—it seems to me that we ought to do everything possible to avoid this sort of uncertainty and the distress it can cause. I therefore propose an amendment to put the payment of mobility allowance in such cases beyond doubt.
"I propose also two further useful improvements for carers. The amount which can be earned without affecting entitlement to invalid care allowance, increased last year from £12 to £20 a week, will in April go up by a further 50 per cent. to £30 a week. And I intend to provide that the carers' premium just introduced in income support,
1364
which as things stand would cease immediately on the death of the person being cared for, can continue to be paid for up to eight weeks thereafter.
"Next, pensioners. As I have said on a number of occasions in the House and elsewhere, in welcoming the rise in pensioners' real average net incomes which has taken place as a result of the spread of occupational and personal pensions and the growth of savings, we must not overlook those who have not yet gained from those trends.
"I therefore propose to make this year a real increase in the basic pensioner premium for those aged 60–74 in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, which will go up by £1 a week more for a single pensioner, and £1.50 more for a couple, than in a straightforward up-rating. It will thus rise by £1–95 from £11.80 to £13.75 for a single pensioner and by £2.95 from £17.95 to £20.90 for a couple, contributing to total increases of £4.90 and £7.60 respectively in their income support.
"This will cost nearly £80 million, and will assist some 400,000 pensioners directly through income support, and well over 1.5 million through housing benefit and community charge benefit. Taken together with the premium increases for the older and more disabled pensioners which took place in October 1989, it means that over 18 months there will have been a real increase in every one of the premiums applying to around 6 million less well-off pensioners, at a total cost of about £300 million.
"Thirdly, I am making a major upward adjustment in income support in a field which brings together the interests of both elderly and disabled people and the families to which they belong: the limits relating to residential care and nursing homes.
"The survey of costs we commissioned from Price Waterhouse to give us additional information in this field is being placed in the Library today. In brief, it shows that, while the limits for residential care are reasonably close to median costs across the country, those for nursing homes are significantly too low; but it does not provide evidence of a sufficiently clear pattern of geographical variation, except for Greater London, to justify the introduction of further such variations at this stage.
"What I now propose takes account both of the Price Waterhouse results and of the many other representations to us by voluntary and charitable bodies and organisations of home owners, as well as by many honourable Members on behalf of their constituents.
"For residential care, the basic limit will rise by £5 a week to £160. There will be larger increases of £15 to £185 for the category covering the very dependent and blind elderly, which includes, for example, Alzheimer's Disease cases; and for those covering mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically disabled people.
"For nursing homes, the increases will be much larger: £45 a week, to £255 a week, for the main category catering for the elderly, and also for the

1365
mentally ill; £35, to £260 a week, for the mentally handicapped; and £35, to £290 a week, for the physically disabled. The increase for terminal illness homes will be somewhat smaller, at £15, to £275 a week, taking account of the fact that this type of home received the largest increases last year, that the distinction between these homes and others is becoming increasingly artificial, and that voluntary hospices—many of which do not seek to make use of income support anyway—are now receiving extra financial help specially geared to their needs under the arrangements introduced this year by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Health.
"Additionally, I propose to introduce a special further nursing home supplement in Greater London to take it from £23 to £33 a week. Thus for an ordinary nursing home in Greater London the overall increase will be £55 a week.
"The total cost of the increases will be some £225 million. Together with those made in April and August this year, income support expenditure on those in homes will have risen by over £400 million a year in quite a short period—over and above the more than £1 billion it had already reached by the end of March this year.
"As the House knows, pending the changes now planned for 1993, the income support limits in this field are, and always have been, designed to help towards not only income maintenance but also housing and care costs. It has never been the intention, nor is it sensible, that in the generality of cases housing benefit itself should be available as an alternative to income support. An anomaly exists in the regulations, which has enabled such claims to be made; and in the light of the large increases in limits which I have announced I intend to consult on amendments to re-establish the policy intention more clearly.
"Last but not least, I intend to make an increase in child benefit, which is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. It will not, however, surprise the House that, in view of what I said earlier about considering the needs of families more broadly and of the major improvements I have just announced, I am not able simply to up-rate it across the board, which would have a gross cost of some £500 million and a net cost of some £380 million.
"In fulfilling my statutory duty of review, I have therefore looked not only at whether there should be an increase but at what form it should take to make the most effective use of the resources I am able to make available. I have concluded that the right course this year is to make an increase which gives a worthwhile amount to all mothers and which will be particularly welcome to new mothers because it recognises that for the great majority of parents it is the arrival of the first child which has much the largest impact on their finances. This is not only because of the initial costs they incur but because, in a world where the great majority of
1366
women work while they are childless but most feel it necessary or right to give up work, or work less, for some considerable time thereafter it is frequently associated with a sharp reduction in the family income.
"I therefore propose this year an increase which acknowledges that fact by making an additional payment for the first or eldest eligible child. It will be of £1 a week, payable of course normally to the mother, and in addition to the continued payment of £7.25 a week for each child. Since it will go to every family, and will be larger than an RPI increase in one-parent benefit—itself indeed defined as a payment for the first or eldest child—would have been, I do not propose on this occasion to increase that benefit as well.
"The measure will complement what we have already done in recent years to steer some £350 million of real extra help to low-income families through income support and family credit. It will give an extra £1 a week in child benefit to every mother in nearly 7 million families, at a gross cost of over £350 million and a net cost of £260 million.
"By choosing what I believe to be sensible priorities, I have been able to make a number of important improvements in social security, especially for families, without adding overall to what is in any case the very large cost this year of maintaining our up-rating commitments. What I have announced helps families with children, and families-to-be. It helps large numbers of less well off pensioners. It will ease the anxieties of families concerned with the care of elderly or disabled relatives, and of those relatives themselves. And it builds on what we are already doing to give greater help to disabled people. In short, it carries forward the reshaping of our social security system, conceived in the 1940s, to meet the needs of the 1990s."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for giving us that long, complicated Statement. There are certain points in the Statement which we obviously welcome but there are some that need further probing. It would help if the Minister could say how many, if any, benefits have been increased by less than the 10.9 per cent. inflation figure which has been used for the statutory up-ratings, and how many benefits have not been increased. I picked up the higher rate of statutory sick pay and the one-parent benefit as being frozen. It would be helpful if we could be given that information.
I turn first to the last matter in the Statement, which was the increase in child benefit. We did not have to wait for the Statement for that information. It was on the television news last night and it was trailed in the press yesterday and today. It all results from the extraordinary spectacle of the one-woman Star Chamber at No. 10. Last week it was education, this week it is child benefit, and I understand that either today or tomorrow it will be dog registration.

1367
We are obviously glad to welcome any increase in child benefit, but whatever happened to all those arguments about benefits being targeted according to need? What we are seeing is a £1 per week increase for all families on child benefit irrespective of the size of the family. That means that the weekly increase in the income through child benefit of a wife of a millionaire with one child will be the same as that of the poor family. just above the family credit level, with three or four children.
Does anyone believe that we would have had that announcement if the Prime Minister felt secure and the Government were riding high in the polls? It is an increase, however welcome, which has all the hallmarks of a last minute, halfhearted electoral fix. The Minister can be assured that if a social security Bill is produced next Session we shall do our utmost to amend it to ensure that that halfhearted and reluctant conversion will be turned into full-scale enlightenment.
The reason that we shall do that is simple. We are all aware that if child benefit had been indexed for inflation since 1987 it would now be worth £9.50 per week for every child. That is a measure of the cost to families of the freezing of child benefit. We know that 94 percent. of child benefit goes to families paying the standard rate of tax and below. It is by far the most efficient and effective way of helping families with children which are just above the poverty line and those families which are eligible for family credit but do not claim it.
One does not have to be a senior wrangler to work out the increase. If one has one child it is 12 per cent. If one has two children, it is 6 per cent.; with three children it is 4 per cent.; and with four children it is 3 per cent. As the intention of child benefit is to help with the costs of the upkeep of children, that seems to be a curious way to deal with the problem. However, as I have said, we welcome the increase.
I now wish to discuss the points in the Statement on statutory sick pay. The Statement asserts correctly that 90 per cent. of employees are covered by employer schemes. That is why the increases have only been proposed for the lower rates of statutory sick pay. However, as we know, many employer schemes are time-limited in that they allow for a certain number of weeks of sick leave to be covered at full pay and a certain number to be covered at half pay and other such provisions. What will happen to employees on the higher rates in time-limited schemes who are not to receive any increases at all? It would appear that they could be severely disadvantaged.
I now turn to the proposals to deal with elderly people in nursing and residential care. The proposals are welcome, but we all know that there is a crisis in this arm. I use that term advisedly. The situation of many elderly people in nursing homes and residential care is at crisis point. Those people are having to cope with a substantial and increasing shortfall in their levels of income support compared with the cost of their care. That is placing a huge burden on them, their relatives and the organisations which supply the care. There are reports of many organisations getting
1368
into serious financial trouble. The situation is, of course, made much worse by the decision to postpone the implementation of the community care plans. Unless these problems are addressed now there will be a huge shortage of nursing and residential care places when the community care plans are fully implemented. We are told that the shortfall now is well in excess of £500 million and that 100,000 elderly people in care are now dependent on income support.
The Independent Health Care Association estimates that the shortfall is something in excess of £100 a week for a nursing home and £40 a week for a residential home. The Statement appears to propose increases of £5 to £15 a week for residential care against the shortfall which has been reported of £40 per week and increases of £35 to £45 a week against a shortfall of £100 a week for nursing homes. The report from Price Waterhouse has not yet been placed in the Library. It would be helpful if we could be told whether we shall receive the full report or only the findings of the report. Obviously further analysis will have to await a sight of that report. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on the shortfall which appears to exist between the increases proposed in the Statement and the figures that we have received from the Independent Health Care Association.
We welcome the increase in pensions that will occur next spring as a result of the recent inflation figures and the September RPI. It seems certain that the increased pensions will be paid next spring when the headline inflation rate is falling. I emphasise the headline inflation rate as opposed to the underlying inflation rate. There was an ominous hint in the press last week that, if this were the case, the Government might try to find some excuse to delay the increase or somehow to reduce it. I cannot believe that that could be possible. I am sure those comments were wild speculation. However, it will be helpful and indeed reassuring if the Minister will confirm that there is no possibility that the Government will attempt such a manoeuvre.
We know that pensioners will always lag behind the increase in the earnings of the population as a whole if the increase in their pensions is linked to the RPI and not to the increase in average earnings. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm some figures which do not appear in the Statement. Does he agree that breaking the link with earnings has been worth a cumulative sum of some £22 billion to the Exchequer compared with the £26 billion that was handed back in the same period to higher rate taxpayers?
I now turn to disability. All the up-ratings in the disability benefits are welcome. However, as far as I can judge, there is nothing to help those many disabled people who are losing out substantially under the poll tax. A recent survey by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has revealed that the 54 per cent. of disabled households who responded to the survey were between £200 to £500 a year worse off under the poll tax as compared with rates. We know that many disabled people are having to use their disability benefits or their savings to offset the burden

1369
of the poll tax. As nothing in the Statement deals with this problem, will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be a rapid review of the effect of the poll tax on disabled people? I know that a number of representations have been made to his department.
There appears to be nothing in the Statement either to help the 130,000 claimants who have been on transitional protection since the spring of 1988. In April 1991 they will commence the fourth consecutive year in which they have received no increase at all in benefit. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister or his department have any proposals to deal with that problem. We know that there are still considerable problems with the 20 per cent. of poll tax which has to be paid by those on benefit. Does the department have any plans to deal with that? It was mentioned in passing in the Statement, but as far as I am aware there are no plans to put right the very real anomalies which have now come to light with the operation of the poll tax.
The Statement also refers to the extension of the mobility allowance to the deaf blind. We welcome that measure as we supported it in this House in our amendments to the social security legislation. Can the Minister estimate how many of the 3,000 deaf blind people in this country are likely to benefit from that extension of the mobility allowance? As I have said, we welcome many of the proposals and the increases in the Statement. The proposals for the independent living fund are very welcome, as are the proposals for carers and the improvements in the mobility allowance. It is fair to say that the Government have tried in some areas to begin to deal with some of the underlying problems. However, there are other important areas where we shall continue to harry the Government because there is still much to be done in the field of social security. I am sure that most of that will have to wait for the return of a Labour Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble kinsman for repeating the Statement. I wish to congratulate him, and through him his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, on their success in running to stand still without apparently, except for one moment over the past couple of days, any great breathlessness. I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has argued a case to the Treasury for meeting the costs of inflation. Inflation is, of course, the dominant theme of the Statement. Inflation is very expensive indeed from the Government's point of view. One begins to wonder, after this passage of time, how far the Government have ideas about how to bring inflation down. One is tempted to wonder whether 10 Downing Street has lost a monetarist and not yet found a role.
Although these benefits are obviously expensive for the Government, the benefits that claimants will receive are in real terms nugatory because the pound in their pocket is purchasing less than it did before. Here we have to consider an effect of using the formula of percentage increases. A percentage increase in a small sum is a great deal lower than a
1370
percentage increase in a large sum. I have tried very quickly measuring the increase in benefits against a constant purchasing unit. In this case I have picked a journey into town from fare zone 2. I did so as it was ready to hand. The increase in the pension for a married couple will buy two journeys into town from fare zone 2. However, the increase in income support for the under-25s, which is a smaller sum from the beginning, will only buy one journey into town from fare zone 2. We have here an effect by which the use of percentage increases on small sums is widening the gap between those on benefit and the rest of the population. However pleased the Secretary of State is about his success in the public spending round —he is entitled to be pleased—those on benefit will not feel particularly well off.
I did not find in the Statement any information about the total cost of the social security budget next year. I should be interested to know that as soon as possible. My noble kinsman is aware that I am concerned about the subject. I believe that he knows some of my ideas for bringing the cost down but this is not the right occasion to develop them.
There are good things in the Statement. I welcome particularly some of the five measures on disability. I am particularly pleased by what is being done for carers. I believe that the words of my noble friend Lady Seear have been heard, and I am very glad. I am pleased by the increase in the motability allowance. I should be interested in any more detail that my noble kinsmen can give about how that is to be done. I warmly welcome the increase in the independent living fund. I am very glad about the increase in funds available for residential care, which was urgent and desperate. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised as to whether it is enough is one about which we shall have to think further.
In passing I should like to ask when we can expect to hear how much money is to be allocated to the social fund for next year. I have no intention of opening up the general argument about the principles of the social fund, but if the Government are to make a success of the principles on which they wish to run that fund they must up-rate the sums available for the fund in line both with inflation and with the state of the economy. They should also consider the case for having a rapidly increased contingency fund available. They can only combine their principles of meeting need and operating within a budget if a contingency fund is available ready to meet the demands on the social fund that might be created by such a case, for example, as the closure of Cammell Laird. Such a case would demand an increase in an area budget. I hope that that issue is receiving thought and I should be glad to know when we can expect to hear something about it.
In relation to income support nothing has been said about the child care disregard. We have been led to believe that some discussion on that subject is going on in government circles and I have read some remarks by a Minister with which I am in full agreement. We are told that consultations are in progress. Of course I do not believe everything that I

1371
read in the newspapers, but I should be very glad if my noble kinsman could confirm that such consultations are in progress and that we might hope to hear something about them.
I regret very much that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to narrow the gap between the income support limits for younger and older people I shall not bore the House by repeating myself on that subject, but it seems to me that the amount available for the young is becoming more inadequate due to the principle that a percentage increase on a small sum is smaller than a percentage increase on a large sum.
Regarding statutory sick pay, I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not present in the House. I recall vividly the remarks that he made on the statutory instrument on statutory sick pay; we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are in full agreement. The Secretary of State claims in paragraph 15 that he is achieving proper principles for the partnership between government and industry. I am not convinced that that is the case. He is shifting the costs of statutory sick pay on to industry and thereby putting a tax on our industrial costs. When we need exports so desperately I am not certain that that is wise. I follow the reasoning by which the Secretary of State has chosen to increase the lower rate rather than the higher, but if the Secretary of State considers some of the arguments in the NACAB report Hard Labour he may wonder whether he will achieve his target. There are a good many cases in which employers—particularly of part-time labour —are not paying national insurance, the employee is not paying income tax and the job is not known to the Department of Social Security. In those cases the increases will fail to meet their target. The Government are losing revenue; it is an issue to which I hope they will pay attention.
That brings me finally to child benefit. Anyone who denies that half a loaf is better than no bread does not belong on the Opposition Benches; they belong on the barricades. We welcome the increase so far as it goes. We are also very pleased that the Secretary of State has drawn attention to his statutory duty to review the benefit each year. I should like to remind the House that that is a duty which my noble friend Lord Banks is responsible for introducing. I am also particularly pleased to have an announcement on that front since I remember the statement of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal when the Social Security Bill was in Committee last summer that the issue had been settled another place had made up its mind and we should not be discussing it further. We are now further discussing it, the Government are further discussing it, and I am delighted by the recognition that it is an open issue.
I was also very interested by a report in today's Independent which said that it had been told by a number of Conservative Members that the up-rating was being brought in because of the Government's defeat in the Eastbourne by-election. I have no idea whether that is true but I admit that I found it an interesting report.
1372
The increase is only £1. That does not go very far. I suppose that if one is selecting one aspect within child benefit one could have done worse. I remember an incident when I was a boy and too young to know any better—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for intervening? There is just one rule about the taking of Statements and that is that the taking of Statements should not be turned into a debate. The noble Earl is always very interesting and easy to listen to, but I beg him to bear that in mind.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must offer my apologies to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and to the House. We have here an increase of £1. The question is: how far will it go? I once made the mistake, when too young to know any better, of offering one lira to an Italian beggar; he spat in my face. I hope that that will not be the reaction of the electorate. It should not be. However, I ask my noble kinsman to consider that he may not receive as much gratitude for the Statement as he thinks he deserves. I ask him also to pay attention to the widening gap between what child benefit would be if it had been regularly up-rated and what it is now—I understand that this morning it was £1 billion and rising. I feel very sorry indeed for the first post-Thatcherite Chancellor. I do not expect my noble kinsman to share that sympathy but I expect him to understand it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the partial welcome that the up-rating has received from both noble Lords opposite, but I understand that we shall never be able to satisfy their demands for further and greater expenditure in all fields. As both noble Lords know perfectly well, my right honourable friend has a statutory duty to review a great many benefits in accordance with the appropriate priorities and what he can afford. That my right honourable friend has done and he has come up with a package that I should have thought would be welcomed on all sides of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how many benefits had been up-rated by less than the RPI figure of 10.9 per cent. I stress that not all benefits are up-rated by that amount. As I repeated in the Statement, some are up-rated by a lower figure, which is the RPI less housing costs. All benefits covered by a statutory requirement have been fully up-rated in line with the relevant prices index. Those include the retirement pension, widows' pensions and all related long-term pensions. Before I move away from that subject I can give a reassurance to the noble Lord—I am sure that he would like to have it as would all pensioners—that the Government will continue to honour their pledge to pensioners to increase their pensions next April as we have done every year fully in line with the increase in prices that was recorded in the previous 12 months up to September. The Government will continue to honour that pledge.
Starting with child benefit, I am grateful that both noble Lords welcomed the increase that my right honourable friend was able to announce. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, proceeded to get rather confused at that point. He asked what had happened to

1373
targeting. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He has been pressing for years for increases in child benefit. Now he wants to return to a system where child benefit is purely targeted on the less well off.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. It is the government side of the House that has been arguing about targeting all the way through. I simply asked what had happened to their argument.
Lord Henley: My Lords, from what the noble Lord said about the rich man receiving this benefit as well as the poor man my impression was that the noble Lord had changed his views. The Government have not changed their views at all. We know that the acquisition of the first child is more expensive than are subsequent children. The noble Lord will know perfectly well that clothes can be passed down and so on. It is the first child, when the mother leaves the labour force, that is the most expensive. That is why my right honourable friend, in reviewing the situation and taking account of his legal requirement (as mentioned by my noble kinsman), came up with the solution of increasing child benefit by £1 a week for the first child.
With regard to statutory sick pay and time limits, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised various queries and doubted whether it was fair that we should shift further costs on to industry. The noble Earl must have missed the point that we made in the Statement; namely, that we shall be reducing the employer's contribution. I mentioned the figures in the up-rating. So the total cost of the package is broadly cost neutral. We feel that that is the better way to deal with statutory sick pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also queried the time limits for sick pay. He knows perfectly well that statutory sick pay is only paid for 28 weeks. He seemed to be of the view that a great many of the occupational pensions had exclusion clauses. I am advised that the average spell on statutory pay is only three weeks. Some 90 per cent. of cases are over in eight weeks. The other key point is that some 90 per cent. of employees are covered by occupational schemes. We are fully protecting the less well off, as I made quite clear in the Statement.
I turn to income support in residential homes. I quite understand that many noble Lords will feel that we have not gone far enough. But we have gone a very long way. Noble Lords will remember that last year we increased the budget available for this provision by some £100 million. We then increased it by a further £45 million mid-year with a full year cost of some £70 million, which makes a total increase of £170 million for the full year. There is a further £235 million announced today. That makes over £400 million going to income support for residential homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, claimed that there was still a shortfall and quoted from a report, the name of which I did not quite catch. We always have to balance the interests of both those in the homes and the taxpayer. The Government's policy has never been
1374
and never could be to cover all the fees, however high they are. The package that we announced is a fair and reasonable way in which to meet the average costs of most people in residential homes. As I said, we took advice from Price Waterhouse. That is why we saw the need to increase the fees for nursing homes far more than those for residential care homes, where there did not seem to be quite such a gap between what we were paying and what was being asked for in the homes. The noble Lord asked about the Price Waterhouse report. I can assure him that the full report will be found in the Library. He is welcome to read it.
With regard to pensions, which I touched on at the beginning of my reply, predictably as always noble Lords demanded the restoration of the link with earnings. I am the first to accept that pensions would be higher if we had continued with the old principle of up-rating by either prices or earnings, whichever was the higher. But that is not the point. We have seen pensioners' average total incomes increasing by over 31 per cent. in real terms during our first eight years in office. By contrast, between 1974 and 1979, when the party of the noble Lord was in power and attempted to increase pensions by whichever was higher, prices or earnings, due to the effect that that and its policies had on the economy, we saw pensioners' average total net income increasing by a mere 3 per cent. We feel that we have the right balance. We shall continue to uprate pensions in line with the RPI but we shall pursue policies that will see a growth in pensioners' average income from all other sources.
On the subject of mobility allowance, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for an estimate of how many of the 3,000 deaf-blind people would gain from the mobility allowance. As a result of the extension to deaf-blind people all will gain. As the mobility allowance is not taken into account in assessing other benefits, all those deaf-blind people who have been awarded the allowance will gain £26.25 a week in the current year. That will increase to £29.10 a week from April next year.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell asked how we would make changes in the mobility allowance to meet the group that I specified, i.e., double amputees. I mentioned the Sandra Stones case and that of Sergeant Mudd. At this stage I cannot answer the noble Earl's query. We certainly aim to deal with that problem. At the moment there is some doubt about how to extend the provision in the wording of the mobility allowance, which is only granted to those who are virtually unable to walk. We shall be coming forward with proposals in due course.
I accept the point made by the noble Earl that inflation is expensive. The Government are committed to bringing down inflation. We have made that very clear. I can assure him that our battle to bring down inflation will continue. However, while there is inflation we shall continue to upgrade those benefits which we have a statutory duty to upgrade and will continue to protect the less well off in society.
The noble Lord asked for the total cost of the entire social security budget. I cannot answer that question.

1375
It will have to wait for the Autumn Statement. I can tell him that the total cost of this package is £4.852 billion, so it is just under £5 billion.
The noble Lord also asked about the social fund. We have no changes to announce in the social fund. That is why it was not mentioned. The budget will be announced later, but as the noble Lord was the first to say, this, is neither the time nor the place to discuss the merits of the social fund. One of the purposes of the social fund—it is one of its most attractive features —is its adaptability and flexibility so that it can meet needs that arise in particular localities. The noble Lord mentioned Cammell Laird. The noble Lord will remember that after floods in Wales last year we were able to make extra money available to the local offices in that area.
I do not know whether I have answered every question that noble Lords asked. However, I repeat what I said at the beginning. No Secretary of State will ever be able to satisfy all demands, especially those from noble Lords in opposition who do not have the responsibility of administering the large budget. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has come forward with a very effective package which satisfies. It seeks a balance between the interest; of the taxpayer on the one hand and those who are less well off in society who are the recipients of benefit. I think that the Statement is to be welcomed. I am grateful for the partial welcome that it received from the two noble Lords.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend most sincerely for discharging the very considerable task of repeating this massive and detailed Statement. It is one of the most important Government Statements of the year.
I should like to ask him a number of questions. However, perhaps I may first be allowed to make this comment. Listening to the Statement, it appears that the Government have exercised a great deal of care and taken a great deal of trouble over what may be called targeting: attempting to concentrate additional benefits in the areas of greatest need. I shall not weary the Ho use by repeating those areas. However, the mobility allowance and the provision in respect of nursing homes are good examples of careful attention to the desirability of concentrating additional benefits where they are most needed.
The considerable length of the Statement owes much to the fact that a great deal of trouble and care obviously was taken by my noble friend's right honourable friend and his department in working out the areas of greatest need and what could be done about them. I should like to ask which of these changes will require legislation? Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Henley, formally—I observe that the Leader of the House is present—whether it is intended to arrange a debate, no doubt in the new Session? It is a subject that is of greater importance to more of our fellow citizens than any other subject with which the Government deal. I urge a debate very strongly. It is very important both to the standing of
1376
the House and to the development of these matters that there should be a full day's debate on these matters. I hope that my noble friend will convey that suggestion to his right honourable friend over the narrow gap that separates them.
On a small point, I was sorry—if I understand the position aright—that the percentage increase for war widows will be the same for pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows. If that is right, that widens the gap in money terms between the pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows. After some urging, the Government took upon themselves to make some improvement for the pre-1973 war widows. But of course a straight percentage increase for both would widen the gap. I hope that that may be considered carefully when the time comes for changes.
I feel a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the desirability of backing the social fund with a contingency fund. I have always had some doubts about the limitations of the social fund, in particular in view of the possibility of disastrous situations which may run it down. The existence of something similar to a contingency fund would be helpful in dealing with emergencies.
I was very interested in the announcement with regard to child benefit. It is not that one was surprised because, as the noble Lord will be well aware, there was a very serious leakage of this information. I suggest that that is very unfortunate. I believe that Parliament should be the first body to be informed of such important changes. It suggests a certain laxity in some government circles if the matter leaked out as fully as it did, including a full front-page article in The Times this morning, hours ahead of the Statement to follow. I hope that those responsible will consider the position to ensure that it does not happen again.
On the merits of the matter, it is the fact that the larger one's family the smaller the percentage increase given. It is noticeable, and certainly those noble Lords who were concerned with social security administration in the past will have noticed it, that the system is the exact opposite of the old system of family allowances. Indeed at one time there was no family allowance in respect of the first child. It began with the second child. That was based on the fact that the larger one's family the greater the expense of maintaining it. I fully take my noble friend's point that it is the first child who in general takes the mother away from work. However, perhaps he will recall that if one has a larger family the period during which the younger children are cared for extends the mother's period away from work for a considerable time.
I should like to express some hesitation in endorsing the proposal that only the first child should benefit. The case has often been argued in this House that child benefit, being a benefit that goes to people regardless of income, should not necessarily be very often or very much increased. But if it is to be increased, as the Government are deciding to do, I wonder whether giving the smallest percentage increase to the largest family is the right way to do that. Great experience is available in the noble Lord's department of the working of the family allowance

1377
system. That proceeded on exactly the opposite basis to this system. I express some doubt. It is one of the matters that could best be ventilated in a full debate.
Having said that, I congratulate the Government on a major improvement, in particular that of the non-statutory benefits, and for the care and thought which appear to have been given to dealing with the hardest cases. Some noble Lords will always feel that there are examples which could have benefited more. In human terms naturally we all have some prejudices or ideas as to which are the most important areas. However, I find it enormously encouraging that we have a Secretary of State for Social Security, and colleagues, who are prepared to take so much trouble and care to examine where the limited amount of help available can best be given.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's remarks, in particular about targeting. We must concentrate resources on those whose need is greatest. We must recognise that the resources available to this Government, or for that matter any government, are not infinite. They are certainly finite.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with some points that my noble friend made. He asked which changes require legislation. The changes that my right honourable friend announced on statutory sick pay will require legislation. I cannot comment on when that legislation will be. My understanding is that the changes must be in place by April of next year.
The noble Lord raised the matter of a debate on a generality of social security matters. That is a matter for the usual channels. I note what he says, as I am sure does my noble friend the Leader of the House.
My noble friend asked about war widows and commented on what he claims is the growing gap between pre- and post-1973 war widows. All war widows receive the same war widow's pension from my department. There was a discrepancy because after 1973 an occupational scheme was introduced. It allowed those widows whose husbands had served post-1973 to receive more because they benefited from the occupational pension. There was no flat rate for the post-1973 widows.
By introducing the £40 we tried to solve the perceived unfairness in there being no occupational pension for the pre- and post-1973 widows. Post-1973 widows receive varying amounts according to the length of their husband's service and rank. There is no flat rate and therefore there will always be a gap between many post-1973s just as there is between pre-and post-1973s.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the point that if the post-1973 widows had a higher pension than the pre-1973 widows a flat percentage increase will give them a bigger increase than the pre-1973 widows and therefore the gap will be widened?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all the post-1973 widows will be in receipt of different pensions depending on the length of service. Obviously the gap will widen. We have increased the special payment by 10.9 per cent. in
1378
order to give the pre-1973 widows the increased value of that special payment. I do not see that as allowing the gap to widen.
As regards child benefit I cannot comment upon the press leakage; that is a matter for the press. My noble friend appeared to be worried about the fact that there is a smaller percentage increase for the larger families. I accept that a mother of a large family is potentially out of work for a longer period of time than the mother of a small family. However, the extra £1 that we have announced for the eldest child is also for the second child when he or she becomes the eldest after the first child achieves adult status. Therefore, the benefit continues for the extra years during which the mother is potentially removed from the workforce. I hope that answer will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall not delay the House but merely ask for one figure. I take into account the welcome increase in child benefit for the first child. It will be interesting to know how much less in real terms families as a whole will be able to spend on their children. I reckon that the figure is between £200 million and £300 million. I believe that in real terms we are now allowing families to spend far less on their children than last year. Can the Minister confirm that figure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have tried to make clear not only that there is an increase in benefit for the first child but that there has been a growth in other support benefits for families. For example, in April 1989 there was an extra 50 pence above the rate of inflation for the family premium in income-related benefits. From April 1990 there was an extra £1 per week above the rate of inflation in the pocket of a mother of a lower paid working family receiving family credit. I cannot comment on the specific figure mentioned by the noble Lord but I believe that the Government's position and their case is good. We have continued to support the family.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister for repeating the long and important Statement and wish to put forward one or two points. Employers will now receive only 80 per cent. of their SSP costs as against an undisclosed future benefit. Has the scheme been discussed with any employers' associations, particularly small employers' associations? Obviously the disregard in the care allowance rising to £30 is to be welcomed as is the pensions premium increase. However, I notice that the increases for residential care at only £5 and for terminal homes at only £15 are far less than the RPI. Will the Minister comment on that, particularly the latter case, and tell me why he believes it to be fair?
Rather coyly, the Statement reserves the main issue of child benefit to the end. The most crucial phrase in paragraph 35 is:
"I have concluded that the right course this year is to make an increase".
That appears to smell a little of the Eastbourne factor; it is essentially an ad hoc measure. It leads one to ask what will happen next year. Furthermore, the £1 is at the expense of one parent benefit. The Minister has referred to

1379
the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about other children. Children graduate up to eldest child status and then receive £1. However, if in the mean time the Government do not take other measures the basic level will wither on the vine. I wish to remind the Minister of the principle of the Fowler Review. It was to separate general child support from extra help for low income families. Are the Government moving away from that principle? All the taxing ideas are of little help. One can tax the higher taxpayers; one can means test which is expensive set against current administration costs; or one can revert to tax allowances which are of no help to non-taxpayers. When the SDP was in business as a political party we had many tax experts. We studied all those options but none worked out.
When all is said and done will the Government agree that it is better to return to the original principle of child benefit as a universal benefit? Obviously one cannot go back to 1987 because that would be too expensive. However, if this year the Government began at, say, 10 per cent., and can hope for a declining RPI in the following years, they would be back in business with a universal child benefit. Is that not a better road to go down?
Lord Henley: My Lords, statutory sick pay has not yet been discussed with the employers' organisations. The noble Lord expressed the view that increases for residential homes are not enough and are not in line with inflation. The Statement makes clear that following the Price Waterhouse Report the Government identified the gap as being greatest in the nursing homes and that is why their increases were so large. The need was not so great in the residential homes. Nevertheless, we are putting an extra £225 million into income support for residential and nursing homes together with last year's increase of £120 million. As we made clear in the Statement, that is an extra £400 million over and above £1 billion that is spent on income support for nursing and residential homes.
I was interested in the view of the former SDP about child benefit and I am sure that we shall all take note. Obviously I cannot comment on up-rating in future years. The Secretary of State will continue to review the level of child benefit in line with his statutory obligation to do so.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I have in the past chided the Government for their cavalier attitude to child benefit . However, I now congratulate my noble friend on his statement that the benefit will be increased this year. I also offer congratulations on the Secretary of State's assurance that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in family provision. However, I wish to comment on the universality of the increase which was not necessarily expected but which is most desirable. It is very desirable that child benefit should operate for families of all incomes. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government are still appraised of the fact that child benefit reflects the fact that al all levels of income, the needs of the mothers with children are greater than those without and that adjustments at all levels of income are in order and should be made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, very briefly, I thank my noble friend for his support. Of course we recognise that the needs of a mother with children are greater than a mother without children. That is why my right honourable friend saw fit to up-rate child benefit this year by £1 for the eldest child.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
5.41 p.m.
Consideration of amendments and Motion to be moved on consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert:
`or any category (determined by reference to such criteria as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate) of such proceedings'.
15 Page 9, leave out lines 9 to 12.
16 Page 9, line 20, at end insert:
`(5A) Where, in any proceedings in a county court—

(a) a person is exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation;

(b) he would not be entitled to do so were it not for an order under this section; and

(c) the judge has reason to believe that (in those or any other proceedings in which he has exercised a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation) that person has intentionally misled the court, or otherwise demonstrated that he is unsuitable to exercise that right,

the judge may order that person's disqualification from exercising any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation in proceedings in any county court.
(5B) Where a judge makes an order under subsection (5A) he shall give his reasons for so doing.
(5C) Any person against whom such an order is made may appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(5D) Any such order may be revoked at any time by any judge of a county court.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 en bloc —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome Amendment No. 16 because I was one of the first to draw attention to the dangers which could arise especially with oppressive debt collectors. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has dealt with that in such a way that that difficulty is removed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 11, page 11, line 10, after `for' insert 'the debtor's own'.
18Page 11, line 14, after 'for' insert 'the debtor's own'.
19 Page 11, leave out line 18, and insert 'relates to the non-payment of charges incurred by the debtor after the making of the order or is unconnected with non-payment by him of any charges.'.
20 Page I I, line 18, at end insert:
`() In this section "mains gas" means a supply of gas by a public gas supplier within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986.'.
21 Page 11, line 18, at end insert:
'() Rules of court may make provision with respect to the period for which any order restricting enforcement is to have effect and for the circumstances in which any such order may be revoked.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 21 en bloc. They all concern administration orders, and the new Section 112A of the County Courts Act 1984 inserted by Clause 11.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 clarify that the protection for supplies of domestic fuel and water provided by the new Section 112A(4) applies only to supplies for the debtor's own domestic purposes.
Amendment No. 19 also concerns the protection and termination of supply. As currently drafted, the new Section 112A(4) prevents a supplier of domestic gas, electricity or water from disconnecting supplies without leave of the court while an administration order or order restricting enforcement is in force, unless the reason for disconnection is unconnected with non-payment by the debtor. That permits utility suppliers to cut off supplies for, for example, routine or emergency maintenance, without applying to the court for leave.
During discussion of the clause in another place, and during discussions between the electricity and gas industries and my department, another situation has been identified in which it would be right for the supplier to be able to terminate supply without an order of the court. That is where the debtor defaults in payment of charges incurred after the order was made, and the supplier has followed all the procedures laid down by the statutes, regulations and codes of practice affecting him and has reached the conclusion, in accordance with those procedures, that there is no alternative but to terminate supply.
Amendment No. 20 is a purely drafting clarification of the definition of mains gas for the purposes of the new Section 1 12A of the County Courts Act 1984.
Amendment No. 21 permits rules of court to regulate the termination and revocation of orders restricting enforcement under the new Section 112A.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 21 en bloc.
—(The Lord Chancellor. )
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the only comment I wish to make is in regard to Amendment No. 19 which the noble and learned Lord has so lucidly explained. We on these Benches are not very happy with that provision which permits creditors to cease supplying utilities—that is, gas, electricity or water—to debtors for whom administration orders have been made where they fail to pay charges incurred after the order. That means that that can be done without leave of the court.
One would have thought that it would be much more humane to say that the utility companies should install prepayment meters in those circumstances. However, to cause that hardship to people who have administration orders in regard to charges for
1382
essential utilities which may occur after that date, and to allow the utilities to be cut off without applying to the court, is a harsh way of dealing with the matter.
Again, we have the Commons amendment before us and I do not intend to ask for the opinion of the House by way of calling for a Division. However, I hope that it may be possible to advise the utility companies that that cause should not be adopted unless in a case which is completely undeserving and that the idea of installing prepayment meters would be a much more humane way of dealing with the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in this amendment I am concerned with preventing monopoly suppliers —utility suppliers—from exploiting that position in order to obtain preferential payment of a debt to the disadvantage of other creditors scheduled to the administration order or to an order restricting enforcement.
For that reason, I am concerned only with the charges incurred when that order was made. It is right that as regards the debts incurred thereafter the debtor and creditor should follow the normal procedures without further reference to the court which made the administration order or order restricting enforcement.
Of course, there are procedures for restricting the cutting off of supplies. I believe that very often a prepayment meter would be installed. However, there may be circumstances in which it may be more in the interests of the debtor that credit should be allowed. That is the purpose of the clause and I believe that it is reasonably humane.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
22 Clause 13, page 12, line 35, after 'seize' insert '—(a)'.
23 Page 12, line 36, leave out '(a)' and insert '(i)'.
24 Page 12, line 39, leave out `(b)' and insert '(ii)'.
25 Page 12, line 41, at end insert:'and
(b) any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to that person.'.
26 Page 13, line 7, at end insert:
'(3) Where a person takes steps to enforce a judgment or order of the High Court or a county court for the payment of any sum due, the costs of any previous attempt to enforce that judgment shall be recoverable to the same extent as if they had been incurred in the taking of those steps.
(4) Subsection (3) shall not apply in respect of any costs which the court considers were unreasonably incurred (whether because the earlier attempt was unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case or for any other reason).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 en bloc. Those amendments all concern Clause 13 and goods which may be seized in execution.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 allow sheriffs executing writs of execution in the High Court to seize, in addition to the articles set out in Clause 13(1), money or things akin to money.
Amendment No. 26 allows successful plaintiffs, when enforcing judgment, to recover the costs of earlier reasonable but unsuccessful attempts to

1383
enforce the same judgment, in the same way as they are able to recover the costs of the enforcement which is eventually successful. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 14, page 13, leave out line 8 and insert:
'14. — (1) Section 75 of the County Courts Act 1984 (county court rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d)—
"(d) prescribing cases in which—

(i) any jurisdiction of a county court is to be exercised by a district judge of a county court or by some other officer of the court;

(ii) any functions of a judge of a county court are to be discharged by a district judge of a county court or some other officer of the court;

(iii) any functions of a district judge of a county court are to be discharged by some other officer of the court;

(iv) any such jurisdiction may be so exercised or any such functions may be so discharged; or"

(3) The'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(The Lord Chancellor. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 15, page 13, line 42, leave out 'those' and insert 'the'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. I have been asked to deal with Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 separately. Amendment No. 28 is a purely drafting amendment. I shall come to the substance of the matter when dealing with Amendment No. 29.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.—(The Lord Chancellor. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Page 13, line 44, at end insert:
`(bb) whether, in the case of a body whose members are or will be providing advocacy services, the rules of conduct make satisfactory provision in relation to the court or proceedings in question requiring any such member not to withhold those services—

(i) on the ground that the nature of the case is objectionable to him or to any section of the public;

(ii) on the ground that the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable to him or to any section of the public;

(iii) on any ground relating to the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the prospective client for the proceedings in question (for example, on the ground that such support will be available under the Legal Aid Act 1988); and'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. I think it would be helpful to the
1384
House if I took the opportunity to explain in some detail the effect of the amendments which were moved in another place on my behalf by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General; and which, if your Lordships approve them, will replace the provisions introduced into the Bill after the debate in this House on 20th February when your Lordships carried into the Bill an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon.
The Government reached the view in the light of your Lordships' decision that it would be right that a statement relating to the matter of the cab rank rule should be included within the general principle.
After the debate on 20th February I remained concerned that Clause 15 of the Bill should contain a general principle; that is, a principle unqualified by exceptions or derogations. As it left this House, Clause 15(3)(d) applied only to:
"rights of audience in any of the superior courts other than those exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before the 17 December 1989"
and was stated, on the face of the Bill, to be subject to "any appropriate exceptions". I was keen to achieve, if possible, a formulation which could apply to all advocates in all courts—as this is a matter relating to justice—and which would be a real statement of principle not compromised by unclear and general references to appropriate exceptions without some guidance as to what they might be.
As a result of our putting a good deal of work and time, with, I should say, exceptional help from parliamentary counsel, into obtaining what seems to be a suitable formulation to achieve this, what appears in the Commons amendments to Clause 15 should be a principle of universal application which will apply in all courts and to all advocates, solicitor or barrister, employed in partnership or in independent practice. Having studied carefully the historical origins of the rule (which go back to the turn of the 14th century), I concluded that the cab rank rule is more accurately described as a principle of non-discrimination. It may be stated as requiring that an advocate holding himself out as generally available must not decline to act on the ground that the nature of the case is objectionable, or that the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable to him or to any section of the public. Equally, he must not decline to act on any grounds relating to the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the prospective client for the proceedings in question. That principle, which exists both to protect the client against having to prove his case to his own representative, and to protect the advocate from association with the case he is pleading, should in the Government's view henceforth apply to all those whose profession consists in the provision of advocacy services.
Any professional body seeking new advocacy rights for its members will be required to provide detailed rules which conform with the general principle including of course subsection (5). It will be for the

1385
mechanism established under the Bill to decide what those rules should be for any particular body, and then for the body to enforce the rules so decided upon.
I must say a little about the subject matter of Amendment No. 29A to this amendment, proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The substance of that matter is dealt with in subsection (5). There is no doubt in my mind that an advocate has always been able to stipulate a proper fee for his services: one need look no further for authority for that proposition than the statement of Lord Reid in the case of Rondel v. Worsley which was quoted by, among others, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner on 20th February.
"There is no doubt about the position and duties of a barrister or advocate appearing in court on behalf of a client. It has long been recognised that no counsel is entitled to refuse to act in a sphere in which he practises, and on being tendered a proper fee, for any person however unpopular or even offensive he or his opinions may be, and it is essential that that duty must continue: justice cannot be done and certainly cannot be seen to be done otherwise"
It is the case, as we all know, that in many instances solicitors and barristers now receive their fees not from the client they represent, but rather from the Government via the Legal Aid Fund. Such clients (and this is of course why the fund exists) are typically those who would find it difficult to meet the cost of litigation themselves. Because of this, it has been suggested that advocates should be placed by the statute under an absolute duty to act for such clients, to ensure that they do not go unrepresented.
I cannot accept that view. The Government believe that the best mechanism for determining the correct level of payment for any practitioner is the way in which the market operates in the provision of those services. We all know that the legal profession competes for private clients; and there is no reason why that principle should be changed in respect of publicly-funded work. So under the approach which Parliament approved in the Legal Aid Act 1988, it must be for each individual advocate to decide whether the rates on offer under the legal aid regulations for the time being in force are appropriate for him to undertake such cases. Only by that means can we ensure that the money paid out under the scheme represents the best possible value to the taxpayer.
There is, moreover, another reason why I could not agree to impose a statutory duty upon advocates to undertake legal aid cases. To illustrate it I can do no better than to quote the comments of David Latham QC, the draftsman of the latest Bar code of conduct, who was quoted in the Independent newspaper on 12th February as saying in relation to the formulation of the code:
"There is a presumption that the barrister must take work. Any refusal will have to be justified".
He goes on to make other comments, with which I need not trouble the House in view of the way the matter has developed.
Mr. Latham continued,
1386
"The problem as we saw it was that if we departed from the principle that a barrister is entitled to refuse work if it is not properly paid, that would permit the Government to hold a pistol to our heads."
I do not think that I or my successors should be handed a pistol, whether by the Bar or by anyone else for use in the periodic consultations I conduct over the rates payable under the legal aid regulations.
I also mention a point raised by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon in the House when discussing the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on 2nd April. He referred to an encounter with a solicitor from the Midlands who was hoping to set up an advocacy department but had said in relation to it:
"There is no way we will do that, if it involves having to undertake legal aid work."
Under the terms of these amendments, that Midland solicitor will not, of course, be able to refuse to accept clients merely because their source of financial support is the Legal Aid Fund, since a legal aid fee can be a proper fee, even if it is lower than a private one. Indeed the precise effect of the third limb of Amendment No. 29 is to require the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges to ensure that no professional body whose members offer advocacy services has rules which would allow a refusal on that ground. What such rules of conduct must allow, however, is that an advocate may, if there are reasonable grounds for him so to do, decline to act where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the nature of his practice or his experience and standing, he is not being offered a proper fee, whether by the client directly or by the Government on his behalf.
There has been some discussion of how the existence of such reasonable grounds will be tested. There is a limit to what I can say now without pre-empting the outcome of the discussions which will take place under the new framework. Detailed rules of conduct providing for the application of objective tests of this issue appropriate to particular circumstances will be required to give effect to this part of the general principle. Here, of course, we are particularly concerned with the application of this test to advocacy services supplied to legally aided clients. Such rules of conduct will be matters for the new machinery to consider together with the way in which they are enforced. The application of these rules of conduct by individual advocates in deciding whether to take on particular cases will then be a matter for individual professional bodies to enforce.
I have taken this opportunity to explain in some detail why I am asking your Lordships to agree to Commons Amendment No. 31, but I do not think that any of what I have said is any longer the subject of significant debate in the profession. The Government consulted closely with both the Law Society and the Bar Council in framing the amendments, and also with the consumer organisations who were very concerned with these matters at the time. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for the time they gave and their patience in trying to reach a

1387
conclusion on this important matter which has resulted in the Commons amendments. I commend the amendments to the House.
For the purpose of dealing with these matters properly I shall move only Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 29
29A Sub-paragraph (iii), line 4, after ("support") insert ("(which
shall constitute the offer of a proper fee)").
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29A. At the outset I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy in correspondence and discussion on this subject. It is not easily resolved by any formal amendment on the face of the Bill either in the public interest or in the interest of upholding the traditions of service and parity of treatment in both branches of the legal profession.
Notwithstanding certain observations made by Mr. Attorney at Report stage of the Bill in another place, to which I shall refer shortly, it is understood that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has always accepted as a matter of broad principle that he is anxious on rights of advocacy to ensure parity of treatment between the two branches of the profession on the obligation to undertake legally aided work. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has always accepted and recognised the importance and value of self-regulation by the authorised bodies.
My understanding from what has been said today by my noble and learned friend is that the difference between us does not lie so much on matters of principle but in the means of implementation which are proposed in Amendments Nos. 29 and 32, which as yet (lave not been considered by your Lordships. In my judgment, for what it is worth, they are neither appropriate nor acceptable. If the means of implementation are to be the machinery of self-regulation to ensure parity of treatment as regards obligations to accept legally aided work, so be it. On such an assurance there is perhaps no need for Amendment No. 29A, to which I speak; but without such assurance this amendment is apposite as a safeguard against the use of Amendment No. 32 as a resort or device to seek to refuse legally aided work on the ground that the fees offered are not acceptable.
The fees offered under legal aid lie within the province of government. The acceptability lies within the province of the authorised bodies. As a matter of the mechanics of self-regulation, if the authorised bodies accept the fees offered as proper, it must not be open to members of that body to refuse to accept legally aided work on the grounds offered by Amendment No. 32. That would be an abuse. At the moment, the position is wide open.
When the Bill left your Lordships' House it was understood that Clause 15(3) (d) made appropriate provision. However, that was removed during the
1388
Committee stage; a decision reflected in Commons Amendment No. 31. What is now paragraph (iii) in Amendment No. 29 was substituted for Clause 15(3) (d). However, again the effect of these provisions has not yet been considered by your Lordships' House.
At the Committee stage in another place Clause 15(3) (d) was removed and paragraph (iii) substituted, but on Report Mr. Attorney acknowledged that concern had been expressed as to the interpretation on whether paragraph (iii) of Amendment 29, as it now is, could allow the authorised body to have rules which permit an individual advocate to refuse to act on grounds relating to the amount of remuneration offered—what I have sought to stylise as abuse under Amendment No. 32.
Mr. Attorney put the Government's position briefly in this way. He said that there could be no statutory obligation to undertake legally aided cases no matter what level of remuneration was payable. He said that the essence of the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988, dealing with remuneration, was to empower the Lord Chancellor to set rates which are just enough to attract lawyers to do the work. He said that a rule framed to impose an obligation on the cab rank principle not to refuse legally aided work would not be acceptable. To that end, Amendment No. 32 was introduced which enables the advocate to refuse the legally aided case.
This approach, which applies to Clause 15 by Amendment No. 29 to the rules of all bodies whose members are or will be providing advocacy services, assuredly includes both branches of the profession. However, questions arise and, indeed, arose in another place. How does this affect the principle that if a barrister is offered a brief within his field of practice he should take it irrespective of whether or not it is legally aided? How will this approach impinge broadly on legal aid work in the public interest? Will an advocate be able to decline legal aid work simply because the legal aid rates are below and lower than his private rates? Are legal aid rates, whether fixed or settled by taxation, enough to attract lawyers to do the work? Such questions were asked in another place (at col. 596 of Hansard) but as yet do not appear to have received any satisfactory or wholly comprehensive answers.
However, since Mr. Attorney dealt with this matter and, I suggest, failed to give any comprehensive or satisfactory answers, it is known that only a small percentage of solicitors intend to exercise extended rights of advocacy. The number of solicitors willing to accept legal aid work is, I understand, on the decline. The financial constraints are such as to reduce the rates still further. Moreover, the Bar has changed its rules to ensure that the adequacy of legal aid fees is now a matter for the professional body as a measure of safeguard for our traditions.
It is in the public interest that legal aid should be sufficiently funded and that both branches of the legal profession should be obliged to undertake legal aid work within their fields of practice, subject to the approval of fees by the professional bodies, and that the adequacy of the fees should be a matter between

1389
government and the authorised body. Never in any circumstances, if fees are acceptable to the authorised body, should they be a matter upon which the individual member of the body could refuse to do the work. There must be a level playing field.
I tabled Amendment No. 31—to which I shall speak briefly as it is grouped—to afford an opportunity for further discussion on how to avoid abuse under Amendment No. 32 by opting out of legally aided work on the ground of an inadequate fee. It affords an opportunity to discuss how, as a matter of mechanics, the principle of self-regulation shall be directed generally, in broad terms of parity of treatment, to ensure that Amendment No. 32 is not so abused.
My hope is that in the light of your Lordships' contributions, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to give satisfactory assurances on how, in practice, this may be achieved without the need to write it into the face of the Bill. It is a matter of public interest which also concerns the honour and traditions of the legal profession. I speak for no one but myself. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 29A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 29, be
agreed to.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway. )
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when moving Amendment No. 29. I broadly agree with it. As to the points made with great sincerity by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I do not see the difficulties that he has attempted to describe arising from what was said in another place at Report stage. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General answered various questions.
For the sake of the record, I shall remind your Lordships what those answers were. In doing so, I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can confirm the answers which were given. The Attorney-General said:
"What is claimed to be a reasonable ground can be the subject of an objective test, and it will fall to those who comprise the machinery to determine whether or not it is satisfied in a given case". [Official Report, Commons, 25/7/90; col. 595.]
My noble friend referred to what was asked of the Attorney-General and the reply is quite clear. He said:
"It does not follow that because legal aid rates may be lower than some private rates, legal aid fees are not to be regarded as proper fees. All the circumstances must be considered. I have identified some that will be of general application, but all the circumstances of the case would have to be looked at and the objective test of reasonableness would then have to be determined. That would he for the new machinery". [col. 596.]
I hope that that clarifies the matter for my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and that it assures him that, whatever else may be said about his amendment, those remarks make it unnecessary. I believe that the wording of his amendment would also
1390
cause some conflict and doubt with what appears before and after if we accept all the Commons amendments.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already made clear that detailed rules of conduct will deal with these issues including the way in which the objective test of reasonableness is to apply. He said that it will be for the new machinery to consider those rules of conduct. Those who operate the new machinery will be reporting to the Lord Chancellor. If they find that the rules of conduct do not comply with the test of reasonableness, and so on, then rights of audience will not be granted.
While we are considering this matter, it is right that we should assure ourselves that what is provided for the cab-rank rule in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will be broadly the principle that will apply south of the Border. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that professional standards should be as high south of the Border as it is intended that they should be north of it. I am paraphrasing the Scottish Bill accurately. It requires the Lord President, who will operate the machinery there, to have regard to the desirability of there being common principles applying to rights of audience by all practitioners before the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.
I am not certain, because I have not followed the Scottish amendments right through in another place, but it appears that the provision applies to the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary only. However, here, thanks to the enlargement proposed by the Government and accepted in another place, that rule will apply to all solicitors, barristers and people applying for rights of audience in all courts. I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to give an assurance that in England and Wales common principles will be expected to apply to all those who are to have rights of audience.
I can summarise the position by saying that I feel that the Government, with the help of outside bodies and as the result of very diligent consideration since the Bill left your Lordships' House, have now got it right in regard to the cab-rank rule. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will feel reassured and that Amendment No. 29 and the other Government amendments that go with it, will be acceptable to your Lordships.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I have misgivings about these amendments. I cannot help feeling that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said is the wish being father to the thought. There are a number of questions that I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in order to set my misgivings apart. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said.
When the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, was accepted by this House it was made very clear that the authorised body was to give practitioners the right of audience in the superior courts. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor's efforts to make it universally applicable. That provision must

1391
embody the principle of the cab-rank in the rules of conduct and put on the advocate a positive duty to abide by that principle so long as the requirement was reasonable, the fee proper, and the case fell within the field of practice of the advocate. Above all, the duty was covered in relation to the legally-aided client. Now, as regards advocates practising in the superior courts, that fee arrived at under the Legal Aid Act is deemed by its very nature to be a reasonable fee. It is only the professional body that can hold that the fee is unreasonable. In other words, the decision is not the decision of the individual advocate. If the fee is considered to be unreasonable, that is a matter for the professional body to take up with the authorities. It is the professional body which guarantees the independence of the advocate.
I was a little sad to hear the noble and learned Lord say today that the market will operate with regard to legal aid fees. I found that to be a long way from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, which was accepted by this House so long ago. That amendment has gone and Amendment No. 29 is substituted. In that amendment, no principle is referred to and no duty laid on the advocate is referred to. The amendment provides instead that the body must in its rules make satisfactory provision requiring members not to discriminate. That is a negative obligation as opposed to the positive duty at present in the Bill. There is also an escape clause based on the insufficiency of the fee.
Does this cover the obligation? An advocate who says that he will not appear for a member of the Peerage, for someone who is rich, for someone who has been to a public school, or that he will not appear for other such reasons, does not appear to fall within the words of Amendment No. 29. On the serious matter of the escape clause, Amendment No. 32 now provides:
"Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider that, having regard to—

(a) the circumstances of the case;

(b) the nature of his practice; or

(c) his experience and standing,

he is not being offered a proper fee, are not on that account to be taken as being incompatible with the general principle".
On the face of it, that appears to drive a coach and horses through the great principle set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in a remarkable speech, one which we shall always remember, on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. He said that anyone who wishes to exercise the privileges of an advocate must at the same time accept the burdens. The greatest burden an advocate has to accept—and by far the most constitutionally important burden—is the cab rank rule. It is now said that in the circumstances set out in Amendment No. 32 it is not to be considered incompatible if an advocate says that he refuses the legal aid case because there are reasonable grounds for him to say that he is not being paid a proper fee.
The noble and learned Lord argued that, if an advocate says on not unreasonable grounds that a fee
1392
is insufficient, the matter will be dealt with by the body itself. It seems to me in my innocence that all the body will do is lay down its rules following the language of the statute exactly. Where an advocate says, "In my firm the partners have five or six figure salaries to recognise the responsibilities which they carry. We cannot work in this firm under a charge of £500 an hour and so one of our partners cannot possibly go into court for £50 an hour under a legal aid brier, the rules will follow precisely the language of the statute and the body will uphold that attitude. If that is the position, it does not seem to me that the committee can possibly come into the matter on an individual fee. Once it has agreed the rules—it will not be possible for it to disagree the rules if that language is followed—any individual will be able to say that a fee is insufficient.
The result will be that legal aid cases will only be taken by those at the bottom of the pile of advocates. Throughout one's experience as an advocate one has fought all the way through for the principle that the poorest in society, and those involved in the most objectionable and most unpleasant case on the face of it, should have the services of high quality advocates. Such people should not be reduced to having only the lowest form of advocacy. I ask those questions of the noble and learned Lord because I have the gravest misgivings about where these amendments will take US.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I should like to start by paying tribute to the words expressed in support of the principle both by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and my noble friend, as I think of him for these purposes, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. All those who have taken part in the debate on this issue share that common aspiration. Where I hope I am correct in differing slightly from them today is not as to the principle but as to the fears which they have expressed over the effect of the Commons amendments.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor obviously considered with very great care the amendment passed by this House. It was passed against the initial views of the Government but not, I suspect, against many of the sentiments which my noble and learned friend actually holds. As a result of that consideration, my noble and learned friend has said today that parliamentary draftsmen were given immensely hard work. As the author of the amendment, perhaps I may apologise for that exceptional burden placed upon them.
It was the intent of the clause—and I believe it may have been the intent of this House in passing the clause —that it should convey very simple principles. Perhaps I may repeat the principles which, as I understand it, this House intended to enact. The first was that advocates should act for all-comers, as we put it, regardless of the popularity of their cause, either generally or to the individual advocate. We call that in modern parlance the cab rank rule. My noble and learned friend today called it the non-discrimination rule. There is nothing between us on

1393
the principle. It is the principle for which Thomas Erskine, my noble and learned friend's illustrious predecessor from north of the Border, stood, and as I understand it, it is the principle which my noble and learned friend has sought to accept in the amendment he puts forward. Thus—perhaps my noble and learned friend will be kind enough to confirm this—some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, about whether an advocate would act for a member of the Peerage or for someone who had been to a public school would, in the light of the terminology of the Act, become misconceived. As I understand it, the Commons amendment seeks to enshrine the non-discrimination provision.
The second principle that we sought to enact was that in general advocates would undertake legal aid work. We sought to enact it not as an absolute obligation but as an obligation that was to be subject to exceptions, those exceptions to be formulated by the machinery after considering draft rules of conduct and submissions from the various branches of the profession and (let us not forget them) from representatives of the public.
As I understand it, the reason my noble and learned friend has approached it in a different way is not because he has disagreed with the principle this House sought to carry but rather he has thought he ought to put that principle in the Act in somewhat more precise language. Therefore, as I understand it, my noble and learned friend does not intend to derogate at all from the view that in general there should be a responsibility upon advocates to accept legal aid work unless good cause is shown.
Having said that—because that was the intent of the original amendment which my noble and learned friend has sought to make more specific—perhaps I may say that I was very heartened to hear my noble and learned friend indicate that fears which had been expressed that whole firms would be able to opt out of legal aid advocacy work were misconceived. Those fears were expressed because it has undoubtedly been true that, in regard to that legal aid work which is currently done by solicitors, many firms of solicitors have opted out. Many of the large City firms of solicitors will not touch it. I gave an illustration on the Scottish Bill of a reputable solicitor from the Midlands who indicated that if his firm had to do legal aid work it would not touch advocacy. Therefore I was heartened to hear my noble and learned friend say that that approach would not be one which the profession would be entitled to adopt.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, expressed the fear that all the advisory machinery would have to do would be to rubber stamp the legislation, leaving it to individual advocates to decide how to apply the principle. As I understand the situation from what my noble and learned friend said this afternoon, it is intended that the test of reasonableness should be an objective one. As I also understand it—perhaps my noble and learned friend will be good enough to confirm this—the intent is that the machinery shall scrutinise the rules of conduct of the various branches
1394
of the profession or of those other bodies which apply to give advocacy services, and see whether those rules of conduct contain appropriate provisions with regard to the undertaking of legal aid work. If the rules of conduct do not and would leave this as a very leaky vessel indeed, then the machinery would be obliged to seek to enforce the principle which, in a different way, this amendment has sought to enforce.
Perhaps I may add one word to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Renton, who said that he hoped and understood that common principles would apply across the profession. That is the intent in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said as much, I think, when he took part in the debate when we first discussed this amendment at an earlier stage. I am paraphrasing him and he will correct me if I am wrong, but he said he thought that those who sought to have a privilege should adopt the burdens that went with that privilege. I note that the noble Lord assents to that and I am very grateful to him, because that is in accordance with the highest standards he has always practised.
If that approach is adopted—namely, that in general there is the obligation to do legal aid work and that we take a standpoint of common principles for advocates as a whole—I believe that the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, are misconceived. We felt the original amendment would have had this effect, but on the basis that it is the intention of the Government to secure the principle of the original amendment but to put it in more precise and better language, I would be content to accept the amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I had not anticipated, when your Lordships were considering this matter at an earlier stage, that I should be standing in your Lordships' House, as I am now, to tell your Lordships that I am as a solicitor in the City of London currently conducting a case under a legal aid certificate. Such is my generosity towards the Legal Aid Fund that I may not even claim the legal aid fees in this case.
This has been a vexed and difficult matter for both sides of the legal profession. The noble and learned Lord, in producing this amendment, has produced an amendment which I believe is widely welcomed by both sides of the profession. It is very heartening to hear the views of the noble Lords, Lord Alexander and Lord Renton, speaking in support of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. Therefore I am very happy to do so personally and also to express the view of the Law Society, because I believe that the noble and learned Lord has truly found something that is fair to both sides of the profession and above all is fair to the litigant. For that reason, I support the amendment.
The only other matter I must mention is in the nature of a personal apology because I may not be able to stay with your Lordships until the end of the debate. However, if your Lordships are still sitting very late in the evening I shall return to try to be of some assistance.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the classic statement of the so-called cab rank rule was made by Erskine in the Tom Paine trial. It was quoted in earlier proceedings on this Bill. I think my noble and learned friend performed a felicitous service in giving that a new soubriquet: the non-discrimination rule. The cab rank rule is perhaps too banal a term for a principle of such high constitutional importance. That high constitutional importance was emphasised by my noble and learned friend in his evidence to the Royal Commission on Scottish Legal Services.
It was rationalised in a number of notable speeches in your Lordships' House, and I hope it is not invidious for me to mention particularly that of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver, who put it on the bas s that the Bar had been exercising privileges in having a monopoly of access in orders to the High Court. It was because of that that the emphasis earlier was on High Court proceedings. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, said was that such a privilege imports a duty; and it was the duty to carry out the non-discrimination principle that ran through all the discussion on the so-called cab rank or non-discrimination rule.
Again, I hope it will not be invidious if I mention that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, by his practice has exemplified how that principle should be accomplished in the courts, in a way that carried the admiration of anybody who was concerned with justice in the courts. The other person I mention has already been adverted to; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He departed slightly, if not considerably, from the apprehension of where the Law Society and solicitors might find themselves if the non-discrimination rule or the cab rank rule was applied to them. The noble Lord said roundly, "We shall have new privileges. We must accept the concomitant responsibilities". That struck your Lordships as a most noble pronouncement and a most hopeful one for the future of the scheme.
Legal aid has brought a most significant new dimension to the cab rank rule. The Bar—indeed, the legal profession generally—has always felt it its duty to see that poor people are represented. Until 1948 that was done by the proceedings in forma pauperis. It is now of immense importance that the legal aid scheme should succeed. It should be the duty of all who enter into the process of justice to see that it does succeed. It seems to me that what the Bar Council has done is of great value in that respect and I hope that all other professional bodies will follow suit. I personally much prefer what is in Clause 22 —the equivalent clause—of the Scottish Bill. However, it seems to me that, provided that the Law Society and other professional bodies follow the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pronounced, the legal aid scheme is safe in the new dispensation. It is the duty of anyone who has anything to do with the law to ensure that the cab rank rule —the non-discrimination rule —is firmly and comprehensively extended to cover all legal aid proceedings.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to one amendment which is grouped with this series of
1396
amendments; namely, Commons Amendment No. 31. I shall speak also to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
Commons Amendment No. 31 seeks to delete a clause in the Bill. My noble friend seeks to maintain that clause in the Bill. The clause in question reads:
"whether, as regards rights of audience in any of the superior courts other than those exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before the 7th December 1989, that body's rules of conduct include provisions embodying in appropriate terms, and with any appropriate exceptions, the principle that, except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so, an advocate practising in any of those courts is under a duty to act for any client (whether legally aided or not) in cases within his field of practice".
I think that the Commons have got it right and that my noble friend has got it wrong.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the discussion that has taken place on this amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because it has enabled us to look at the matter covered by the group of amendments that I introduced with Amendment No. 29.
I should like to address myself first to the way in which the point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. This amendment is not the whole story. It relates to a provision which requires that qualifications should include the person being
"a member of a professional or other body which—
"(i) has rules of conduct (however described) governing the conduct of its members"—
those are the rules with which we shall be concerned in the later amendment—
"(ii) has an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules of conduct; and
"(iii) is likely to enforce them".
In other words, it will not be open to the Lord Chancellor and the other designated judges to approve rights of audience, for example, with regard to a professional body, unless there is evidence that the body has an effective means of enforcing the rules and that it is likely to enforce them. Where a rule of conduct is applicable, it will not ultimately be for the member to decide whether he obeys the rule of conduct. The rule of conduct will be enforced.
The amendment with which we are concerned, like the amendment that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon moved when the Bill was before the House on Report, relates to the content of the rules of conduct. Perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Alexander in saying that, once the House had determined that his amendment should be agreed, I felt that, if at all possible, I wished to give effect to it. I wished to give effect to it more generally for reasons that I have explained; namely, that, if it is a principle of justice, it should apply in all courts, not just in the superior courts. I believe that that point is generally accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, certainly accepted that. That was the first change that I was anxious to make.

1397
Because it was a matter of general principle, the second change that I was anxious to make was to have it stated as a general principle; that is to say, without exceptions of any kind. The difficulty is that one must examine closely what the principle is because, in a sense, it is easier to get away with allowing exceptions —leaving it to the machinery—than it is to state what the essence of the rule is. We have tried here to state what the essence of the rule is. With regard to the legal aid point, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to the fact that we are trying to describe matters in respect of requiring a member not to withhold those services. That is the duty. The rule must place a duty on the member not to withhold his services on any of those grounds. We have tried to encompass in general terms the various grounds that were likely to occur in practice. We did not think particularly about a person attending a public school, but it would be covered by the phrase:
"the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client".
The whole appearance, as it were, of a client is intended to be included in that.
The second matter to which I want to draw attention is the third heading which states:
"on any ground relating to the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the prospective client for the proceedings in question (for example, on the ground that such support will be available under the Legal Aid Act 1988)".
It is the existence of that provision which led me to say what my noble friend asked me to say when I referred to the solicitor in the Midlands to whom he referred in his speech on the Scottish Bill. That is the general provision.
On the question of fees, we have sought to provide a basis on which the rules of conduct can be examined to see whether they are compatible with the general principle. That is quite a difficult question. The principle as stated in the passages to which I referred is stated on the premise that a proper fee will be tendered. There must therefore be something in the statement of principle that deals with that point.
New subsection (5) refers to:
"Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider".
That is why I say that it is an objective test. It is not just a matter of what his opinion is. He must be able to show that there are reasonable grounds for his opinion regarding those three aspects of the matter.
Before the advisory committee and the designated judges approve any rules, they will have to consider carefully whether the rules of conduct conform to that test; in other words, that the rules of conduct are consistent with the test set out throughout the amendment. It will be for the designated judges ultimately to consider whether the approved rules of conduct make proper provision for testing whether an individual has reasonable grounds for considering that those are circumstances that apply in his case, and then, if and when the rules of conduct are approved, it will be for the professional body with the
1398
responsibility for enforcing the rules to see that those rules, as approved, are enforced. That is what the Attorney-General said in answer to questions on that matter put to him in the other place. That is fairly plain. What we have done is to analyse the substance of the principle which underlay my noble friend's amendment and put it into the Bill as an unqualified principle alongside the other principle.
Something has been said about the Scottish Bill and its provisions. I am always of course highly appreciative of the standards north of the Border. I should not like to see any difference in professional standards on either side of the Tweed. The principles to be followed are not stated in the Scottish Bill, whereas, in this Bill, in response, it would be fair to say, to observations made in the debate on the Green Paper, I felt it wise, if possible, to state general principles. Those general principles will apply the conduct of litigation, to everyone who is to conduct litigation and to everyone who is to have advocacy rights under the Bill. They are the principles. I do not have to rely upon a statement that the principles shall be common principles. Here are the statements of principle set down in detail. It is an amount of detail, thanks to my noble friend's amendment, to be applied in settling what the rules of conduct are to be which governs those two aspects of the provision of legal services. I believe that that is the correct balance.
One of the factors to be taken into account is that, in setting the level of legal aid remuneration, the Lord Chancellor is required to have regard to the number of people properly qualified to do the work at the proper level. That involves a degree of freedom for the profession to decide whether what is offered is acceptable in the way that has been developed. In the Bar's most recent code of conduct we have seen how that has been done.
It will be essential for any professional body which wishes to secure rights of audience for its members in any of the courts to produce rules of conduct which conform with those principles and to make satisfactory provision in the eyes of the designated judges to achieve those provisions. It will then be for the professional body to enforce them, remembering that the designated judges will not grant rights of audience to any professional or other body unless they are satisfied that the provisions will be enforced.
For those reasons, we have carried out fully and in detail the principle contained in my noble friend's amendment. There is no need for him to apologise. I just wanted to place on record the work done by parliamentary counsel. It was important and highly difficult work, as the amount of time various people had to spend on it showed; but I hope that in the end it has proved to be valuable work, and that it will be valued as a clear statement of principle. After all, to many people the meaning of the phrase "cab rank rule" is not immediately apparent. We have tried to analyse it in such a way as to make it apparent to all through the clear, unequivocal and unqualified provisions, as I believe they will be, of the amended clause, if your Lordships approve the Commons amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the care and trouble he has taken in dealing with the amendment. I am grateful also to all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate which I hope your Lordships will feel has served a useful purpose. There is a considerable degree of justified apprehension about abuse of Amendment No. 32; but having listened with care to the closing speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, which will serve as formal guidance on record not merely for the rule-makers but for the advisory body, I hope that your Lordships will think that it would not be appropriate to take the opinion of your Lordships' House I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, No. 29A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 29, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have only one small point to raise. It is only for clarification on Amendment No. 29. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will, in his usual lucid way, make easier the task of those bodies which will draw up rules applicable to Amendment No. 29. A person is not to withhold his services, according to paragraph (ii),
"on the ground that the conduct"—
"conduct" is the word that I wish to emphasise… of the prospective client [is] unacceptable to him or to any section of the public".
A commonsense interpretation of the word "conduct" would mean conduct in relation to the particular case in respect of which the person concerned is a prospective client. I envisage a gentleman in the waiting room who is a prospective client until I see him and whose conduct is such that he destroys my waiting room and makes a great noise in my firm. I am then expected to see him as a prospective client. He tells me that he has studied the wording of the Bill and I am not allowed to refuse him as a prospective client by virtue of his conduct. That shatters me.
I am aware, as I said, that the commonsense interpretation of the word should be that it is conduct in relation to the case with which I should be required to deal for him, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will make that position abundantly clear so that there is no misunderstanding.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes; I sincerely hope that it is not based upon experience. I wonder whether the point that he raises might narrow too much the definition contained in the clause. The clause, as I understand it, refers to alleged conduct in relation to the case and not merely to actual conduct and is intended to cover broad aspects of a person's behaviour or characteristics such as those raised by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it concerns me as to how the words "conduct, opinions or beliefs" will cover the advocate who says, "I will not act for someone who is poor". He may say that he will not act for someone who does not live in his city, and other such things. Those situations do not seem to be
1400
covered by this provision at all. Seriously speaking, those are the kind of remarks that lawyers may make. For example, they may say that they will not act for people under the age of 21.
7 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I wonder whether we should have added to this provision words referring to a client's status or condition as well as to the,
"conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we spent a large amount of time on this matter on a previous occasion. It is extremely difficult to make an absolutely watertight statement on it. However, if we consider the matter as it is recorded in reported cases and in the classical statements of it, the principal heads are those mentioned in this provision.
Your Lordships will recall that the rules of conduct are to be approved by the designated judges. The hands of the designated judges are not tied except that they must ensure that the rules of conduct make satisfactory provision that these grounds for withholding services are not lawful under the machinery. We discussed this a long time ago. When I spoke about the rules in February, I said that the considerable detail in them is for the machinery to consider. I was not against the rules, but I appreciated that they were very detailed. The more we have discussed this matter, the more satisfied I feel that that was at least a stateable ground for the position that. I took up.
However, this measure prevents the mechanism from approving a rule in which a prospective client's conduct could be regarded as a basis for not accepting a brief. It would not prevent the mechanism from outlawing other conduct. Therefore if there was any apprehension in a particular professional body to object to particular classes of person independent of their "conduct, opinions or beliefs", it would be possible for the mechanism of the designated judges to take account of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, kindly gave me notice some time ago of the point that he wished to make this evening. I have had the opportunity of consulting parliamentary counsel on that matter. It appears to me that the conduct in question is the conduct in respect of the client at the stage when he is still a prospective client. It is not a matter of his conduct during the case. If a client were to refuse to accept a solicitor's advice, that might be a ground for not continuing with the brief in some circumstances. However, generally speaking, a client's conduct should not be a ground for refusing to take a brief. It is his conduct as a prospective client that the lawyer who is offered the brief considers at the time when the client is still a prospective client. Therefore I do not see why a person who has broken up a lawyer's waiting-room should necessarily be refused advocacy services for all time. If such an event were to occur in the premises of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the person concerned might be greatly in need of a good advocate and should be entitled to seek such services.

1401
Although I understand the point that is being made here, I must say with great respect that I do not think it is a sound one. The word "conduct" refers to the client's conduct at a stage when he is still a prospective client.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord would not expect me to defend a man who had destroyed my waiting-room.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I know how strongly the noble Lord is bound to the cab rank rule. There may be some good ground of defence available to a person who broke up the waiting-room. The man may have been unduly provoked or he may, for example, have had some mental or physical defect which caused the trouble. The mechanism is entitled to consider whether satisfactory provision has been made in relation to these matters. I believe that the experience of the designated judges taken together will be sufficient to cope with problems of the kind that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend finally sits down, I hope I may ask him about a case which I have seen reported. It concerned a firm of solicitors with strong feminist affiliations. Among the clients of that firm was the oddly named Women Against Rape organisation. By reason of the existing clientele of that firm, it was reported that the firm had declared it would not accept instructions from people accused of rape. Would such a situation be covered by the provision?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we knew of that case when we formulated these grounds. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon was, of course, correct to point out that we are talking about alleged conduct and not necessarily conduct that is proven. The firm of solicitors in the case referred to was basically saying that the alleged conduct was unacceptable to a section of the public. That kind of objection would be covered in relation to advocacy services which is what this provision deals with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Page 13, line 45, leave out 'that body's' and insert 'the'
31 Page 13, line 47, leave out from 'justice' to end of line 10 on page 14.
32 Page 14, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider that, having regard to—

(a) the circumstances of the case;

(b) the nature of his practice; or

(c) his experience and standing,

he is not being offered a proper fee, are not on that account to be taken as being incompatible with the general principle.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments already.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
33 Clause 17, page 14, line 33, leave out '14' and insert '16'.
34 Page 14, line 37, leave out '14' and insert '16'.
35 Page 14, line 38, after '(a)', insert:

'one shall be a judge who is or has been a Circuit judge; (aa)'.

36 Page 14, line 43, leave out 'organisations' and insert

'institutions concerned with the teaching of law and such persons'

37 Page 14, line 46, leave out '8' and insert '9'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 en bloc. In moving these amendments I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 118, 119, 189 to 191, 194 to 197 and 203.
These amendments relate to the advisory committee. They add to the category of reserved places on the committee. The total membership is increased to 17 and the lay majority preserved. The person added is a judge who is or has been a circuit judge.
Noble Lords will recall that there has been much discussion about this matter. I ultimately concluded, in the light of all that I had heard, that a person who had been a circuit judge as well as a person who was a circuit judge should be qualified to serve on the committee. Your Lordships will remember that my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill, who spoke in a previous debate, mentioned Mr. Justice Hazan who had been very helpful to him in a fraud inquiry. It would have been extraordinary if such a useful member of that committee, having been appointed to the High Court, should suddenly cease to be a member of the committee. My decision also gives me the option of considering for this appointment members of the High Court Bench who have been circuit judges. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 20, page 16, line 21, after '(a)' insert 'a person who is or was'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 to 46, 192 and 193 which relate to the clauses and schedule dealing with the legal services ombudsman. A good deal of detail is involved.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 make it possible for the ombudsman to deal with a complaint in respect of a practitioner who has left practice since the matter for complaint arose. Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 and 46 concern the capacity of the ombudsman to do his job properly and to secure an effective remedy for clients. That is a point which arose when we considered the ombudsman's powers and how useful it would be to the client for the ombudsman to have such jurisdiction with regard to former practitioners.

1403
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 strengthen the ombudsman's powers to require that non-compliance with a recommendation is publicised. During the debate on that power in another place the question arose as to what would happen if a practitioner or professional body refused to publicise the reasons as directed. The amendments were brought forward as a result of that discussion and will enable the ombudsman to publicise the facts where the practitioner or professional body clearly will not do so, and then to recover the reasonable costs. The ombudsman will, of course, be subject to judicial review if his actions in enforcing the publicity sanction were considered to be unreasonable.
Amendment No. 192 is a technical amendment which will enable the ombudsman to compensate a member of staff for loss of office, should that be necessary.
Amendment No. 193 allows the Lord Chancellor to appoint an acting legal services ombudsman should the need arise. That could be appropriate, for example, because of prolonged illness or sudden death —I hope that neither of those will apply to the person I have suggested should be nominated—or because the ombudsman thinks that it would be inappropriate for him to act in a particular case, which is much more likely, perhaps because of personal acquaintance with the client or practitioner involved, or for any other reason. The acting ombudsman will have the same powers as the ombudsman but will only act in accordance with his or her terms of appointment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 Clause 20, page 16, line 22, after 'conveyancer' insert 'registered foreign lawyer'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.
In moving Amendment No. 39, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 128, 165, 167, 168, 170, 172 and 215 which deal with international practice. They provide a framework within which multinational partnerships consisting of English and Welsh solicitors and foreign solicitors and incorporated bodies managed and controlled by such solicitors and foreign lawyers acting together can be subjected to the minimum regulation necessary to provide protection for the clients of such partnerships.
Your Lordships will remember that it was agreed in principle that that would be permissible. The detailed provisions were to be considered with the Law Society. A great deal of detail is involved. I hope that your Lordships will feel that this is an appropriate way in which to fill out the detail. I therefore invite your Lordships to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the whole House will welcome these provisions, which are so sensible and useful, especially in view of the advent of 1992. However, there is some worry that, having made these rules, there will not be sufficient reciprocity with other countries. I know that the noble and learned Lord has a considerable amount of influence in those countries and with their professional bodies. May we rely on him to see that as much reciprocity is granted to our own lawyers?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have been looking for some guidance as to what is a registered foreign lawyer. It is not set out in the general definitions clause at the end of the Bill; nor is it in Clause 20(11). Can my noble and learned friend enlighten us?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a foreign lawyer who is registered in the new register of foreign lawyers that will be kept by the Law Society as a means of control for the protection of people in this country in that respect.
So far as concerns the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do my best to persuade people in other countries to follow our good example.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke to Amendments Nos. 232, 263 and 277 in connection with Amendment No. 39. If this is the appropriate time, I should like to refer to those latter three amendments, which cover the qualification of Commonwealth solicitors. I am somewhat baffled by the cross-references in the three amendments, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether the amendments give effect to the new rules for qualification of Commonwealth solicitors on which I tabled an amendment at Report stage on 1st March and to which the noble and learned Lord agreed in principle subject to further consideration of the language proposed in that amendment. I should be very happy to hear that that was the case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendments have a bearing on that question. I believe that we have been able to resolve the problem to which the noble Lord referred to his satisfaction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 20, page 16, line 23, leave out 'who is' and insert 'and'.
41 Clause 21, page 18, line 12, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
42 Page 18, line 12, after 'made', insert:

'(bb) any other person with respect to whom the Ombudsman makes a recommendation under subsection (2);'.

43 Page 18, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert:

'(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or

(ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him;

(c) that—

(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or

(ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him,'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments Nos. 40 to 43. The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 38, and I should like to move them en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
44 Clause 21, page 18, line 40, after 'section' insert 'and any publicity given under subsection (9)'.
45 Page 19, line 8, at end insert:
'(9) Where a person is required by subsection (8) to publicise any failure, the Ombudsman may take such steps as he considers reasonable to publicise that failure if—

(a) the period mentioned in subsection (7) has expired and that person has not complied with subsection (8); or

(b) the Ombudsman has reasonable cause for believing that that person will not comply with subsection (8) before the end of that period.

(10) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the Ombudsman under subsection (9) may be recovered by him (as a civil debt) from the person whose failure he has publicised.'.
46 Page 19, line 8, at end insert:
'() For the purposes of this section, the person with respect to whom a complaint is made ("the first person") and another person ("the second person") are connected if—

(a) the second person—

(i) employs the first person; and

(ii) is an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, duly certificated notary public, licensed conveyancer or partnership;

(b) they are both partners in the same partnership; or

(c) the second person is a recognised body which employs the first person or of which the first person is an officer.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 which were spoken to with Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 46—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 25, page 20, line 35, leave out paragraph (e) and insert:
'(e) where—

(i) he is employed (whether wholly or in part), or is otherwise engaged, to assist in the conduct of litigation and is doing so under instructions given (either generally or in relation to the proceedings) by a qualified litigator; and

(ii) the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court and are not reserved family proceedings.'.

48 Page 21, line 31, at end insert:
'"family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;'.
49 Page 21, line 35, at end insert:
"qualified litigator" means—

(i) any practising solicitor ("practising" having the same meaning as in section 17(8) (b));

(ii) any recognised body; and

1406

(iii)any person who is exempt from the requirement to hold a practising certificate by virtue of section 88 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (saving for solicitors to public departments and the City of London);'.

50 Page 21, line 37, at end insert:
'"reserved family proceedings" means such category of family proceedings as the Lord Chancellor may, after consulting the President of the Law Society and with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, by order prescribe;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 50.
The amendments deal with the question of solicitors' clerks, which was the subject of some discussion while the Bill was in your Lordships' House. I undertook to try to solve the problem. It turned out to be somewhat more intractable than I had thought but I believe that there is now a satisfactory solution. It has also been possible to make provision for the people who may provide clerks' services in London and who are not employed by solicitors in London but who act under instructions. We have tried to take account of those in a way which I believe is satisfactory.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 50.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord what are the implications of this amendment, because they concern me. Am I right in thinking that the result of Amendment No. 47 will be that part-time unqualified clerks of any sort or description, so long as they are acting under instructions, will have the conduct of bail applications before Crown Court judges? When that amendment is combined with Clause 88, the unqualified clerk is specifically allowed to have the conduct of bail applications for the Crown Prosecution Service. The result will be that these matters, which affect the liberty of the subject and the safety of the public, will be conducted on both sides by unqualified clerks—unqualified laymen.
I wonder whether I am right in the view that these proceedings, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, often result in people who are later acquitted or not given a custodial sentence, being kept in custody, so swelling the prison population. We must bear in mind that at this very moment the Woolf Inquiry is investigating why so many people are sent to prison on bail who should not be so sent. I wonder whether the result of this amendment is merely to make the position worse than it has been hitherto.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. I am particularly concerned by the words "or in part". That could mean a very tenuous and very slight degree of employment. The idea that somebody can be brought in, perhaps ad hoc, just for getting a right of audience in a particular case seems a rather strange proposition. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can explain and justify it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I may be wrong, and if so I may be rapped over the knuckles, but I read these amendments as relating to civil proceedings, giving what we used to call a managing clerk—or an executive, as he is now called—in a solicitor's office, whether employed full or part time, exactly the same facilities in the county court in chambers as he has always had in the High Court. I should have thought that it is almost an a fortiori argument that if he had that in the High Court he ought to have it in the county court.
However, whether I am right or wrong perhaps I may make a further point which I promised the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I would bring forward. When the Bill was before the House he was responsible for the amendment which sought this provision, and I had the privilege of supporting him. He wanted me to tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor how glad he was to see this amendment. Perhaps I may add one or two sentences further. It will not be more than that. We are trying to put through a Bill which deals not only with the efficiency that the legal profession is supposed to exercise but also with the economies it ought to effect for members of the public. If we try to stop experienced executives from conducting work in county court chambers as they do in the High Court, it will be a sorry day from the point of view of trying to effect economies.
I know that some circuit judges at the moment, on a plea from some rather unkind counsel, have been moved to say that they will not hear managing clerks or executives in chambers in their county courts. If this amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see to it that the provisions are brought into effect as soon is possible.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment relate; to proceedings being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court. Certainly I should regard that as applicable to civil proceedings. I cannot see that bail applications in the Crown Court would be covered under this heading.
It is important to remember the responsibility of the solicitor under whose instructions the person is acting. The general rule in the High Court appears not to have been completely general in the sense that there were certain family proceedings in which solicitors' clerks were not generally allowed to appear. That is why we had to make provision for the reserved family proceedings, which complicate matters slightly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we are simply extending to the county court the provision which has been recognised for a long time as a result of a decision in the High Court making it a matter of right that the solicitor's clerk should be heard. That is the point in question and that is the purpose of this amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am sorry to have to say that in Clause 25 the wording says that a person shall have,
"a right of audience before a court … in relation to any proceedings".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord must read the amendment. It is related only to situations in which the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court. So the amendment is qualified in that respect. In the rest of the clause generally we are talking about other matters, but this particular passage is restricted. We are talking only about chambers proceedings in the High Court or the county court and not generally.
Your Lordships may remember that we tried to set out a section listing the rights of audience and the way in which that matter would be dealt with. There was a little clause at the very end recognising as an exception the rights of solicitors' clerks in High Court chambers to be heard on the basis of the decision of 1903, or whenever. That is what founded the discussion with the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Mishcon. The question was whether that should be extended to the county court. That is what this measure is about. It is completely restricted by subparagraph (e) (ii) to proceedings that are there referred to. The generality of the clause deals with much wider matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Page 21, line 44, after 'solicitor)' insert 'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.
52 Page 21, line 46, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 47.
53 Clause 26, page 23, line 2, after 'solicitor)' insert 'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.
54 Page 23, line 4, leave out from 'litigation' to end of line 5.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 inclusive. At the same time I shall speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 108 and 252. The new provision setting out the qualification requirements for appointment to the post of official solicitor requires possession of a 10-year general qualification. Since that relates to the rights of audience it will therefore be possible for a person to be appointed to the office who does not have full rights to conduct litigation or prepare papers for probate. These amendments will ensure that an official solicitor, by virtue of appointment to that office, will have the necessary rights and requirements to perform all his or her functions.
These changes have caused us to look again at the provisions in the Solicitors Act 1974 dealing with prohibitions. As a result, Section 22 of the Act, which prohibits an unqualified person from preparing certain documents, has been added in Clauses 25(10) and 26(6) to those provisions which shall not apply in relation to acts done in exercise of a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation. These amendments will additionally remove from Clauses 25(10) and 26(6) the words,
"duly granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act",
as they are unnecessarily restrictive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 54.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
55 Clause 29, page 24, line 31, leave out from '25' to end of line 39 and insert:

'(a) barristers shall be deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar the rights of audience exercisable by barristers (in their capacity as such) immediately before 7th December 1989; and

(b) the General Council of the Bar shall be deemed to have in force qualification regulations and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 25.'.

56 Page 24, line 43, at end insert 'and'.
57 Page 24, line 44, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 47 and insert:

'(2A) If any particular provision of those regulations or rules would not have been approved for the purposes of section 25 had it been submitted for approval under Part I of Schedule 4 it (but no other such provision) shall not be deemed to have been approved.'.

58 Page 25, line 2, leave out 'by virtue of subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (3A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(3A) Where a direction is given under subsection (3)—'.

59 Page 25, line 6, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
60 Page 25, line 8, leave out 'be deemed not' and insert 'not be deemed'.
61 Page 25, line 13, at end insert 'subsection (4A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(4A) Where a direction is given under subsection (4)—'.

62 Page 25, line 17, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
63 Page 25, line 21, at end insert:

'(4B) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) (c), any provision is not deemed to have been approved—

(a) it shall cease to have effect, so far as it relates to any right of audience deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar; and

(b) the regulations and rules which are deemed, by virtue of subsection (1) (b), to have been properly approved shall be taken not to include that provision.'.

64 Page 25, line 25, leave out 'deemed not' and insert 'not deemed'.
65 Clause 30, page 25, line 28, leave out from '25' to end of line 36 and insert:

'(a) solicitors shall be deemed to have been granted by the Law Society the rights of audience exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as such) immediately before 7th December 1989; and

(b) the Law Society shall be deemed to have in force qualification regulations and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 25.'.

66 Page 25, line 40, at end insert 'and'.
67 Page 25, line 41, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 44 and insert:
'(2A) If any particular provision of those regulations or rules would not have been approved for the purposes of section 25 had it been submitted for approval under Part I of Schedule 4 it (but no other such provision) shall not be deemed to have been approved.'.
68 Page 26, line 2, leave out 'by virtue of subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (3A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(3A) Where a direction is given under subsection (3)—'.

69 Page 26, line 6, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
70 Page 26, line 8, leave out 'be deemed not' and insert 'not be deemed'.
71 Page 26, line 13, at end insert 'subsection (4A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.
1410

(4A) Where a direction is given under subsection(4)—'.

72 Page 26, line 17, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
73 Page 26, line 21, at end insert:

'(4B) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) (c), any provision is not deemed to have been approved—

(a) it shall cease to have effect, so far as it relates to any right of audience deemed to have been granted by the Law Society; and

(b) the regulations and rules which are deemed, by virtue of subsection (1) (b) to have been properly approved shall be taken not to include that provision.'.

74 Page 26, line 25, leave out 'deemed not' and insert 'not deemed'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 74 inclusive. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 76 to 85. These are amendments which are intended to deal with a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, among others, about the previous clause and whether it did what we agreed in policy it ought to do. The amendments clarify the fact that neither the Bar nor the Law Society can lose the right to grant such rights as the result of qualification regulations or rules of conduct being challenged or losing their deemed approval if the rights were enjoyed by barristers and solicitors at the relevant date. We have had much discussion about these issues. I believe that the amendments now secure what we all had in mind as their purpose.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 74—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have a query on Amendment No. 74. The amendments provide that where deemed approval is withdrawn the provision in question shall cease to have effect. As I understand it, the Government had originally explained that the purpose of withdrawing deemed approval was to enable the competition authority to examine whether or not a provision was anti-competitive. But surely there is no reason why a provision that is subject to challenge in that way should be invalidated in the meantime.
The Law Society would be grateful for an explanation by the Government as to why they have taken that approach. It appears that the only provisions which can be "undeemed" are the training rules and rules of conduct concerned with the rights of audience. It is important that that should be the case since otherwise solicitors' existing rights of audience could be put in question. I therefore ask the Government for an undertaking that the clause does not have that effect.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has correctly explained the effects of the clause. The clause can render inoperative regulations of conduct or of qualification but not the rights of audience. The rights of audience granted in accordance with the rules that prevail at the time will remain.
I explained originally that the mere fact that the mechanism did not approve a rule did not necessarily affect the rule. That was one of the points that the

1411
noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised on a previous occasion. Having considered all those arguments I took the view that the mechanism should decide one way or the other in relation to rules of conduct or training qualification rules in relation to rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation. If it was thought that they were not appropriate rules it would be right that they should cease to have effect. However, that does not affect the rights gained while those rules were in operation. I believe that meets the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Leave out Clause 31
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75. This amendment refers to the legal aid provisions. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 111, 112, 233 and 259, all of which concern that subject.
Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved Clause 31. I accepted it at the time on the basis that there were details that required to be looked into while I accepted the principle of the clause on which we appeared to be substantially agreed: that the Crown Court, by exercise of legal aid powers, could not be turned into a solicitor-only court.
As a result of a good deal of discussion, we have been able to reformulate Clause 31 in a way which I believe is acceptable. It is the subject matter of later amendments. I am in a position to give a very full explanation of all the amendments if that is required. However, I believe that the spirit of what is provided is in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed in his original Clause 31 and that we have now refined the detail of that provision.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his very gracious reference to the amendment which I had the privilege of moving. As a result of the amendment which comes from the other place, it now appears as a very valuable principle in the Bill.
We also completely understood that the noble and learned Lord wished to reserve the right to ensure that there was not a waste of costs and that therefore the remuneration provisions would still be open in spite of this right to regulate the situation properly.
I believe that it would also be the view of the noble and learned Lord that it would be wrong to use those costs arrangements to discourage counsel being instructed in the higher courts unless and until it became the normal procedure for private litigants to be represented by a solicitor alone in particular
1412
proceedings. Will the noble and learned Lord give an indication that that is a view with which he agrees? It would be very helpful.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I too may ask for an assurance from the noble and learned Lord. I presume that the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the litigant's right to choose his representative. I believe that "representative" should be in the plural: to select his legal representatives. It is a very small point. However, if that is the purpose of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord has power under the Legal Aid Act to provide for the remuneration of legal services by regulation.
The assurance that I seek is that through that operation of the Legal Aid Act the Lord Chancellor is able to say that the fee should be only for one legal representative, whoever that may be. Will it be possible therefore that although the client may elect to have two legal representatives—a solicitor and a barrister—under the Legal Aid Act he may be allowed remuneration for only one lawyer, a solicitor, and therefore the two lawyers will have to share the fee?
There was much discussion about that when the Bill passed through this House. I believe that noble Lords on all sides are anxious to ensure that lawyers would not have to share a fee because of the operation of the Legal Aid Act.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, "representative" includes representatives. Therefore if there are two, obviously the right to choose, subject to the other provisions of the Legal Aid Act, applies. The provision prevents the power being exercised generally to restrict the representative to one representative with regard to the higher courts.
In regard to determining remuneration, the provision preserves the Lord Chancellor's right to take account of all the factors that are mentioned in the existing statutory provisions affecting that matter. The extent of the effect, if any, must depend on what happens under the new machinery.
Obviously, the more general a particular practice became the more likely it would be that there would be an effect on fees. However, the proviso merely preserves the Lord Chancellor's right to fix the fees for the representatives in question as distinct representatives in the light of all the factors that are presently in the Legal Aid Act provisions relating to fees. It does not entitle the Lord Chancellor to pay a fee to one person and oblige that person to divide the fee with another. That is not what the power would enable one to do. In considering the fee for a piece of work the provision would enable the Lord Chancellor to take account of the various ways in which that piece of work might be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
76 Clause 32, page 26, line 34, leave out from '26' to end of line 42 and insert:

'(a) solicitors shall be deemed to have been granted by the Law Society the rights to conduct litigation exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as such) immediately before 7th December 1989; and

1413

(b) the Law Society shall be deemed to have in force qualification regulations and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 26.'.

77 Page 26, line 46, at end insert 'and'.
78 Page 26, line 47, leave out from 'litigation' to end of line 3 on page 27 and insert:

'(2A) If any particular provision of those regulations or rules would not have been approved for the purposes of section 26 had it been submitted for approval under Part I of Schedule 4 it (but no other such provision) shall not be deemed to have been approved.'.

79 Page 27, line 5, leave out 'by virtue of subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (3A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(3A) Where a direction is given under subsection (3)—'.

80 Page 27, line 9, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
81 Page 27, line 11, leave out 'be deemed not' and insert 'not be deemed'.
82 Page 27, line 15, at end insert 'subsection (4A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(4A) Where a direction is given under subsection (4)—'.

83 Page 27, line 19, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
84 Page 27, line 23, at end insert:

'(4B) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) (c), any provision is not deemed to have been approved—

(a) it shall cease to have effect, so far as it relates to any right to conduct litigation deemed to have been granted by the Law Society; and

(b) the regulations and rules which are deemed, by virtue of subsection (1) (b), to have been properly approved shall be taken not to include that provision.'.

85 Page 27, line 27, leave out 'deemed not' and insert 'not deemed'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76 to 85 en bloc. I spoke to the amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 55.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76 to 85. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Clause 34, page 28, line 13, leave out 'subject to the provisions of this Part'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 90, 92, 96 and 97. They are essentially technical but at the same time important amendments. At a late stage it was noticed that the provisions which were meant to apply only to conveyancing had by an accident of drafting assumed a role which they were not intended to have. The amendments limit the clauses to conveyancing as was always the intention.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
87 Page 29, line 7, at end insert '(including conditions as to repayment)'.
88 Page 29, line 10, at end insert:
1414

'(13) Any sums repaid by the Board in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (11) shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 en bloc. They are technical amendments to ensure that sums repaid by the board shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I understood that the amendments provided that conditions could be put down relating to repayment and that that was the reason for them. If I am wrong I bow to the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, part of the reason for the amendments is that conditions as to repayment should be included and that the proceeds should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
89 Clause 35, page 29, line 16, at end insert:

'(aa) by a body corporate at any time when it is an authorised practitioner;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. This is an important but technical amendment. Clause 35 excluded the restrictions imposed by Section 22 of the Solicitors Act for officers and employees of a body corporate at any time when that body is an authorised practitioner but did not do the same for the body corporate itself when that body is an authorised practitioner. The amendment closes the gap.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 Clause 36, page 30, line 32, leave out from 'rules' to 'so' and insert 'made by the Board and any regulations made under section 39'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 86.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
91 Clause 37, page 31, line 46, at end insert:

'(8A) Where the Board—

(a) proposes to impose a condition under this section on an authorised practitioner; and

(b) is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are exceptional and justify the condition taking effect immediately,

it may disregard subsections (5) to (8) when imposing the condition.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their

1415
Amendment No. 91. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93. These amendments allow the board to impose a condition on an authorised practitioner immediately, without having to give the practitioner 28 days' notice as required by subsections (5) to (8) of this clause They make it clear that a breach of a condition does not of itself result in loss of authorised status. The purpose is to protect transactions in the pipeline because the board's power to make transitional arrangements is available only if authorisation is revoked or suspended. These amendments protect the interests of clients.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
92 Page 32, line 5, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 40'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.1 spoke to the amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 96.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
93 Page 32, line 5, at end insert:
'(11) An authorised practitioner who fails to comply with a condition imposed on him under this section shall not thereby cease to be such a practitioner; but in such a case the Board may—

(a) impose additional, or substituted, conditions on him; or

(b) revoke or suspend his authorisation in accordance with rules made under section 38(1).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 91.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
94 Clause 39, page 33, line 6, at end insert:

'(ee) as to the information to be given to prospective clients, the manner in which or person by whom it is to be given and the circumstances in which it is to be given free of charge;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94. The subject of this amendment was Originally raised in Committee in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The present amendment was subsequently moved in another place. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when making regulations on the competence and conduct of authorised practitioners the Lord Chancellor has power to cover matters such as the personal interview and any charges for it. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House.
1416
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. It meets fully the concerns that we expressed at an earlier stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
95 Clause 42, page 35, line 4, at end insert:

'(12) The Board may—

(a) pay such remuneration and travelling and other allowances to the Conveyancing Ombudsman as may be determined by the Board;

(b) pay such pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the Conveyancing Ombudsman as may be so determined; and

(c) if the Conveyancing Ombudsman ceases to hold office and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, pay him such sum as may be so determined.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 to 201.
The amendments, except for Amendment No. 201, deal with remuneration and other expenses of members of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and the Conveyancing Ombudsman and his staff.
Amendment No. 201 extends the grounds on which the Conveyancing Ombudsman can make compensation orders to include inconvenience and distress as well as loss. This brings the Conveyancing Ombudsman's powers into line with those of the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Law Society's powers covering inadequate professional services.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
96 Clause 44, page 35, line 25, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 39'.
97 Page 35, line 34, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 39'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 86.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
98 Page 36, line 4, leave out subsection (9).
99 Clause 45, page 36, line 24, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 en bloc. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 33.

1417
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
100 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Power to obtain information and require production of documents
' .—(1) The Board may serve a notice on any—

(a) authorised practitioner;

(b) officer or employee of an authorised practitioner;

(c) qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of an authorised practitioner; or

(d) officer or employee of such a qualified person, requiring him to provide the Board (within such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice) with such document, or documents of such a description, or with such information, as may be so specified.

(2) The Board shall not exercise its powers under subsection (1) except for the purpose of obtaining such information as it thinks reasonably necessary in connection with the discharge of any of its functions.
(3) The Board's power under this section to require a person to produce any document includes power—

(a) if the document is produced, to take copies of it or extracts from it and to require that person, or any other person who is or was a director or officer of, or is or was at any time employed by or acting as an employee of, the practitioner concerned, to provide an explanation of the document;

(b) if the document is not produced, to require the person who was required to produce it to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where it is.

(4) The Board's power under this section may be exercised in relation to a person who falls within subsection (1) (c) or (d) only in relation to the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner concerned.
(5) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
(6) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(7) Where any person from whom production of a document is required under this section claims a lien on the document, the production of it shall be without prejudice to the lien.
(8) Nothing in this section shall compel—

(a) the production of a document containing a communication which is privileged from disclosure in legal proceedings in England and Wales; or

(b) the furnishing of information contained in such a communication.

(9) In this section "document" includes any information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references to its production include references to producing a copy in legible form.'.
101 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:—
Investigations on behalf of Board
.—(1) If it appears to the Board desirable to do so—

(a) in connection with the discharge of any of its functions; and

(b) in the interests of customers or potential customers of an authorised practitioner,

it may appoint one or more competent persons ("the investigators") to investigate and report to it on the state and conduct of the affairs of that authorised practitioner.
(2) The Board shall give written notice of any such appointment to the authorised practitioner concerned.
(3) If the investigators think it necessary for the purposes of their investigation, they may also investigate the affairs of any qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of the authorised practitioner (so far as concerns the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner), after giving the qualified person written notice of their investigation.
(4) Any investigation under this section of the affairs of—

(a) any institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to carry on a deposit taking business;

(b) any building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or

(c) any insurance company which is authorised under

section 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, shall be subject to such direction (if any) given by the Lord Chancellor with a view to limiting the scope of the investigation to matters concerned with the provision of conveyancing services.
(5) Any such direction may be general or be given with respect to a particular investigation.
(6) It shall be the duty of every person whose affairs are being investigated and of any officer or employee of his—

(a) to produce to the investigators, within such time and at such place as they may reasonably require, all documents relating to the provision of conveyancing services by the practitioner which arc in that person's custody or power;

(b) to provide the investigators, within such time as they may require, with such information as they may reasonably require with respect to the provision of those services; and

(c) to give the investigators such assistance in connection with the investigation as he is reasonably able to give.

(7) The investigators may take copies of, or extracts from, any document produced to them under subsection (6).
(8) This section applies in relation to a former authorised practitioner or former qualified person as it applies in relation to an authorised practitioner or qualified person.
(9) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to produce any document, or provide any information, which it is his duty to produce under subsection (6) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
(10) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(11) Nothing in this section shall compel the production by an authorised practitioner or qualified person acting on his behalf of a document containing a privileged communication made by him or to him in that capacity.'.
102 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:—
Restrictions on disclosure of information
'.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), restricted information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person shall not be disclosed—

(a) by the Board or any member of its staff;

(b) by any person appointed as an investigator under section (Investigations on behalf of Board) or any officer or servant of his; or

(c) by any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained and, if they are different, the person to whom it relates.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), information is restricted information for the purposes of this section if it was obtained (whether or not in response to any requirement that it be provided) for the purposes of, or in the discharge of functions under, any provision made by or under this Act.
(3) Information shall not be treated as restricted information for the purposes of this section if it has been made available to the public by virtue of being disclosed in any circumstances in which, or for any purpose for which, disclosure is not prevented by this section.
(4) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 to 105, 166, 236, 238 and 246. The amendments are designed to deal with a matter that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at an earlier stage. They give the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board the powers it needs to exercise proper administration and control over authorised conveyancing practitioners, to preserve assets pending investigation and to provide for an appeal system against its decision should an aggrieved party wish to appeal. They represent the result of the undertaking that I gave during the Report stage in this House to consider further what powers of intervention and investigation the board might need. The Law Society has been asking for investigation and intervention powers of this kind for some time and I hope that both they and this House will welcome the amendments here.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 102.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that the Law Society is equally grateful to him for these very useful amendments which give the board the powers of intervention which he mentioned. I have tabled Amendment No. 102A. I should like to explain to your Lordships the basis of my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I should formally put Amendment No. 102 because I moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. I must put Amendment No. 102 because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to move an amendment to that amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I was slightly put off by the fact that he mentioned Amendment No. 102. I had expected that he would be moving Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 and that afterwards on Amendment No. 102 I would move my amendment to the amendment, but he said that he was putting Amendment No. 102 as well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is entirely my mistake. I am very sorry. I intended to move Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. I must do that now.
1420
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
102 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:—
Restrictions on disclosure of information
'.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), restricted information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person shall not be disclosed—

(a) by the Board or any member of its staff;

(b) by any person appointed as an investigator under section (Investigations on behalf of Board) or any officer or servant of his; or

(c) by any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained and, if they are different, the person to whom it relates.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), information is restricted information for the purposes of this section if it was obtained (whether or not in response to any requirement that it be provided) for the purposes of, or in the discharge of functions under, any provision made by or under this Act.
(3) Information shall not be treated as restricted information for the purposes of this section if it has been made available to the public by virtue of being disclosed in any circumstances in which, or for any purpose for which, disclosure is not prevented by this section.
(4) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 102
102A Line 11, after first ("the") insert ("written").
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I said, I should like briefly to explain to your Lordships the reason for my Amendment No. 102A. It has been said that we are living in an age of leakages. Whoever be the government of the day, they find it most embarrassing that from all quarters documents are leaked and confidential information leaked. I suppose that it is the experience of most of us in the legal profession that if anybody interesting is charged or arrested, there appears to be a leakage from the relevant police station to Fleet Street within a matter of seconds.
Speaking purely for myself I am glad that the amendment from the other place makes it a criminal offence to impart information about a third party that comes into their possession
"(a) by the Board or any member of its staff; (b) by any person appointed as an investigator",
Paragraph (c) is intended to cover, for example, a journalist who quite wrongly obtains confidential information which was confidential to a third party as a result of the inquiries made by the board or by an investigator. That person is described as:

1421
"any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)".
I have asked myself how effective that would be in order to stop a third party—not the board, one of its employees or an investigator—who had wrongfully obtained confidential information about the third party. All that the journalist in paragraph (c) would need to do is to say that he had obtained consent, not written consent but ordinary consent. To be practical, in this day and age, one can envisage a telephone call made by a newspaper to the person whose private affairs had got into the hands of the journalist. He might speak to a secretary on the telephone and say, "I assume there is no objection to my newspaper publishing this, that or the other". The reply could be a neutral one such as, "Well, I know of no objection". He might then say, "I have the consent of that party. I am now going to telephone the board and say to one of the board's employees, 'Oh, by the way, I have obtained the consent of Mr. X to my publishing certain facts about him. In those circumstances I assume that there is no objection from your point of view.'" The normal reply he might expect to receive, with the provision as it now stands, is, "Well, if he does not object, we do not object".
What happens if there is to be a prosecution? Is the onus on the prosecution to prove that the man did not have consent? If so, the task faced is almost impossible. If the onus is on the party concerned, he must have guilty knowledge that he did not have consent. He says, "I assumed from the telephone conversation that I had that consent". In those circumstances, what jury will convict?
I wish to be perfectly frank with the House because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to discuss this matter with me and, indeed, to write me a letter. He properly and fairly quoted some Acts where the word "consent" appears without the addition of the word "written". I believe that the most ancient of the Acts to which he referred was a 1986 Act. I ventured to point out to him with great respect that one has hardly had experience of any of the Acts from 1986 onwards, including the Financial Services Act. I believe that this clause will be useless as regards paragraph (c) unless there is the provision that it should be written consent. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 102A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 102, be agreed to—(Lord Mishcon.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord very kindly drew my attention to this point some time ago. The purpose of Commons Amendment No. 102 is to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of restricted information by making it a criminal offence, triable either way, for the board, its investigator, or any person obtaining information from them to disclose such information without consent. The amendment now moved to Amendment No. 102 has superficial attractions—and all the more so when presented by the noble Lord—in that it appears at first sight to make it easier for the prosecution to prove the absence
1422
of consent to the satisfaction of magistrates or a jury. On further analysis, however, a requirement that consent be in writing is unnecessary and could have undesirable consequences.
I say it is unnecessary because Commons Amendment No. 102 is a standard provision lifted from other legislation such as the Building Societies Act 1986, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987. So far as I am aware, the absence of a requirement for consent to be in writing has caused no problems. I accept that those are fairly recent statutes but I believe it to be quite important to have consistency in this matter. These are similar provisions. The criminal sanction for unauthorised disclosure contained in the clause should therefore have the deterrent effect intended.
It is important that two consents are required in the paragraph (c) case; namely, from the board or its investigator or the person to whom it relates. The noble Lord is saying that having obtained, by means which may not be described as entirely fair, a form of consent from the person to whom the permission relates, the board or the investigator might be persuaded to part with it. I believe that is a matter for the board about which it should have discipline.
The circumstance that the noble Lord envisages could be dealt with in that way. I fully appreciate the importance of the point he raises and I undertake to keep it in review as these provisions come into effect. I am reluctant to accept the amendment in relation to this legislation when there are parallel provisions in other recent legislation which have so far given no difficulty. There is value in retaining consistency.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke of complications. It is always possible to complicate the understanding of people if in one area written consent is required and in a closely related area it is not. Accepting that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has a point worthy of consideration, he may feel that in the light of my explanation he can safely leave the matter for the present.
8 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I immediately bow to the noble and learned Lord, especially in view of his kindness in saying that he was prepared to review the matter in the light of experience. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 102A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 102, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
103 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure
'.—(1) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information—

(a) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any criminal proceedings;

(b) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any civil proceedings arising under or by virtue of this Act;

(c) in a summary or collection of information framed in such a way as not to enable the identity of any person to whom the information relates to be ascertained; or

(d) in pursuance of any Community obligation.

(2) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling or assisting—

(a) the Lord Chancellor to discharge any of his functions under this Act with respect to the Board or authorised practitioners;

(b) the Board to discharge any of its functions;

(c) the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers or the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to discharge any of its functions;

(d) the Building Societies Commission to discharge any of its functions;

(e) the competent authority or a designated agency, recognised investment exchange, recognised clearing house, recognised self-regulating organisation or recognised professional body (all those expressions having the meaning given in the Financial Services Act 1986) to discharge any of its functions;

(f) the Bank of England to discharge any of its functions;

(g) the Secretary of State to discharge any of his functions under this Act, the Financial Services Act 1986 or any enactment relating to competition, companies, insurance or insolvency;

(h) any inspector appointed by the Secretary of State under any of the enactments mentioned in paragraph (g) to discharge any of his functions;

(i) an official receiver to discharge any of his functions under any enactment relating to insolvency;

(j) a body which is a recognised professional body under section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to discharge any of its functions as such a body;

(k) the Insurance Brokers Registration Council to discharge any of its functions under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977;

(l) any person appointed or authorised to discharge any powers under section 94, 106 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to exercise any of those powers;

(m) the Director to discharge any of his functions under—

(i) this Act;

(ii) the Fair Trading Act 1973 (other than Part II);

(iii) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

(iv) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;

(v) the Estate Agents Act 1979;

(vi) the Competition Act 1980;

(vii) the Financial Services Act 1986;

(viii) the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988;

(n) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to discharge any of its functions under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980;

(o) the Scottish Conveyancing and Executory Services Board to discharge any of its functions;

(p) an authority in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom to discharge any functions corresponding to—

(i) the functions of the Board, the Building Societies Commission or the Bank of England; or

(ii) those functions of the Secretary of State mentioned in paragraph (g);

(q) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Insolvency Act 1986;

(r) the Financial Services Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

(4) An order under subsection (3) designating an authority for the purposes of this section may—

(a) impose conditions subject to which the disclosure of information is permitted by subsection (3); and

(b) otherwise restrict the circumstances in which disclosure is permitted.

(5) Where information has been disclosed by one person ("the first person") to another, by virtue of subsection (2), section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent that other person from disclosing that information to any person to whom it could have been disclosed by the first person by virtue of subsection (2).
(6) The Lord Chancellor may by order modify the application of any provision of this section so as—
1424

(a) to prevent the disclosure of information by virtue of that provision; or

(b) to restrict the extent to which disclosure of information is permitted by virtue of that provision.'.

104 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Board's intervention powers
'.—(1) The powers conferred on the Board by this section may be exercised if it appears to the Board to be desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of the clients, or prospective clients, of an authorised practitioner.
(2) The Board may, in particular, exercise any such power where it appears to it—

(a) that an authorised practitioner who is an individual is no longer fit to provide conveyancing services;

(b) that any person carrying on the business of an authorised practitioner is not fit to provide such services; or

(c) that an authorised practitioner has failed, or is likely to fail, to comply with any regulation made under section 39.

(3) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner not to dispose of, or otherwise deal with, except in accordance with the terms of the direction—

(a) any assets belonging to any client of the authorised practitioner and held by or under the control of the authorised practitioner in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or

(b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

(4) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner to transfer to the Board, or to such persons ("the trustees") as may be specified in the direction—

(a) all assets belonging to any client of that practitioner and held by or under his control in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or

(b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

(5) Any assets which have been transferred as a result of a direction given under subsection (4) shall be held by the Board, or by the trustees, on trust for the client concerned.
(6) The trustees may deal with any assets which have been transferred to them only in accordance with directions given to them by the Board.
(7) In this section—

"assets" includes any sum of money held (in whatever form and whether or not in any bank, building society or other account) by the authorised practitioner or on behalf of the client concerned and any instrument or other document belonging to that client; and

"authorised practitioner" includes a person whose authorisation has been suspended or revoked under section 38.

(8) Any direction under this section—

(a) must be given in writing;

(b) must state the reason why it is being given;

(c) shall take effect on such date as may be specified in the direction (which may be the date on which it is served on the authorised practitioner);

(d) may be varied or revoked by a further direction given by the Board.'.

105 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Board's intervention powers: supplemental provisions
'.—(1) In this section—

"the intervention powers" means the powers given to the Board by section (Board's powers of intervention); and

"a direction" means a direction given under that section.

(2) An authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given may appeal against it to a Conveyancing Appeal Tribunal.
(3) Any authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given shall comply with it as soon as it takes effect (and whether or not he proposes to appeal).
(4) If, on an application made to the High Court by the Board, the court is satisfied—

(a) that an authorised practitioner has failed, within a reasonable time, to comply with any direction given to it; or

(b) that there is a reasonable likelihood that an authorised practitioner will so fail,

1425
it may make an order requiring the authorised practitioner, and any other person whom the court considers it appropriate to subject to its order, to take such steps as the court may direct with a view to securing compliance with the direction.
(5) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) an authorised person under the Financial Services Act 1986; or

(b) an appointed representative (as defined in section 44(2) of that Act) of such an authorised person,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the body by reference to which the authorised person acquired its authorisation under that Act.
(6) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) an institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987 to carry on a deposit-taking business; or

(b) an appointed representative of such an institution, the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Bank of England.

(7) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) a building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or

(b) an appointed representative of such a building society,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Commission.
(8) Where an authorised practitioner falls within more than one of subsections (5) to (7), the Board shall comply with each of the subsections in question.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 105.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 105.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
'Licensed Conveyancers
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers shall have the powers necessary to enable it to become—

(a) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights of audience under section 25(2) (a);

(b) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights to conduct litigation under section 26(2) (a); and

(c) an approved body for the purposes of granting, in accordance with section 47, exemption from the provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (preparation of probate papers).

(2) The Council may exercise the powers given to it by this section only with respect to persons who are licensed conveyancers.
(3) Where the Council—

(a) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 25 and grants any right of audience;

(b) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 26 and grants any right to conduct litigation; or

(c) becomes an approved body for the purposes of section 47 and grants an exemption under that section,

it shall do so by issuing a licence to the licensed conveyancer to whom the right or exemption is being granted.
(4) Any such licence may be granted as a separate licence or as part of a composite licence comprising the licensed conveyancer's licence issued under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and any other licence which the Council may grant to the licensed conveyancer concerned.
(5) The Council's general duty shall include the duty to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among licensed conveyancers who are granted rights of audience, rights to conduct litigation or an exemption under section 47 are sufficient to secure adequate protection for consumers, and that the advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.
(6) Where the Council exercises any of its powers in connection with—

(a) an application under section 27 for authorisation or an application under Schedule 8 for approval; or

(b) the granting of any right of audience or right to

conduct litigation or of an exemption under section 47, it shall do so subject to any requirements to which it is subject in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the grant of any such right or exemption.
(7) Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) makes further provision in connection with the powers given to the Council by this section and the provision made by the Act of 1985 in relation to licensed conveyancers, including amendments of Part II of that Act.
(8) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such—

(a) amendments of, or modifications to, the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985; or

(b) transitional or consequential provision,

(9) Subject to any provision made by this section, Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) or any order made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (8), the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply with respect to—

(a) any application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence;

(b) any such licence;

(c) the practice of any licensed conveyancer which is carried on by virtue of any such licence;

(d) rules made by the Council under Schedule (Licensed conveyancers);

(e) the management and control by licensed conveyancers (or by licensed conveyancers together with persons who are not licensed conveyancers) of bodies corporate carrying on businesses which include the provision of advocacy, litigation or probate services; and

(f) any other matter dealt with by this section or Schedule (Licensed conveyancers),

as they apply with respect to the corresponding matters dealt with by Part II of that Act.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. In moving Amendment No. 106 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202, 266, 295 and 298. They deal with the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and their powers.
These amendments, though necessarily bulky, are straightforward in their main purpose, which is to extend the powers of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers so that it will have the opportunity to apply, under the framework in Part II of the Bill, for approval to license conveyancers to undertake probate work, and authorisation to grant them rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
The Council is a statutory body established under the Administration of Justice Act 1985. It therefore only has the powers given to it under that statute. When it was set up in 1985 the power was to grant licences and regulate practitioners solely for the provision of conveyancing services. It is desirable that it should have the opportunity of expanding its role if that turns out to be desirable.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
107 Clause 46, page 36, line 31, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. In moving Amendment No. 107 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108A.
These amendments exempt from Section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974, employees of banks, building societies and insurance companies and therefore allow them to prepare for reward applications for grants of representation in probate. They also provide that employees of those who are exempt from Section 23, by virtue of that section, for example, solicitors, barristers, notaries public and the Public Trustee, or Clause 47 of this Bill (members of approved bodies) may prepare applications if done at the direction, and under the supervision, of those who are exempt. The clause already provides that those who wish to be exempted from Section 23 and provide the full range of probate services must be suitably trained, as must their staff. This amendment, which allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only if they are under supervision, provides additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
As to Amendment No. 108A, it must be remembered that the kind of work in this area protected by the monopoly is very limited. It extends only to the preparation for reward of applications for grants of probate, and not to the administration of estates. The financial institutions are already experienced in administration of estates and are prudentially regulated and it is for this reason that they were put on the "fast-track" and only required to belong to a suitable ombudsman scheme.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am mystified. It must be my fault, but at least I have the excuse, as I understand it, that the Law Society is similarly mystified by one part of the provision. I completely understand that the statute should be able to say that a private practitioner must work under supervision; or that the employee must work under supervision. But for some unknown reason a body corporate is able to employ anybody to prepare papers for probate without such supervision.
A partnership or sole practitioner must ensure that the work is supervised by a solicitor, a barrister or a notary public. Apparently all one needs to do is become a limited company and one will escape completely from that supervision. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could explain, first, whether I am right or wrong; secondly, if I am right, why.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only under supervision. That provides additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
1428
The clause already provides that those who wish to be exempted from Section 23 and provide the full range of probate services must be suitably trained as must their staff. The amendment allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only under supervision, thus providing additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
The noble Lord is expressing a concern which is not justified by the way in which these provisions operate. To require people to employ staff who are exempt from Section 23 merely to supervise the preparation of applications, which in many cases is no more than filling in two forms based on the precedent set out in the text books would, in view of their present expertise, be an unnecessary regulation of their business practice. It would add to the expense of the transaction without adding significantly to the protection for the client.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would forgive me. Before he sits down could he say whether I am completely wrong in looking at Amendment No. 108A and saying, with the wording of the section, that subsection (1) does not apply to,
"any act done by an officer or employee of a body corporate at a time when it is exempt from subsection (1) by virtue of [these] paragraphs"?
Subsection (b) says,
"any act done by any person at the direction and under the supervision of —another person if—

(i) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

(ii) the act could have been done by that other person …without committing an offence under this section".

That appears to be dealing with an individual, and there is an exemption in the case of a body corporate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the body corporate is qualified in terms of the arrangements made. The amendment exempts from Section 23 employees of banks, building societies and insurance companies and therefore allows them to prepare for reward applications for grants of representations in probate. They also provide that employees of those exempt from Section 23, by virtue of that section, may prepare applications if done at the direction and under the supervision of those who are exempt.
The clause already provides that those who wish to be exempted from Section 23 and provide a full range of probate services must be suitably trained, as must their staff. The amendment allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only if they are under supervision. That provides additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must not take up the time of the House or the noble and learned Lord any longer. It still seems to me—I say this with deep respect—that if one is an individual practitioner, one must jolly well see that there is supervision by a solicitor, barrister or a notary. If one is a corporate entity, be it a bank or whatever, that supervision is not necessary. I must not detain the House any longer but that is a worrying thought if what I am saying is

1429
correct. However, if the noble and learned Lord is saying that I am not correct then I am wasting the time of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there must be some misunderstanding. Financial institutions are already experienced in the administration of estates and are already prudentially regulated. Therefore, they have responsibility for ensuring that what their staffs do is proper. In addition, they have been put under the obligation of belonging to a suitable ombudsman scheme. Having regard to the nature of what is required of them, I believe that this is a suitable protection for the public. It is not necessary to impose an additional obligation that they should be supervised, for example, by a solicitor, barrister or notary public.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Page 36, line 35, at end insert:

'(cc) the Official Solicitor;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. -—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108A Page 37, line 17, at end insert:
'(3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to—

(a) any act done by an officer or employee of a body corporate at a time when it is exempt from subsection (1) by virtue of any of paragraphs (d) to (g) of subsection (2) or by virtue of section 47 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (preparation of probate papers etc.); or

(b) any act done by any person at the direction and under the supervision of another person if—

(i) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does any act which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) but for an exemption given to him by this section or by or under any other enactment, he shall not be guilty of any offence under section 22 by virtue of having done that act".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108A. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 107.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108A.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
109 After Clause 47, insert the following clause:—
Administration of oaths etc. by justices in certain probate business
'.—(1) Every justice shall have power to administer any oath or take any affidavit which is required for the purposes of an application for a grant of probate or letters of administration made in any non-contentious or common form probate business.
(2) A justice before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made under this section shall state in the jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made.
(3) No justice shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in any proceedings in which he is interested.
(4) A document purporting to be signed by a justice administering an oath or taking an affidavit shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the signature and without proof that he is a justice.
(5) In this section—

"affidavit" has the same meaning as in the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889;

"justice" means a justice of the peace;

"letters of administration" includes all letters of administration of the effects of deceased persons, whether with or without a will annexed, and whether granted for general, special or limited purposes; and

"non-contentious or common form probate business" has the same meaning as in section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109. This is an interesting amendment which was raised in the other place and enables justices of the peace to administer an oath or take affidavits in non-contentious probate matters. It will give the public greater access to people who may undertake such duties, as magistrates' courts are usually easily accessible and well spread across the country.
The Government believe that justices have the necessary basic expertise to undertake this new function, although it is intended that suitable training should be given to justices to ensure that the various statutory requirements and rules are complied with.
Lastly, I should perhaps mention that it is not intended that justices should be able to charge a fee for performing this service as they are not allowed to benefit financially from their position. The tradition of the magistracy, apart from the stipendiary magistracy, is that it is an honour to be performed without financial reward.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
110 After Clause 47, insert the following clause:—
Notaries
' .—(1) Public notaries shall no longer be appointed to practise only within particular districts in England, or particular districts in Wales.
(2) It shall no longer be necessary to serve a period of apprenticeship before being admitted as a public notary.
(3) Accordingly, the following enactments relating to public notaries shall cease to have effect—

(a) section 2 of the Public Notaries Act 1801 (which provides that no person shall be admitted as a public notary unless he has served as an apprentice for seven years);

(b) section 1 of the Public Notaries Act 1833 (which restricts the requirement to serve an apprenticeship to London and an area of ten miles from the Royal Exchange);

1431

(c) section 2 of the Public Notaries Act 1833 (appointment of public notaries to practise within particular districts in England);

(d) section 3 of the Public Notaries Act 1843 (which reduced the period of apprenticeship to five years);

(e) section 37 of the Welsh Church Act 1914 (appointment of public notaries to practise within particular districts in Wales); and

(f) section 29 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (which reduced the period of apprenticeship for public notaries in London).

(4) The Master may by rules make provision—

(a) as to the educational and training qualifications which must be satisfied before a person may be granted a faculty to practise as a public notary;

(b) as to further training which public notaries arc to be required to undergo;

(c) for regulating the practice, conduct and discipline of public notaries;

(d) supplementing the provision made by subsections (8) and (9);

(e) as to the keeping by public notaries of records and accounts;

(f) as to the handling by public notaries of client's money;

(g) as to the indemnification of public notaries against losses arising from claims in respect of civil liability incurred by them;

(h) as to compensation payable for losses suffered by persons in respect of dishonesty on the part of public notaries or their employees; and

(i) requiring the payment, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, of such reasonable fees as may be prescribed, including in particular fees for—

(i) the grant of a faculty;

(ii) the issue of a practising certificate by the court of faculties of the Archbishop of Canterbury; or

(iii) the entering in that court of a practising certificate issued under the Solicitors Act 1974.

(5) The repeal of section 2 of the Act of 1833 and section 37 of the Act of 1914 by this Act shall not affect any appointment made under either of those sections; but the Master may by rules make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of either, or both, of those repeals.
(6) Rules made under subsection (5) may, in particular, provide for the grant by the Master of a new faculty for any person to whom the Notary Public (Welsh Districts) Rules 1924 applied immediately before the commencement of this section, in place of the faculty granted to him by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
(7) Subsections (4) to (6) shall not be taken to prejudice—

(a) any other power of the Master to make rules; or

(b) any rules made by him under any such power.

(8) With effect from the operative date any restriction placed on a qualifying district notary, in terms of the district within which he may practise as a public notary, shall cease to apply.
(9) In this section—

"Master" means the Master of the Faculties;

"prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this section;

"the operative date" means the date on which subsection (1) comes into force or, if on that date the notary concerned is not a qualifying district notary (having held his faculty for less than five years)—

(a) the date on which he becomes a qualifying district notary; or

(b) such earlier date, after the commencement of subsection (1), as the Master may by rules prescribe for the purpose of this subsection; and

"qualifying district notary" means a person who—

(a) holds a faculty as a notary appointed under section 2 of the Act of 1833 or section 37 of the Act of 1914; and

(b) has held it for a continuous period of at least five years.

(10) Section 5 of the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533 (which amongst other things now has the effect of requiring faculties to be registered by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery) shall not apply in relation to any faculty granted to a public notary.
(11) Nothing in this section shall be taken—

(a) to authorise any public notary to practise as a notary or to perform or certify any notarial act within the jurisdiction of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners of London or to affect the jurisdiction or powers of the Company; or

(b) to restrict the power of the Company to require a person seeking to become a public notary within its jurisdiction to serve a period of apprenticeship.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 110. In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 160, 228, 229, 234, 264, 269, 270, 272 and 275.
During the progress of and discussions surrounding the Bill it became clear that the opportunity had arisen to make useful amendments in respect of notaries. The amendments which I now bring forward have been discussed fully with the Master of the Faculties and will, I believe, make for substantial improvements in the notarial profession. They will, first, help to remedy the present specific problem of scarcity of notaries practising in the outer London area. More generally, they will make it possible to improve the training and regulation of the profession. This purpose is achieved by abolishing the appointment of district notaries and the requirement that a person must serve an apprenticeship before admission as a public notary.
The Master of the Faculties' broad rule-making powers in relation to education and training, conduct and discipline and other ancillary matters are clarified and strengthened. This, I am confident, is the most appropriate method to ensure the continuation of the high standards of the profession.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 110.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
111 After Clause 48, insert the following clause:—
Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988
'.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect the right of a person who is represented in proceedings in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords under the Legal Aid Act 1988 to select his legal representative.
(2) The power to make regulations with respect to representation under section 2(7) or 32(8) of that Act shall not be exercised so as to provide that representation in any such proceedings may only be by a single barrister, solicitor or other legal representative (but that is not to be taken as restricting the power to make regulations under section 34(2) (e) of that Act).'.
112 Leave out Clause 49.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 75.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
113 Clause 51, page 40, line 32, leave out from 'described)' to end of line 33 and insert 'which prohibits barristers from entering into contracts or restrict their right to do so.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendment No. 113. This amendment clarifies the extent to which the General Council of the Bar is empowered to formulate rules restricting a barrister's right to enter into contracts for the provision of his services as a barrister.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I put on record that, from the point of view of the Bar, this is a very necessary and welcome amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
114 After Clause 52, insert the following clause:—
Legal professional privilege
'.—(1) This section applies to any communication made to or by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor at any time when that person is—

(a) providing advocacy or litigation services as an authorised advocate or authorised litigator;

(b) providing conveyancing services as an authorised practitioner; or

(c) providing probate services as a probate practitioner.

(2) Any such communication shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the person in question had at all material times been acting as his client's solicitor.
(3) In subsection (1), "probate practitioner" means a person to whom section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare probate papers etc.) does not apply.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114. This amendment extends the concept of legal professional privilege so as to apply to the new classes of legal practitioner established by the Bill; that is, authorised advocates, authorised litigators, authorised practitioners and probate practitioners.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
115 After Clause 52, insert the following clause:—
Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers
'.—(1) The following shall be inserted in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after section 35—
"Barristers
Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers.
35A.—(1) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to any offer of a pupillage or tenancy, to discriminate against a woman—

(a) in the arrangements which are made for the purpose of determining to whom it should be offered;

(b) in respect of any terms on which it is offered; or

1434

(c)by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to offer it to her.

(2) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to a woman who is a pupil or tenant in the chambers in question, to discriminate against her—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to her as a pupil or tenant;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to her;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to her; or

(d) by terminating her pupillage or by subjecting her to any pressure to leave the chambers or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to a barrister, to discriminate against a woman.
(4) In this section—

"barrister's clerk" includes any person carrying out any of the functions of a barrister's clerk; and

"pupil", "pupillage", "tenancy" and "tenant" have the meanings commonly associated with their use in the context of a set of barristers' chambers.

(5) Section 3 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of any provision of Part II.
(6) This section does not apply to Scotland."
(2) The following shall be inserted in the Race Relations Act 1976 after section 26—
"Barristers
Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers.
26A.—(1) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to any offer of a pupillage or tenancy, to discriminate against a person—

(a) in the arrangements which are made for the purpose of determining to whom it should be offered;

(b) in respect of any terms on which it is offered; or

(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to offer it to him.

(2) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to a pupil or tenant in the chambers in question, to discriminate against him—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to him as a pupil or tenant;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to him;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to him; or

(d) by terminating his pupillage or by subjecting him to any pressure to leave the chambers or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to a barrister, to discriminate against any person.
(4) In this section—

"barrister's clerk" includes any person carrying out any of the functions of a barrister's clerk; and

"pupil", "pupillage", "tenancy" and "tenant" have the meanings commonly associated with their use in the context of a set of barristers' chambers.

(5) This section does not apply to Scotland.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115. In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 116, 175 and 260.
The introduction of these new clauses bring barristers and, in Scotland, advocates in independent practice within the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The scope of the previous legislation will be extended to ensure that no unfair obstructions are placed in the way of women barristers and barristers from ethnic minorities. The provisions apply to prospective and existing pupils or tenants, and to discrimination in the sending of instructions to a barrister.

1435
Speaking generally, these provisions were requested by the legal profession and were accepted in another place. I believe that they are extremely important not only for their effect but for the signal that they give. It would be right for me to take this opportunity to pay tribute to both branches of the profession for what they are doing in seeking to eliminate difficulty for women and the ethnic minorities. Leaders of the profession in both branches have given a very good lead in that respect. I have done my best to support them. I believe that these amendments are important and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me and with the Commons in these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should merely like to add that the leadership given by the noble and learned Lord in this matter is very much appreciated by the professions.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I second those words as I raised this matter first in this House at an early stage. These provisions are all-embracing in regard to both sex and race discrimination. In my opinion they are undoubtedly necessary in matters of pupilage and particularly in regard to giving instruction. As the noble and learned Lord has already said, the provisions will be welcomed by the Race Relations Committee of the Bar, which has done such invaluable work in this area. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the all-embracing content of this amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
116 After Clause 52, insert the following clause:—
Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates
'.—(1) The following shall be inserted in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after section 35A (as inserted by this Act)—
"Advocates
Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.
35B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a woman—

(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;

(b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take her as his pupil; or

(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take her as his pupil.

(2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a woman who is a pupil, to discriminate against her—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to her as a pupil;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to her;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to her; or

(d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting her to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against a woman.
(4) In this section—

'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and

'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

(5) Section 3 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of any provision of Part II.
(6) This section does not apply to England and Wales."
(2) The following shall be inserted in the Race Relations Act 1976 after section 26A (as inserted by this Act)—
"Advocates
Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.
26B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a person—

(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;

(b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take any person as his pupil; or

(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take a person as his pupil.

(2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a person who is a pupil, to discriminate against him—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to him as a pupil;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to him;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to him; or

(d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting him to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against any person.
(4) In this section—

'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and

'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

(5) This section does not apply to England and Wales.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
117 After Clause 54, insert the following clause:—
Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents
'.—(1) Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (persons exempt from subsection (I)), the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (a)—

"(aa) a registered trade mark agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any design, trade mark or service mark;

(ab) a registered patent agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark."

(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) In subsection (2)—

"registered trade mark agent" has the same meaning as in section 282(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; and

"registered patent agent" has the same meaning as in section 275(1) of that Act".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117. In doing so I speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 126, 127, 129 to 137, 139, 238A, 239 to 245, 278 and 281. These amendments are

1437
designed to deal with the problem of the admission of various people to the possibility of work in the area of legal practice.
When the Bill was previously before this House, I said that a number of amendments to the Solicitors Act 1974 were to be considered, beyond those which were to be found in Part IV of the Bill at that time. Practice with, and admission of, foreign lawyers, and new powers to deal with complaints of poor work, are dealt with in other groups of amendments to this part of the Bill. These remaining provisions, which have been arrived at following consultation with the Law Society and with my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, are designed to improve and bring up to date the regulation of various aspects of the solicitors' profession, and to facilitate changes in the range of work which certain classes of persons are permitted to undertake. I do not propose to dwell upon this at length.
First, a greater degree of flexibility is to be introduced into the way in which the Law Society carries out certain of its functions, by providing greater powers of delegation among its committees and sub-committees. That is at the request of the Law Society to make it somewhat more flexible. Secondly, the powers and functions of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal are clarified and brought up to date. Thirdly, provision is made for solicitors to be charged reduced or, if appropriate, increased fees on the issue of a practising certificate where this is considered justified.
Fourthly, the Solicitors Act 1974 is to be altered to allow registered trade mark agents and registered patent agents to draw up certain documents which they were previously unqualified to prepare, relaxing the existing monopoly in these areas. This amendment has the approval of the vice-chancellor. There are also a number of minor amendments consequential on these, or on material concerning the Solicitors Act 1974 and the regulation of the profession which are already in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
118 Clause 55, page 42, line 2, leave out `or by a designated judge' and insert ', a designated judge or the Director'.
119 Page 42, line 3, after `by' insert 'or to'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. I have spoken to them with Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
120 Clause 59, page 45, line 23, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
1438
`(d) section 9 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (functions in relation to incorporated practices).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 120. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 120.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
121 Clause 60, page 45, line 36, at end insert:
`(2A) Any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to an office which is, or includes, one to which this section applies shall be construed as a reference to, or (as the case may be) as including a reference to, that office by its new name.'.
122 Page 46, line 3, at end insert:
`(5A) In section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (which allows certain county court proceedings to be taken in the principal registry of the Family Division) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Where a district judge of the principal registry is exercising jurisdiction in any matrimonial cause or matter which could be exercised by a district judge of a county court, he shall have the same powers in relation to those proceedings as if he were a district judge of a county court and the proceedings were in a county court.".'.
123 Page 46, leave out lines 4 to 8.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 123. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 261 and 262. These amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 122 are purely drafting changes. Amendment No. 122 ensures that the disciplinary powers made available to district judges by Clause 60 are also available to district judges of the principal registry of the Family Division when exercising jurisdiction in county court matters under Section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. In general, the principal registry of the Family Division district judges exercise a High Court jurisdiction. There is no present intention to alter their disciplinary powers when exercising that jurisdiction.
Section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, however, confers jurisdiction on the principal registry of the Family Division district judges in certain county court matters. To ensure consistency of approach, it is considered right that when principal registry of the Family Division district judges are hearing these county court matters they should be able to deal with any of the disciplinary incidents which may arise, and are perhaps particularly likely to arise given the emotional nature of these family matters, in precisely the same way as could the district judges actually sitting in the county courts.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 123.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
124 After Clause 60, insert the following clause:—
Judges etc. barred from legal practice
'.—No person holding as a full-time appointment any of the offices listed in Schedule (Judges etc barred from legal practice) shall—

(a) provide any advocacy or litigation services (in any jurisdiction);

(b) provide any conveyancing or probate services;

(c) practise as a barrister, solicitor, public notary or licensed conveyancer, or be indirectly concerned in any such practice;

(d) practise as an advocate or solicitor in Scotland, or be indirectly concerned in any such practice; or

(e) act for any remuneration to himself as an arbitrator or umpire.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124. With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 211, 214, 248, 253 to 255, 276, 282, 284, 286, 288 and 289.
The purpose of these amendments is to prohibit a person who holds a full-time appointment in any post listed in the new schedule from providing any advocacy, litigation, conveyancing, or probate services; practising as a barrister, solicitor, public notary or licensed conveyancer (or in Scotland as an advocate or solicitor); or acting for any remuneration to himself as an arbitrator or umpire.
They will not, however, I am glad to say, and as a matter of caution, prevent a judge from acting as a litigant in person. The purpose of the amendments is to standardise the current prohibitions on these matters.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124.—(The Lord Chancellor".)
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are considering about 300 amendments on this occasion. We have found a group of amendments which merely place into legislation matters which have always been understood as matters of tradition, integrity and honour. It surprises me that it is necessary to legislate at all for these issues.
In the past there has never been any suggestion that the holders of legal office at any level could or would practise I have never known it to happen. I believe there was a case, which was referred to in someone's memoirs, a great many years ago of a judge who wanted to retire from the Bench because he thought he would do better to go back into practice. The Lord Chancellor of the day said that he could not. Is there no limit to the number of matters that we now have to put into statute in order to ensure that there is compliance? These provisions are rather overzealous.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are statutory provisions already designed to secure commonsense results. For example, part-time judicial appointment holders should not hear cases in which they or their partners have been involved. There is also a widening of the scope of people who may become eligible for appointment to judicial posts in time. Therefore, I believe it is right that the statutory provision should be simplified and made general. That is what this clause does.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, for the purpose of the record, would the noble and learned Lord care to indicate why it is that the Lord Chancellor is not in the list?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I suppose it is because the situation is difficult to regulate in detail. A good deal of the other functions which the Lord Chancellor carries out may come into it. He is a judge by statute. He also receives remuneration for acting as Speaker of this House as distinct from his remuneration as a judge. Most people are interested in the total and it is certainly what I am interested in. The qualifications for Lord Chancellor have never been very closely regulated. I believe that there may be more implications about the qualifications than some people think nowadays. I expect that those points are at least part of the reason.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
125 After Clause 60, insert the following clause:—
Judicial oaths
`.—(1) A person holding any of the following offices—

(a) district judge, including district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division;

(b) Master of the Queen's Bench Division;

(c) Master of the Chancery Division;

(d) Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court;

(e) Taxing Master of the Supreme Court;

(f) Admiralty Registrar,

shall take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath before a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge.
(2) The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall have effect as if the offices listed in the Second Part of the Schedule to that Act included those offices.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 121.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
126 After Clause 70, insert the following clause:—
Fees payable on issue of practising certificates
'. In section 11 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (fees payable on issue of practising certificates), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (2A)—
"(2) An order under subsection (1) may specify reduced fees for practising certificates in such circumstances as may be so specified.
(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where an order under subsection (1) specifies a reduced fee in the case of a solicitor whose income, from his practice as a solicitor, is, during such period as may be so specified, less than an amount so specified.
(2B) The question whether, for the purposes of any such order, the income of a solicitor during the specified period falls below the specified amount shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.".'.
127 After Clause 70, insert the following clause:
Additional fee payable by certain solicitors on applying for practising certificates
' The following section shall be inserted in the Solicitors Act 1974 after section 12—
12A.—(1) Where a solicitor applies for a practising certificate at a time when section 12 has effect in relation to him by reason of the circumstances mentioned in section 12(1) (ee), he shall pay an additional fee to the Society when making his application.
(2) The amount of that additional fee—

(a) shall be fixed by order of the Master of the Rolls made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice; and

(b) shall be designed to provide reasonable compensation to the Society for the additional cost of dealing with such applications.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
128 After Clause 70, insert the following clause:
Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors
'.—(1) The Law Society shall maintain a register of foreign lawyers for the purposes of this section.
(2) A foreign lawyer who wishes to be registered under this section must apply to the Society in accordance with the requirements of Part I of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies).
(3) The power to make rules under—

(a) the following provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974—

(i) section 31 (professional practice, conduct and discipline);

(ii) section 32 (accounts and trust accounts);

(iii) section 34 (accountants' reports);

(iv) section 36 (Compensation Fund); and

(v) section 37 (professional indemnity); and

(b) section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices),

shall also be exercisable in relation to registered foreign lawyers.
(4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), any such power may be exercised so as—

(a) to make different provision with respect to solicitors who enter into multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to other solicitors;

(b) to make different provision with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors and registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors;

(c) to make different provision with respect to registered foreign lawyers who are members of multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to solicitors; or

(d) to make different provision with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are solicitors.

(5) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

(a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;

(b) having effect in relation to solicitors; and

(c) specified in the order,

shall have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers as it has effect with respect to solicitors.
(6) An order under subsection (5) may provide for an enactment or instrument to have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers subject to such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.
(7) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

(a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;

(b) having effect in relation to recognised bodies; and

(c) specified in the order,

shall, in its application in relation to recognised bodies whose officers include one or more registered foreign lawyers, have effect with such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.
(8) Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies) shall have effect for the purposes of supplementing this section.
(9) In this section and in Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)—

"foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or barrister but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outside England and Wales;

"multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;

"recognised body" has the same meaning as in section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices); and

"registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under this section.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
129 Clause 72, page 53, line 6, leave out 'the powers conferred by this Schedule have' and insert 'any power conferred by this Schedule has'.
130 Page 53, line 9, leave out 'they were' and insert 'it was'.
131 Page 53, line 16, after 'granted', insert 'or otherwise has effect'.
132 Page 53, line 18, at end insert 'in connection with the imposition of that condition'.
133 Page 53, line 23, after '1985', insert 'and so approved'.
134 Clause 73, page 54, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
'(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—
"(1) Any application—

(a) to strike the name of a solicitor off the roll;

(b) to require a solicitor to answer allegations contained in an affidavit;

(c) to require a former solicitor whose name has been removed from or struck off the roll to answer allegations contained in an affidavit relating to a time when he was a solicitor;

(d) by a solicitor who has been suspended from practice for an unspecified period, by order of the Tribunal, for the termination of that suspension;

(e) by a former solicitor whose name has been struck off the roll to have his name restored to the roll;

1443

(f) by a former solicitor in respect of whom a direction has been given under subsection (2) (g) to have his name restored to the roll,

shall be made to the Tribunal; but nothing in this subsection shall affect any jurisdiction over solicitors exercisable by the Master of the Rolls, or by any judge of the High Court, by virtue of section 50.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) and to section 54, on the hearing of any application or complaint made to the Tribunal under this Act, other than an application under section 43, the Tribunal shall have power to make such order as it may think fit, and any such order may in particular include provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the striking off the roll of the name of the solicitor to whom the application or complaint relates;

(b) the suspension of that solicitor from practice indefinitely or for a specified period;

(c) the payment by that solicitor or former solicitor of a penalty not exceeding £5,000, which shall be forfeit to Her Majesty;

(d) in the circumstances referred to in subsection (2A), the exclusion of that solicitor from legal aid work (either permanently or for a specified period);

(e) the termination of that solicitor's unspecified period of suspension from practice;

(f) the restoration to the roll of the name of a former solicitor whose name has been struck off the roll and to whom the application relates;

(g) in the case of a former solicitor whose name has been removed from the roll, a direction prohibiting the restoration of his name to the roll except by order of the Tribunal;

(h) in the case of an application under subsection (I) (f), the restoration of the applicant's name to the roll;

(i) the payment by any party of costs or a contribution towards costs of such amount as the Tribunal may consider reasonable."

(3) In subsection (2A) for the words "(2) (bb)" there shall be substituted "(2) (d)".'.
135 Page 54, line 32, after first '(a)', insert 'for the words "(a) to (e)" there shall be substituted "(a) to (i)";(aa)'.
136 Page 54, line 34, leave out from second `(b)' to end of line 35 and insert 'for the words "paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection" there shall be substituted "paragraph (e), (f), (h) or (i) of section 47(2)".'.
137 Page 54, line 38, leave out 'or (e)" and insert '(e) or (f)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129 to 137. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129 to 137.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
138After Clause 73, insert the following clause:—
Redress for inadequate professional services
`.—(1) Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974 (powers of Council to impose sanctions for inadequate professional services) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In its place, the following shall be inserted in that Act after section 37—
"Inadequate professional services
Redress for inadequate professional services.
37A. Schedule IA shall have effect with respect to the provision by solicitors of services which are not of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of them."
(3) The provisions set out in Schedule (Inadequate professional services) shall be inserted in that Act as Schedule 1A.
(4) Section 47A of that Act (power of Tribunal to impose sanctions for inadequate professional services) shall cease to have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 216, 265, 279, 280, 296, 297 and 299. These are important amendments to the Solicitors Act 1974. All except Amendment No. 140 extend the Law Society's jurisdiction in cases of inadequate professional services or, as it is sometimes called, shoddy work. I had hoped to introduce these powers at Report stage in this House but they are rather detailed and it did not prove possible to bring them forward until the Bill reached another place.
Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974 gave the society power to reduce fees; to order a solicitor, at his or her own expense, to take action rectifying an error; or to take other action in the interests of the client. These powers have served a useful purpose but they are to be extended now to enable the society to take action, and direct the payment of compensation, to enable a client's clearly justified "small claim" to be satisfied.
It may help the House if I briefly outline the effect of these amendments. First, by revising the relevant structure of the Solicitors Act, they draw a clear distinction between the society's disciplinary functions, dealing with matters of professional misconduct, and its powers to deal with complaints about the quality of service provided. That is an important distinction. Secondly, the amendments give the Law Society power to direct a solicitor to pay compensation up to £1,000 where it is satisfied that the services provided by the solicitor were not of the quality that could reasonably have been expected. The Lord Chancellor is to have power to vary the £1,000 limit by statutory instrument after consultation with the Law Society, and the intention is that it should move in broad equivalence to the small claims limit.
The council will also be able to charge a fee once a complainant has decided that he or she wishes the society to adjudicate formally on a complaint of shoddy work. The charge will be refunded if any of the powers are exercised in the applicant's favour. The society will also have the power to recover costs from the solicitor.
The new provisions will fit very closely with the powers of the legal services ombudsman and I hope that they place the Law Society in a better position to maintain standards and to resolve many of the public's grievances against solicitors.
Finally, the new clause at Amendment No. 140 is a modest but welcome amendment, also made at the request of the Law Society, which will provide that an agreement between the solicitor and his client as to the solicitor's hourly charging rate may constitute a contentious or non-contentious business agreement. Such agreements benefit both solicitor and client by providing some certainty at the outset as to what the solicitor will charge the client. The agreement must he in writing and may be set aside if the court considers it to be unfair or unreasonable. An important safeguard in the new clause is the provision which

1445
retains the client's right to taxation of the number of hours actually worked and inquiry as to whether the total was excessive.
I consider this a useful contribution to a package of measures on matters of considerable concern to the client public.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
139 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:
Committees and sub-committees of the Council
' . The following section shall be substituted for section 79 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (committees of the Council)—
"Committees and sub-committees of the Council.
79.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment, the Council may arrange for any of its functions (other than reserved functions) to be discharged by—

(a) a committee of the Council;

(b) a sub-committee of such a committee; or

(c) an individual (whether or not a member of the Society's staff).

(2) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) (a), any of the Council's functions may be discharged by a committee, the committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by—

(a) a sub-committee of that committee; or

(b) an individual (whether or not a member of the Society's staff).

(3) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), any of the Council's functions may be discharged by a subcommittee, the sub-committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by a member of the Society's staff.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) shall have effect subject to any contrary direction given by the Council.
(5) Subject to any direction given by the Council under subsection (4), subsection (3) shall have effect subject to any contrary direction given by the committee concerned.
(6) Any power given by subsection (1), (2) or (3) may be exercised so as to impose restrictions or conditions on the body or individual by whom the functions concerned are to be discharged.
(7) A committee of the Council, and any sub-committee of such a committee, discharging functions delegated under this section may include persons other than—

(a) members of the Council;

(b) members of the Society;

(c) solicitors.

(8) The majority of the members of any such committee or sub-committee may be persons who may be included by virtue of subsection (7).
(9) The number and term of office of the members of such a committee and the number of those members necessary to form a quorum, shall be fixed by the Council.
(10) Subject to any restriction or condition imposed by the Council, the number and term of office of the members of such a sub-committee and the number of those members necessary to form a quorum, shall be fixed by the committee concerned.
(11) The validity of any proceedings of such a committee or sub-committee shall not be affected by any casual vacancy among its members.
(12) In this section "reserved functions" means—

(a) the function of making rules or regulations under sections 2, 31, 32, 34, 36, or 37 or under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices);

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
140 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:—
Agreements with solicitors for payment by hourly rates
'.—(1) Section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In subsection (2) (method of payment which may be agreed), after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".
(3) In subsection (4), for the words "Subject to subsection (5)" there shall be substituted "Subject to subsections (5) and (7)".
(4) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(6) Subsection (7) applies where the agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.
(7) If, on the taxation of any costs, the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

(a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and

(b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive."

(5) In section 59(1) of the Act of 1974 (method of payment which may be agreed in contentious business agreement) after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".
(6) In section 60(1) of the Act of 1974 (which among other things provides for section 69 of that Act not to apply to contentious business agreements), after the word "or" there shall be inserted "(except in the case of an agreement which provides for the solicitor to be remunerated by reference to an hourly rate)".
(7) In section 61 of the Act of 1974 (enforcement of contentious business agreements), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where a contentious business agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.
(4B) If on the taxation of any costs the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

(a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and

(b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive." '.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
141 Clause 77, page 58, line 32, at end insert:
'(7) Rules of the Supreme Court may make provision for—

(a) cases in which it is necessary to allocate references made under or by virtue of arbitration agreements to official referees;

1447

(b) the transfer of references from one official referee to another.'.

142After Clause 78, insert the following clause:—
Power of parties in certain cases to fill vacancy
.—(1) In section 10 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (power of court in certain cases to appoint an arbitrator or umpire), the following shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
"(3) In any case where—

(a) an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed by the parties or in some other manner specified in the agreement; and

(b) one of the parties ("the party in default") refuses to appoint an arbitrator or does not do so within the time specified in the agreement or, if no time is specified, within a reasonable time,

the other party to the agreement, having appointed his arbitrator, may serve the party in default with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator.
(3A) A notice under subsection (3) must indicate whether it is served for the purposes of subsection (3B) or for the purposes of subsection (3C).
(3B) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then unless a contrary intention is expressed in the agreement, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice—

(a) the party who gave the notice may appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in the reference; and

(b) his award shall be binding on both parties as if he had been appointed by consent.

(3C) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice the High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application of the party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the party in default who shall have the like powers to act in the reference and make an award (and, if the case so requires, the like duty in relation to the appointment of a third arbitrator) as if he had been appointed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
(3D) The High Court or a judge thereof may set aside any appointment made by virtue of subsection (3B)."
(2) Section 10 of the Act of 1950 shall continue to apply in relation to any arbitration agreement entered into before the commencement of this section as if this section had not been enacted.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement, whether or not as the result of a variation made after the commencement of this section.'.
143 Clause 79, page 59, line 11, at end insert:
(3) For the purpose of keeping the provision made by this section and the corresponding provision which applies in relation to proceedings in the High Court in step, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) above.
(4) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult the Lord Chancellor and such other persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) No such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 141 to 143.
Amendment No. 141 allows the rules of the Supreme Court to regulate the allocation of arbitrations to particular official referees, where no such referee was nominated on the application, and the transfer of arbitrations between official referees as the state of their business demands. This provision is necessary so that the procedural details of the scheme established by the new Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 1950 substituted for the old by Clause 77 can be
1448
dealt with by rules of court. The details of how arbitrations are allocated and transferred among the official referees are clearly appropriate for the rules, but, because these arbitrations are not strictly proceedings in the High Court, a specific enabling provision of this kind is desirable.
The provision has not been necessary hitherto because, as Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is presently worded, applications are to specific referees to hear an arbitration, so no initial allocation is necessary, nor are transfers provided for. The provision will provide the flexibility needed to ensure the most efficient use of judicial resources.
The new clause, Amendment No. 142, takes forward a proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Byron, in relation to arbitrations to a three-member tribunal and is supported by the departmental advisory committee on arbitration. Section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1950 provides a simple and effective method for dealing with the problem which arises when each of the two parties to an arbitration agreement is required to appoint an arbitrator where there is a dispute, but one fails to do so. The other party may in certain circumstances appoint his own arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator. However, this procedure only applies where the reference is to be to two arbitrators. Where it is to three arbitrators, and one party defaults in making art appointment, an application to the High Court is necessary under Section 10(3) of the 1950 Act for the court to appoint an arbitrator. Such an application of course costs time and money. This amendment, the key provision of which is the new subsection (3B), makes a similar provision to that in Section 7, so that the party who is not in default may appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator once the other party has failed to comply with a notice requiring him to make his appointment.
The present remedy is also to continue by virtue of new subsection (3C). This is needed because in some jurisdictions, it may not be possible to enforce an award which was intended to have been made by a three-member tribunal but has been made by a sole arbitrator appointed by one party alone.
Amendment No. 143 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the conditions set out in subsection (2) of Clause 79 in order to bring them into line with those for the time being applying in the High Court. The power would be exercisable after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and any order would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
Clause 79 does, of course, provide a new Section 13A to the Arbitration Act 1950, and not Section 11 as is stated in the explanatory document I issued with the list of Commons amendments to the Bill. I apologise for that error and mistaken reference.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 141 to 143.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 142, the noble and learned Lord is

1449
certainly to be congratulated on, and thanked for, giving effect to a proposal made about the subject matter by the noble Lord, Lord Byron, who was present earlier today. One can see that the clause has been given a good deal of attention and careful drafting. At the same time it is a complicated matter. It interacts with a large number of other matters relating to the law of arbitration. One cannot but be left with a little regret that piecemeal legislation in this important field should have been thought necessary rather than leaving it to a general and comprehensive overhaul of the Arbitration Act. However, I thank the noble and learned Lord on behalf of my noble friend for the trouble he has taken in bringing forward this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that message. I sympathise with his view about the desirability of a general revision of arbitration law. That was a reason for perhaps not acting on this suggestion. However, I felt that this was a specific problem which it was possible to deal with, and that if we could bring matters forward on this particular question it would be desirable to do so. I hope this will not impede more general consideration of arbitration law in due course. I do not think it will. It is something which can be dealt with on its own.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
144 Clause 81, leave out Clause 81
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is rather a complicated subject and one to which we have directed a good deal of attention over the period of this Bill's consideration. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 145, 145A to 145K, 146, 146A to 146D, 147, 147A to 147E, 148 and 177. The new clauses added by Amendments Nos. 145 to 148 and their related amendments deal with tying in and they replace Clause 81 of the Bill, which is deleted by Amendment No. 144. Amendment No. 177 extends the application of the clauses to Scotland.
It has always been our intention, as signalled in the papers which preceded this Bill and the Bill itself, to deal with the problem of tying in the area of the provision of financial loans on residential property. Those who have followed the progress of this portion of the Bill with particular interest will have noticed that by comparison with the existing version of the clause these amendments now take a rather different approach towards dealing with the mischief that we have identified.
That problem is basically very simple. For most people the size of the loan they will need to buy a home and the speed with which they will need to get it makes them vulnerable to pressure. The particular form we are concerned with here is pressure to take the loan in combination with other services which are not necessarily quite what the borrower wants or needs.
1450
There has been much concern about that recently. I need only refer to the report of the National Consumer Council, Home Truths. Although the form which the provisions are taking has changed in response to the many useful points which have been put to the Government both before and since the new clauses were added to the Bill in another place, we have not altered our mind on that basic issue.
What we have therefore sought to create is a framework in which providers of residential property loans are obliged to make clear, as a condition of supplying a package to the consumer, what is available, in what form and at what cost. The clearer and more coherent structure of the new clauses added by these amendments represents a rather different approach from that taken in Clause 81 to the important topic of tying in, particularly with regard to the perceived abuse of the mortgage lender using his potential coercive power to the disadvantage of the borrower. As the Solicitor General said when speaking to these amendments in Report in another place, our touchstone in dealing with this problem must be openness, so that a borrower can see clearly how much a loan will cost them, whether that loan is provided alone or in conjunction with other services.
I should like to say a few words now to explain the main points in the amendments made in another place and the amendments to these which the Government have tabled in this House. Commons Amendment No. 145 adds a new clause prohibiting people who make residential property loans from doing so as part of a package with other services unless certain conditions are first complied with. The lender must inform the borrower, by notice, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State that the loan and other services are separate services. He must inform the borrower whether the terms and conditions of the loan are variable. If the borrower declines to take other services in the package, as many borrowers may, the lender must say that he will not refuse to provide the loan simply for that reason. The lender must provide the borrower with a statement of the price payable for each of the other services in the package, and the extent to which the terms and conditions of the loan would differ if it were made without the other services in the package. Differential pricing is to be permitted and may be justifiable and desirable; but it must be clear to the lender what he is buying and what he is paying for, whether he takes the package as a whole or just an individual service.
Amendment No. 145 also creates an offence where a person advertises or promotes the provision or arrangements for the provision of any controlled services together with the making of a residential property loan unless certain requirements about information to be given are complied with. The requirements will be laid by regulations made by the Secretary of State. I should explain the reason behind this. As I have already said, in the main we have sought to put ourselves in a position to tackle the lender since it is the ability to provide the loan which is the essential key to the level of pressure which can be applied to the borrower; but because this

1451
regulation-making power in respect of advertisements and promotion extends to the arrangement for the provision of services with a loan, this particular provision applies also to the way intermediaries (brokers) market their services.
I am, however, moving a number of amendments to Amendment No. 145 in the light of further discussions with interested parties, and of our own further thoughts. The principal amendment, which has consequential results throughout the other clauses, is the amendment in line 8 (No. 145B) which changes the tying-in prohibition from one based on the lender entering; into an agreement with the borrower to one based on the provision of the loan together with other controlled services by the borrower.
To focus on the agreement is too narrow because there may well not be contractual provisions that encompass all these services, and what we have sought to do in the new amendments that I have tabled in this House is to widen it in order to base the provisions on the provision of the loan, together with other controlled services by the borrower.
The reason for this change is simple. It became clear on further consideration of the amendments made in another place that the ambit of the prohibition was not as clear and effective as intended. "Agreement" was likely to be interpreted by the courts to mean "contract", and such an interpretation could have led to legal argument as to whether a contract existed in a particular case. The Government did not consider that this was desirable, particularly in those cases which were heard by magistrates. A further difficulty was that the prohibition in the form it left the other place was based on an agreement to offer a loan together with other controlled services; apart from the difficulty of proving the existence of such an agreement, all a lender would need to do to avoid the prohibition was to make sure that he never entered into such a single agreement.
There is another important amendment covered in the amendment in line 8 (No. 145B) and that is the power given to the Secretary of State to provide for the stage, or "relevant step", to quote the amendment, at which the lender must serve the relevant notices and statements. The purpose here is to make sure that the borrower is given the information required by the clause at an appropriate stage in the transaction. I believe this flexible approach is preferable to imposing an absolute timetable which could cause unnecessary delay or loss in some circumstances.
The other amendments to Amendment No. 145 are either consequential on the deletion of the concept of "agreement" or they are merely technical drafting ones intended to tidy up the clause.
Let me turn now to Commons Amendment No. 146. This adds a new clause giving the Secretary of State power to prescribe which services cause the previous clause to apply when included in a package with a loan. They may include insurance and other financial services, valuation and surveying services, conveyancing services and removal services. The Secretary of State is also given power to define what is
1452
meant by important terms in Amendment No. 145, such as "notice", "price" and "statement". It may be helpful if I say at this stage that the Secretary of State will pay due regard to the importance of avoiding unnecessary compliance costs when drawing up these regulations; and he intends to consult widely with all those concerned before regulations are made. Amendment No. 146 also provides for connected agreements.
The amendments to Amendment No. 146 remove the references to agreements, hence the provision about connected agreements which I have just mentioned falls. The amendment at line 53 (No. 146D) gives the Secretary of State power to define the "relevant step" which I mentioned in connection with the previous clause. The remaining amendments are, again, consequential and technical drafting ones.
I turn now to Commons Amendment No. 147. This amendment adds a new clause making it an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of the new clause added by Amendment No. 145 or refuse to grant a loan, having complied with the conditions required by subsection (3) of this clause where the borrower declines other services in the package. The amendments to Amendment No. 147 are either consequential on the removal of "agreement" or are, once again, technical drafting ones.
Amendment No. 148, which is not the subject of any government amendments before this House, adds a new clause providing for enforcement. Enforcement falls to local trading standards officers and to the Director General of Fair Trading. In Scotland, however, prosecutions will, as always, be in the hands of the procurator fiscal.
Before I close, I should like to say a few words about implementation. I know that there are some lenders who would like the Government to commit themselves to delaying implementation of these provisions pending attempts by the industry to put its own house in order. Let me say straightaway that the Government would be delighted if it were possible to implement the spirit of the new clauses in advance of the relevant regulations being made and hope, for the sake of house-buyers, that the industry will see fit to do so.
There are, however, two major difficulties which the Government see for lenders in that regard. In the first place, there is no one organisation which currently represents all mortgage lenders; and, in the second place, it is doubtful whether lenders would be able to enforce a voluntary code against fringe operators.
Having said that it may be helpful to give the House some idea of the Government's timetable for implementation. The regulation-making powers in the new clauses provide for some flexibility. There will be consultation, as indeed is required by subsection (11) of Amendment No. 146, before any regulations are made. The Government intend to hold extensive consultations with interested parties towards the end of the year with a view to making regulations in the spring. That is not a fixed timetable as much will depend on the outcome of the consultations. If the

1453
industry could convince the Government that it had a simpler way of avoiding tying-in by lenders which it could police adequately, the Government could be open to persuasion that bringing the relevant provisions into force would not be necessary after all. But—and I must be clear on this point—the case would have to be a convincing one and the disclosure requirements in the clauses under discussion are the minimum that the Government consider necessary to protect the borrower.
Meanwhile, the Government believe that the amendments before the House today represent important safeguards for the consumer when buying his home. The amendments, taken together, provide a full statutory framework to cover this important area of tying-in. They were formulated after considerable detailed deliberation in another place and by taking account of representations made to the Government since that deliberation. I hope that the House will welcome them.
I should perhaps particularly mention the help that the Government have had in consultation from the Council of Mortgage Lenders and its observations on the detail of the provisions. The Government certainly wish to thank it most sincerely for its co-operation and help. That also goes in respect of others who have helped us in the formulation of the clauses. This is a difficult but important area and we have a responsibility to make the provisions as effective as we possibly can. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the legal profession and the public at large owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for all the care that he has taken in regard to these tying in provisions. I happen to know the number of consultations that he has had and the thought that he has given to the matter. He deserves the appreciation of everyone who is concerned with the problem.
There are a couple of worries that I should like to share with the noble and learned Lord and with your Lordships. First, I appreciate what has been done in improving the Commons amendment, as we received it, by the further amendments to the Commons amendments which the noble and learned Lord has discussed. However, many of us are worried because we are not certain whether Amendment No. 145K covers mortgage brokers and agents. I say that because it would be ridiculous if mortgage brokers were free to arrange package services which would be prohibited if they were offered by lending institutions. We all know that they are heavily dependent on commission earned from associated insurance business and that they would have an even stronger incentive to package services than would have lending institutions.
I was relieved to see Amendment No. 145K because I saw the words:
1454
"in the course of his business provides, or makes arrangements for the provision of, controlled services together with residential property loans; and advertises or in any other manner promotes—

(i) the provision of any controlled service or any residential property loan; or

(ii) the making by him of any such arrangements".

The noble and learned Lord has been engaged in long discussions with interested parties. If he is satisfied that the mortgage brokers and agents who effect the introductions to all the mortgage arrangements are covered by the provision, I shall cease to be miserable. However, if that is not so, there appears to be a serious lacuna.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to ask a question. He dealt with the question of implementation. We were all interested to hear what he said about a regulation-making period round about the spring of next year, without giving any undertaking that that would be the precise date. He referred to discussions that might take place and said that, although it would be hard to convince the Government, if they could be convinced that self-regulation would do the trick, regulations might not have to be made.
My question arose in regard to members of the public learning about those regulations when they are made. I wondered whether the noble and learned Lord had considered not only the legal aspects of the matter, as they are contained in the Bill, but the pragmatic aspects. The regulations would be useless if they were merely made without the public being made aware of them through pamphlets and other publications, possibly from the Department of Trade and Industry, saying precisely what the protection was; for example, whether it was the house-buyers' charter for which the Bill was responsible or something of that kind. If the public do not know, we shall never know whether the provisions of the Bill are known to the prospective borrower or whether there have been contraventions.
If the noble and learned Lord would kindly help me on both those matters, I would immediately revert to the praise that we on these Benches want to give him with regard to these protective provisions for the public.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in answer to the first question, my understanding is that Amendment No. 145K covers brokers and intermediaries. That is certainly the amendment's intention. On the question of bringing the regulations to the public's attention, the intention is that the persons involved in the transactions would require to bring to the attention of people concerned various matters about which we believe they should know under the regulations. I understand that the noble Lord would like wider publicity in case the regulations are not complied with. Of course, if they are not complied with the matters to which I have just referred do not reach the client.
The Director General of Fair Trading already provides publicity with regard to the safeguards available to house buyers. He regards that publicity as important. I undertake that my right honourable

1455
friend the Secretary of State will have his attention drawn to what the noble Lord has said so that he may consider what publicity may be required, because obviously we are most anxious that those safeguarding provisions are effective. That means that the public need to have knowledge that the safeguards exist.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
145 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:—
Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans
'.—(1) In this section "residential property loan" means any loan which—

(a) is secured on land in the United Kingdom; and

(b) is made to an individual in respect of the acquisition of land which is for his residential use or the residential use of a dependant of his.

(2) No person ("the lender") shall enter into an agreement with another ("the borrower") for the provision to the borrower by the lender of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, unless the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are complied with before the agreement is entered into.
(3) The conditions are that the lender—

(a) informs the borrower by notice that the residential property loan, and each controlled service to which the proposed agreement relates, are separate services;

(b) informs the borrower by notice whether the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan will, if the loan is made in accordance with the proposed agreement, be capable of subsequently being varied by the lender;

(c) provides the borrower with a statement of—

(i) the price which will be payable by the borrower for each of the controlled services if they are all provided in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement; and

(ii) the extent to which (if at all) the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan would differ if it were to be provided by the lender without the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates being provided by the lender; and

(d) informs the borrower by notice that, if the borrower declines to take from the lender any of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates, the lender will not on that account refuse to provide the proposed loan.

(4) Where a person advertises, or in any other manner promotes—

(a) the provision of any controlled services which, in the course of his business, he offers to provide in conjunction with the making by him of residential property loans; or

(b) the making by him, in the course of his business, of any arrangements for the provision of any controlled services in conjunction with the making by him or any other person of residential property loans,

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 145
145A Line 2, after ("section") insert (" and sections (Tying-in Arrangements: supplemental provisions) and (Tying-in: offences)").
145B Line 8, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 12, and insert ("provide a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services to another person ("the borrower") unless the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are complied with before a relevant step is taken with respect to any of those services or the loan.").
145C Line 15, leave out ("controlled service to which the proposed agreement relates") and insert ("of the controlled services in question").
145D Line 18, leave out from first ("the") to ("be"), in line 19, and insert ("residential property loan will").
145E Line 20, leave out ("subsequently").
145F Line 20, after ("lender") insert ("after it is made").
145G Line 24, leave out ("of the proposed agreement") and insert ("proposed by the lender").
145H Line 26, leave out ("proposed").
145J Line 28, leave out ("to which the proposed agreement relates") and insert ("in question").
145K Line 31, leave out from ("services") to ("shall") in line 42, and insert ("in question, the lender will not on that account refuse to provide the residential property loan.
(4) a person who—

(a) in the course of his business provides, or makes arrangements for the provision of, controlled services together with residential property loans; and

(b) advertises or in any other manner promotes—

(i) the provision of any controlled service or any residential property loan; or

(ii) the making by him of any such arrangements,").

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 145A to 145K as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 145.
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 145A to 145K, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 145, be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 145, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
146 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:—
Tying-in arrangements: supplemental provisions
`.—(1) In section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) "controlled services" means any services of a description prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.
(2) The order may, in particular, prescribe any description of—

(a) banking, insurance, investment, trusteeship, executorship or other financial services;

(b) services relating to the acquisition, valuation, surveying or disposal of property;

(c) conveyancing services; or

(d) removal services.

(3) Where a lender enters into—

(a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and

(b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,

those agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), as a single agreement.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply with respect to any agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection if the lender proves—

(a) that it was not connected with the transaction in respect of which, or purpose for which, the borrower required the residential property loan; or

(b) where it was so connected, that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to know, that it was.

(5) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (1), the Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) the circumstances in which land is to be treated as being for a person's residential use; and

(b) who are to be treated as a person's dependants.

(6) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), this section and section (Tying-in: offences)—

(a) where the lender is a member of a group of companies, the lender and all the other members of the group shall be treated as one; and

(b) where the lender derives any financial benefit from the provision of a controlled service by any other person the lender shall be treated as providing that service.

(7) In subsection (6), "a group of companies" means a holding company and its subsidiaries within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
(8) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, for such purposes as may be prescribed by the order, paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6) shall not have effect.
(9) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)—

"notice" means a notice in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

"price" shall have the meaning given by order made by the Secretary of State; and

"statement" means a statement in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(10) In relation to land in Scotland—

(a) "conveyancing services" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and

(b) the reference in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (1) to a loan being secured on land shall be read as a reference to its being secured over land by a standard security.

(11) Before making any order or regulations under section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Director and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 146
146A Line 3, after ("loans)") insert ("this section and section (Tying-in: offences)").
146B Line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(4) Section (Tying-in: arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (2) shall not apply in relation to the provisions of a controlled service if the lender proves—

(a) that the provision of that service was not connected with the transaction in respect of which the borrower required the residential property loan in question; or

(b) where it was so connected, that the lender did not know, and had no reasonable cause to know, that it was").

146C Line 45, after ("that") insert ("in such cases or").
146D Line 53, after ("State") insert—
("—"relevant step", in relation to any controlled service or residential property loan, means such step as may be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State in relation to that service or loan (taken by such person as may be so prescribed);").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 146A to 146D.
1458
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 146A to 146D, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 146, be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 146, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
147 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:
Tying-in: offences
`.—(1) If any person contravenes section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (2) or (4) he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (3) applies where—

(a) a person ("the lender") has, in relation to a proposed agreement for the provision to any person ("the borrower") of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, complied with the conditions mentioned in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (3); and

(b) the borrower has declined to take from the lender one or more of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates.

(3) The lender shall be guilty of an offence if he refuses to provide the borrower with the proposed residential loan or refuses to provide it to him—

(a) on the terms of the proposed agreement; or

(b) where they differ, on terms which are compatible with the statement required by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (3) (c) (ii),

unless he proves that his reason for so refusing was unconnected with the borrower's having declined as mentioned in subsection (2) (b).
(4) Where a lender proposes to enter into—

(a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and

(b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,
those proposed agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of subsection (2), as a single proposed agreement.

(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) Subsection (7) applies where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate.
(7) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or

(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(8) The fact that a person has committed an offence under this section in connection with any agreement shall not make the agreement void, or unenforceable (whether as a whole or in part) or otherwise affect its validity or give rise to any cause of action for breach of statutory duty.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 147
147A Line 6, leave out ("a proposed agreement for the") and insert ("the proposed").
147B Line 13, leave out ("to which the proposed agreement relates").
147C Line 15, leave out ("proposed residential") and insert ("residential property").
147D Line 17, leave out ("of the proposed agreement") and insert ("applicable if it were provided together with the controlled services").
147E Line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 147A to 147E.
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 147A to 147E, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 147, be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 147, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
148 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:
Tying-in: enforcement
`.—(1) Every local weights and measures authority ("an authority") and the Director shall have the duty of enforcing sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: offences) and any regulations made under them.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be taken as authorising a local weights and measures authority in Scotland to institute proceedings for an offence.
(3) Where an authority propose to institute proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences) they shall give the Director notice of the intended proceedings together with a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.
(4) Where an authority are under a duty to give such a notice and summary they shall not institute the proceedings until—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which they gave the required notice and summary; or

(b) if earlier, the date on which the Director notifies them of receipt of the notice and summary.

(5) Every authority shall, whenever the Director requires, report to him in such form and with such particulars as he requires on the exercise of their functions under this section.
(6) A duly authorised officer of the Director or of an authority ("an authorised officer") who has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) may, at any reasonable time—

(a) enter any premises which are not used solely as a dwelling;

(b) require any officer, agent or other competent person on the premises who is, or may be, in possession of information relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), to provide such information;

(c) require the production of any document which may be relevant to such an investigation;

(d) take copies, or extracts, of any such documents;

(e) seize and retain any document which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences).

(7) Any authorised officer exercising any power given by subsection (6) shall, if asked to do so, produce evidence that he is such an officer.
(8) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if satisfied, on information on oath given by an authorised officer, that there is reasonable cause to believe that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) and that—
1460

(a) entry to the premises concerned, or production of any documents which may be relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), has been or is likely to be refused to the authorised officer; or

(b) there is reasonable cause to believe that, if production of any such document were to be required by the authorised officer without a warrant having been issued under this section, the document would not be produced but would be removed from the premises or hidden, tampered with or destroyed.

(9) In the application of this section to Scotland, "justice of the peace" includes a sheriff and "information on oath" shall be read as "evidence on oath".
(10) A warrant issued under this section shall authorise the authorised officer (accompanied, where he considers it appropriate, by a constable or any other person)—

(a) to enter the premises specified in the information, using such force as is reasonably necessary; and

(b) to exercise any of the powers given to the authorised officer by subsection (6).

(11) If a person—

(a) intentionally obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of any power under this section;

(b) intentionally fails to comply with any requirement properly imposed on him by an authorised officer in the exercise of any such power;

(c) fails, without reasonable excuse, to give to an authorised officer any assistance or information which he may reasonably require of him for the purpose of exercising any such power; or

(d) in giving to an authorised officer any information which he has been required to give to an authorised officer exercising any such power, makes any statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(12) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11) (a), (b) or (c) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(13) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11) (d) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(14) Nothing in this section shall be taken to require any person to answer any question put to him by an authorised officer, or to give any information to an authorised officer, if to do so might incriminate him.
(15) In this section "document" includes information recorded in any form.
(16) In relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references in this section to its production include references to producing a copy of the information in legible form.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 144.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
149 Clause 82, page 60, line 40, at end insert:
`(3A) In section 15 (acting stipendiary magistrate) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Sections 44, 45 and 53 of this Act shall apply to a person acting as a stipendiary magistrate under subsection (1) as they apply to a stipendiary magistrate."
(3B) In section 34 (acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Sections 44, 45 and 53 of this Act shall apply to a person acting as a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate under subsection (1) as they apply to a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149. With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 150, 151, 267 and 285. The amendments all relate to the new provisions concerning the liability of magistrates for damages. Amendment No. 149 makes it clear that the protection provided by Clause 82 will be enjoyed by acting stipendiary magistrates. The other amendments make repeals in legislation which is no longer necessary as a result of the provisions contained in Clauses 82 and 83, provide for transitional arrangements, and preserve any rights of action accrued before the commencement of those clauses.
My noble friend Lord Renton will remember that he raised the question of whether various classes, including acting stipendiary magistrates, were properly included. Amendment No. 149 is the fruit of his endeavours.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I know that those who raised this matter with me are grateful for the immense amount of trouble taken in getting it right. I should like to add their thanks to mine.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
150 Page 60, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
`(4) The following sections shall cease to have effect—

(a) 46 (warrant granted on conviction or order made by another justice);

(b) 47 (exercise of discretionary powers);

(c) 48 (compliance with, or confirmation on appeal to, superior court);

(d) 49 (distress warrant for rates);

(e) 51 (no action in county court if defendant justice objects);

(f) 52 (limitation of damages against justice); and

(g) 54 (provisions as to prerogative proceedings and membership of Crown Court).'.

151 Clause 83, page 61, line 39, at end insert:
'(6) The following provisions of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall cease to have effect and are hereby repealed—

(a) in Article 7, the words from "another" to "or by", and the words "magistrate, justice or"; and

(b) in Article 8, paragraph (1), and in paragraph (2) the words "resident magistrate or justice of the peace or" and the words "magistrate, justice or".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150 and 151.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
152 Clause 85, leave out Clause 85.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 152.
The main purpose of Clause 85 was to reduce pre-trial delay by cutting down the overall time limit for service of originating process by four months. It would also have ensured that the existence of proceedings was brought to the attention of the defendant within the limitation period, thus reducing the period of uncertainty for the defendant. There has been resistance to that change on the grounds that it would replace the known quantity of the present arrangements with a system which solicitors, initially at least, would find confusing, and which, because of the need to serve quickly when proceedings are commenced near the end of the three-year limitation period, would be potentially expensive.
I recognised the force of those objections and concluded that the limited benefits to be gained from implementation of that proposal of the Civil Justice Review could be outweighed by the disruption that it would cause. I drew that conclusion against the background that rules of court have, in any event, already been amended to reduce the period of validity of a writ from 12 months to four. It is hoped that this change in itself will have a significant impact on pre-trial delay.
I have been advised in this matter by some of those who were involved in the Civil Justice Review. I wish to mention particularly Mr. Justice Potter as he looked at this matter again recently with some of his colleagues. Although originally the Civil Justice Review had proposed this measure, he came to the conclusion, which I now share, that the disruption caused by the measure would not be worth the likely benefits that might accrue from it. Accordingly, we are not implementing that particular provision of the Civil Justice Review but we have come pretty close to obtaining the right result.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 152.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, justice has been served. On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
153 Before Clause 86, insert the following clause:
Costs against legal representatives etc. in criminal proceedings
. The following section shall be inserted after section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985—
"Costs against legal representatives etc.
19A.—(1) In any criminal proceedings—

(a) the Court of Appeal;

(b) the Crown Court; or

(c) a magistrates' court,

may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with regulations.
(2) Regulations shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by a magistrates' court under subsection (1) may appeal to the Crown Court and that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by the Crown Court under subsection (1) may appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(3) In this section—

1463

"legal or other representative", in relation to any proceedings, means a person who is exercising a right of audience, or a right to conduct litigation, on behalf of any party to the proceedings;

"regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; and

"wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or any employee of a representative; or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay." '.

154 Clause 86, Page 62, leave out from (1) in line 18 to end of line 37 and insert:
'In any civil proceedings, a magistrates' court may disallow or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules.
(1A) In subsection (1), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

155 Page 62, line 38, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
156 Page 62, line 46, leave out 'or out of central funds'.
157 Page 63, line 3, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
158 Page 63, line 10, leave out 'and'.
159 Page 63, line 14, at end insert 'and

(d) shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken under the rules may appeal to the Crown Court.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 153 to 159 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 153 to 159. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
160 Clause 87, page 63, line 25, leave out 'or district'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 160. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 160.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
161 Clause 90, page 64, line 46, at end add—
'(3) The general rule making power of any authority having power to make rules of court for Northern Ireland shall include power to make any provision which may be made under section 93 of the Act of 1989 (rules of court) subject to the modifications that in subsection (2)—

(a) paragraphs (e) and (i) shall be omitted; and

(b) in paragraphs (f) and (g) the references to England and Wales shall be read as references to Northern Ireland.'.

162 After Clause 90, insert the following clause:—
Extension of powers of justices' clerks
'. In section 28 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (general powers and duties of justices' clerks) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Such rules may also make provision enabling things authorised to be done by, to or before a justices' clerk (whether by virtue of subsection (1) above or otherwise) to be done instead by, to or before—

(a) a person appointed by a magistrates' courts committee to assist him;

(b) where he is a part-time justices' clerk, any member of his staff who has been appointed by the magistrates' courts committee to assist him in his duties as such;

(c) any officer appointed by the committee of magistrates to be his deputy or to assist him.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 en bloc. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 with Amendment No. 12.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161 and 162. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
163 Clause 92, page 66, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 24.
164 Page 66, line 41, leave out from 'body' to end of line 43 and insert '(other than any body established by this Act), includes any person who is not a member of that body but who may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with any of that body's rules.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 , en bloc. These two items in the amendments to the interpretation clause cannot be conveniently grouped elsewhere. Amendment No. 163 is a purely drafting amendment and deletes the unnecessary reference to an arbitrator or an umpire as being a species of court. Your Lordships will remember that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls drew attention to this matter in discussion of an amendment during the passage of the Bill through this House.
Amendment No. 164 defines "member" in such a way as to enable the term to be used to denote members of a profession who are subject to the regulatory power and authority of a relevant professional body even though they are not members of that body itself; for example, the General Council of the Bar. That is a good example as not all members of the Bar are members of the general council, but they are subject to the power and authority of that body. This amendment is required to recognise the way in which solicitors, for example, are regulated by the Law Society. It is of relevance to a number of provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 and 164. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand Amendment No. 164 a little better, having listened to the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

1465
However, the amendment involves a rather complicated internal series of cross-references. We are amending the definition of "member". We have to find out what is meant by a body that is established by the Act. In order to do that, one naturally looks to the words "authorised body" which are mentioned higher up on page 66 in the definition clause. That refers to Sections 25 and 26 of the Act we are discussing. There we find references to the Bar Council and the Law Society. However, various other bodies not mentioned in the Bill, will have the right to apply for certain rights under the Bill, including rights of audience. I wonder whether such bodies are to be included in the phrase,
"any body established by this Act".
I find that a little puzzling. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can enlighten me.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope I can. The words,
"any body established by this Act"
refer to, for example, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on education, training and conduct, and to the authorised practitioners' board. I am glad to say that the Bar Council does not constitute a body that is established by this Act. However, authority may be given to it under the Act. The Law Society is not a body established by the Act. Its establishment occurred much earlier. The purpose of this measure is to provide a general definition which will apply to all bodies which are likely to be authorised under the Act, or which may apply for authorisation.
However, we had to make an exception for the bodies set up under the Bill, such as the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, because in that context we are talking only about those who are members of the board and not those who may be subject to its discipline.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to say that I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. However, he may find that administratively it may be as well for his department to give some guidance so that the way back through the Bill can easily be found.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly consider that suggestion. On reading the Bill as a whole, that is the route along which one would be led. However, we shall certainly consider whether we can lead people more gently and more clearly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
165 Clause 92, page 66, line 43, at end insert:
"multi-national partnership" has the meaning given by section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors) (9);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165. I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
166 Clause 92, page 67, line 6, at end insert:
"qualified person" has the meaning given in section 35(6);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
167 Clause 92, page 67, line 6, at end insert:
' "registered foreign lawyer" has the meaning given by section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors) (9);'.
168 Page 67, line 14, after 'actions);', insert:
"solicitor" means solicitor of the Supreme Court;'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 and 168. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
169 Clause 93, page 67, line 31, at end insert:
(2A) Any such regulations or order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings as the person making the regulations or order considers expedient.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 169. In speaking to Amendment No. 169, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 171, 186, 235, 249, 251, 256, 257, 290, 291, 293 and 294.
Amendment No. 169 provides a useful supplement to the more specific regulation-making powers already in the Bill which are directed at its implementation. It will enable any authority making regulations or orders under the Bill to include any necessary, incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings, so ensuring that change may be introduced as sensibly and effectively as possible.
The majority of the other amendments in the group take account of the introduction of the concept of authorised advocates and litigators. However, I have not attempted to change any of the references in the Bill to barristers and solicitors. I am aware of some 2,751 such references and it is possible that some have escaped me. Therefore, I have proposed changes to the main relevant Acts of Parliament and the creation by Amendment No. 186 of a power for the Lord Chancellor to change other legislation by regulation where that is necessary and expedient to give effect to Part II of the Bill. As in other cases where the Bill provides a power to change statute by regulation, the regulations provided in Amendment No. 171 require the approval of both Houses. I have also taken the opportunity to replace a number of references to

1467
registrars with references instead to district judges to take account of the scope for wider rights of audience in the county courts.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 169.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
170 Clause 93, page 67, line 33, after '50' insert '(Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors) (5) or (7)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 170. The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 170.—(The Lord Chancedlor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
171 Clause 93, page 67, line 33, after '50' insert '98(3A)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. I spoke to the amendment together with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
172 Clause 93, page 67, line 33, after '8' insert 'or paragraph 9(c) of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
173 Clause 95, page 68, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert:

'(a) that it amends the law in Northern Ireland with respect to—

(i) the pensions of county court judges and resident magistrates, and

(ii) pensions in relation to which provisions of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 apply; and'.

174 Page 68, line 7, leave out from 'sections' to `I l' and insert '63 to 67' and 'Schedules 10 and'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 250.
The amendments make necessary minor and technical changes to the judicial pensions arrangements. Clause 95 provides for the amendment of Northern Ireland laws with respect to pensions of county court judges, resident magistrates and the Social Security Commissioner. The Judicial Pensions
1468
Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 is, however, also applied in relation to the pensions for a number of other posts including the president, vice-president and chairman of industrial tribunals and the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Amendment No. 173 will expand the clause so that Orders in Council can deal with all those pensions which are subject to the 1951 Act. Amendment No. 174 will allow transitional provisions to be made corresponding to those in Schedule 10 of the Bill. The schedule needs to be included to provide for widowers' pensions.
Amendment No. 250 is purely technical. Clause 65, which inserts a new Schedule 1A relating to transfer of accrued rights into the Judicial Pension Act 1981, does not also insert a founding provision. The amendment remedies that deficiency.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
175 Clause 96, page 68, line 15, at end insert:
'() section (Discrimination by, or in relation to advocates);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 115.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
176 Page 68, line 15, at end insert:
'() section 57(2), so far as necessary:'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 178 to 184.
Clause 8 enables rules of court to confer a new power on the Court of Appeal to substitute its own award of damages for the sum awarded by a jury in the court of first instance. At the moment these provisions extend only to England and Wales. We consider, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland agrees, that the law within the two jurisdictions should be kept in line in this respect. The remaining amendments make straightforward drafting and technical changes to Clause 96 dealing with the extent of the application of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
177 Page 68, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
`(b) sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: enforcement);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.
I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 144.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
178 Page 68, line 18, after '(c)' insert 'section 90, this
179 Page 68, line 23, leave out `and' and insert:
() paragraphs 3B, 10 to 11A, 14, 15 and 15A of Schedule 12.'.
180 page 68, line 24, at end insert 'and

(i) Schedule 16, so far as it repeals any Act extending to Scotland'.

181 Page 68, line 26, after '(a)' insert 'section 8;

() section 57(2) so far as necessary;

()

182 Page 68, line 27, leave out '94 to 98' and insert '94, 95, this section and sections 97 and 98, so far as necessary'.
183 Page 68, line 34, leave out 'Schedules 12' and insert 'paragraphs 3B, 8D, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of Schedule 12; () Schedules'
184 Page 68, line 34, after 'amend' insert 'or relate to'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 178 to 184. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 176.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 178 to 184.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
185 Clause 97, page 68, line 37, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
'(1) The following provisions come into force on the passing of this Act—

(a) sections 1, 5, 92 to 96, this section and section 98(1); and

(b) paragraphs 1A and 1B of Schedule 13.

(2) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) sections 6, 8, 9, 14, (Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers), (Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates), 58, 59. 69, (Fees payable on issue of practising certificate), (Additional fee payable by certain solicitors on applying for practising certificates), 71 to 73, (Agreements with solicitors for payments by hourly rates), 74 to 76, (Committees and Sub-committees of the Council) and 82 to 84;

(b) paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 10 and 12B of Schedule l3;

(c) paragraphs 3A, 3B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 30I and 30K of Schedule 14; and

(d) paragraph 1A of Schedule 15.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185.
Clause 97 of the Bill deals with the arrangements for commencement of the various provisions and allows for them to come into force on Royal Assent, two months after Royal Assent or on such day appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor or the
1470
Secretary of State, or both. This amendment simply extends the list of provisions which will come into force either on Royal Assent, or two months later.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a very important clause. I draw your Lordships' attention to new subsection (2) as proposed in Amendment No. 185. Paragraph (a) refers to Sections 6, 8, 9 and 14 and describes them as,
"(Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers), (Discrimination by, or in relation to advocates)".
However, when one refers to those clauses one finds that they refer to evidence given in arbitrations on small claims, the powers of the Court of Appeal to award damages, representation in certain county court cases, and county court rules.
Among the earlier Commons amendments I cannot find one which turned Clause 15 into Clause 14. I wonder whether a mistake has been made in listing those Sections 6, 8, 9 and 14 and giving them the description which follows in italics.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the references in the brackets in relation to those clauses are to the new clauses inserted by the Commons amendments. The clauses referred to are the new clauses in the Commons amendments. When the Bill is amended to give effect to the amendments, the result will be to use the numbering of the clauses which is appropriate for the purpose of the full text of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, naturally I had considered that as a possibility. But even working that through, I cannot find that any of the clauses, including the new Clauses 6, 8, 9 and 14, relate to discrimination by or in relation to barristers or to discrimination by or in relation to advocates. 'The present Clause 15 will be renumbered and will come after Clause 14. Therefore, there is something rather odd. It may be that when the matter goes back to another place simple renumbering can be carried out. However, we must get it right and it does not appear to be right at the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with great respect, if the noble Lord looks at page 25 of the Marshalled List he will see a new clause described in the side note as:
"Discrimination by, or in relation to".
I am receiving somewhat contradictory information. I feel sure that it is a matter of giving effect to the Commons amendments in the printing of the Bill as a whole. The sections which will come into effect on those dates are those as numbered in the Bill. My original answer is now corrected and that is the correct answer. The result is that the clauses in question are those which have that number in the Bill. That is my understanding.
Notwithstanding my present difficulty, I feel fairly confident that the matter will be taken into account when the amendments are put together in the final form of the Bill as it goes to the other place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I hope only that my noble and learned friend is right. We must get it right and if it is found not to be right it will have to be adjusted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I share my noble friend's sentiments most strongly. It now looks as though I may have the benefit of even further advice for which I shall be grateful.
The numbers in the amendment refer to the clauses in the Bill as passed by this House. The words in the bracket; relate to the clauses added by the Commons. I now understand the position. I am sorry—it is my fault. Tie new clauses added by the Commons as yet have no number in the Bill because, as I said earlier, they are described merely as new clauses. Therefore, in order to make proper reference to them in this provision we must use the heading for the clause. Clause 6 of the Bill will come into effect at the end of two months as will the clause side-noted,
"Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers".
That is on page 25 of the Marshalled List.
There are alternative ways of referring to clauses in the Bill. Those in the original Bill are numbered; for example, 6, 8 and so forth. Those that have been added as new clauses without as yet having the benefit of a number are referred to by the side-noted name. I believe that that makes sense. I am grateful to my noble friend for asking about the matter and I am sorry that I was not quicker in my response.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at this hour of the night I thought that the noble and learned Lord was remarkably quick in his response. Perhaps I may make a suggestion for the future because I have learnt from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. It is misleading to have on the front of the Commons amendments:
"References are to Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons",
because one immediately thinks that all references to clause numbers and everything else are to the Bill as first printed for the Commons.
Therefore, if there are references to a Bill in another state—namely the one leaving this House—it would be of advantage, either by asterisk or otherwise, to make it perfectly clear that those references are not to the Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons but to some other stage of the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is a slight misunderstanding about this. Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons is the same Bill as the Bill which left this House. The numbers are the same. However, the problem is that in these amendments, for example the one on page 25—and I take that as an illustration—there are the words "insert the following clause". There is no number for that new clause but a space is provided for the number to be added hereafter. Therefore, as the clause has no number, your Lordships must think of another way to which it can be referred. That could perhaps be done by reference:
"discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers".
1472
That is the side note of the clause. Therefore, the composite amendment which I have moved—Amendment No. 185 —is an amendment which uses the references where possible in the existing Bill as it left this House because that is also the way in which it reached the Commons. Where that is not possible because new clauses are proposed in the Commons amendment which is not in the Bill and not yet numbered, a description must be used. That is the explanation. At long last, it is clear and convincing and I am sorry that I did not take that up more directly. I should have known the answer before the question was asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
186 Clause 98, page 69, line 7, at end insert:
'(3A) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such amendments or repeals in relevant enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by Part II with respect to advocacy, litigation, conveyancing or probate services.
(3B) In subsection (3A) "relevant enactments" means such enactments or instruments passed or made before or in the same Session as this Act as may be specified in the order.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 186. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 186—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
187 Page 69, line 10, after '16', insert '(which include repeals of certain enactments that are spent or of no further practical utility):
188 Page 69, line 11, leave out subsection (6).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. I speak also to Amendment No. 271. These are minor alterations and repeals. Amendments Nos. 187 and 271 provide for the formal repeal of existing legislation which is no longer required. Amendment No. 188 removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
189 Schedule 1, page 70, line 19, leave out 'he has been adjudged bankrupt' and insert 'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.
190 Page 71, line 11, leave out 'specially' and insert 'specifically'.
191 Schedule 2, page 75, line 40, at end insert:
'Persons with special needs
. In discharging its functions under this Schedule, the Advisory Committee shall have regard to the need for the efficient provision of legal services for persons who face special difficulties in making use of those services, including in particular special difficulties in expressing themselves or in understanding.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 191. en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 191.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
192 Schedule 3, page 76, line 32, at end insert:
'(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Ombudsman's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.'
193 Page 77, line 26, at end insert:
`Acting Ombudsman
9.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to exercise the functions of the Ombudsman where—

(a) the Ombudsman's office becomes vacant; or

(b) the Ombudsman—

(i) is incapable of exercising his functions; or

(ii) considers that it would be inappropriate for him to exercise any of his functions in connection with a particular matter (because of a possible conflict of interests or for any other reason).

(2) A person so appointed shall have the powers of the Ombudsman but shall act only in accordance with the terms on which he is appointed.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any person so appointed such remuneration as he may determine with the approval of the Treasury.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
194 Schedule 4, page 79, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
195 Page 81, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
196 Page 83, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
`(4) On concluding any investigation carried out under sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the Advisory Committee shall—

(a) advise the Lord Chancellor as to whether or not there appear to be grounds for recommending the making of an Order under section 28 with respect to the authorised body concerned; and

(b) if its advice is that there appear to be such grounds, advise the Lord Chancellor as to the transitional and incidental provision (if any) which it considers should be made under section 28(4) with respect to the authorised body concerned.

Duty to comply with requests for information
12A.—(1) Where the Advisory Committee is carrying out an investigation under paragraph 12 it may require the authorised body concerned to provide it with such information, including copies of such documents, as it may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation.
(2) No person shall be required under sub-paragraph (1) to provide any information, or produce any copy of a document, which he could not be compelled to provide or produce in civil proceedings before a court.
(3) Where an authorised body fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a request made to it by the Committee under sub-paragraph (1), section 28(2) (c) shall be taken to have been satisfied in relation to that body.'.
197 Schedule 5, page 84, line 26, leave out 'he has been adjudged bankrupt' and insert 'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 194 to 197 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 194 to 197. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
198 Page 85, line 21, at end insert:
`(2) If a member of the Board ceases to hold office and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, the Board may pay him such sum as it may determine.'.
199 Page 85, line 30, at end insert:
`(3) The references in sub-paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities include references to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Board's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.'.
200 Schedule 7, page 87, line 25, at end insert:
`2A.—(1) The scheme may provide for the Conveyancing Ombudsman—

(a) to pay, as regards any of his staff such remuneration and travelling and other allowances as he may determine with the approval of the Board; and

(b) to pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of his staff as may be so determined.

(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Conveyancing Ombudsman's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.'.
201 Page 88, line 2, after 'by' insert `, or inconvenience or distress has been caused to,'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 198 to 201 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 95.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 198 to 201.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
202 After Schedule 7, insert the following schedule—
`SCHEDULE
  Licensed Conveyancers

    Part I
    Additional Powers of Council for Licensed Conveyancers In Connection with Sections 25, 26, and 47 General
    1. In this Schedule—

    "the Act of 1985" means the Administration of Justice Act 1985;

    "advocacy licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right of audience;

    "the Council" means the Council for Licensed Conveyancers;

    1475

    "the Discipline and Appeals Committee" means the committee established under section 25 of the Act of 1985;

    "litigation licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right to conduct litigation;

    "probate licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of an exemption under section 47; and

    "relevant licence" means a licence under Part II of the Act of 1985 or an advocacy, litigation or probate licence.

    Qualification regulations and rules of conduct
    2.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers), the Council may make such qualification regulations and rules of conduct as it considers appropriate in connection with the granting of the rights or exemption in question.
    (2) In making any such regulations or rules the Council may, in particular, do anything which it has power to do in making rules under section 13 of the Act of 1985 (training rules).
    Applications for licences
    3.—(1) An application for an advocacy licence, litigation licence or probate licence shall be made to the Council in such manner, and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under this paragraph.
    (2) Any such rules—

    (a) may prescribe the forms to be used in connection with applications for any such licence; and

    (b) may provide for applications of any description specified in the rules to be exempt from any of the requirements of the rules.

    (3) Rules made under section 14 of the Act of 1985 and this paragraph may make provision with respect to applications for composite licences.
    Issue of licences
    4.—(1) If, on an application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence, the Council is satisfied that—

    (a) the applicant has complied with such qualification regulations, rules of conduct or other requirements as are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for;

    (b) that he has made adequate arrangements for the purpose of complying with any provisions which are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for; and

    (c) that he is a fit and proper person to provide the advocacy, litigation or probate services in question,

    the Council may issue the applicant either with a licence free of conditions or with a licence subject to such conditions as it sees fit to impose.
    (2) If the Council is for any reason not so satisfied, or for any other reason refuses the application, it shall notify the applicant of its refusal and of the grounds on which the application has been refused.
    Conditional licences
    5.—(1) This paragraph has effect in any case where a person applies for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence—

    (a) for the first time;

    (b) when a licence of the kind applied for which has previously been held by him has been subject to conditions;

    (c) when, on the first day of the period to which the licence applied for would (if granted) relate, a period of twelve months or more will have elapsed since he held a licence of that kind;

    (d) after the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order in his case under section 26 of the Act of 1985.

    (2) This paragraph also has effect in any case where a person applies for such a licence and any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (e) to (j) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 (conditional licences) apply in his case.
    (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (4) of section 16 of the Act of 1985, as applied by sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph.
    (4) In any case where this paragraph has effect the Council may, on issuing an advocacy, litigation or probate licence to the applicant, issue it subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit.
    (5) The Council's decision in any such case to impose any particular conditions under this paragraph may be made by reference to such criteria of general application as may have been determined by the Council.
    (6) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (4), conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph—

    (a) for restricting the kinds of service that may be provided by the applicant by virtue of his having the advocacy, litigation or probate licence in question; or

    (b) for requiring the applicant to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his carrying on an efficient practice as a licensed conveyancer who provides the additional services authorised by that licence,

    and conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph (whether for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) or otherwise) as they may be under Part II of the Act of 1985.
    (7) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, with respect to an advocacy, litigation or probate licence as they have effect with respect to a licence issued under Part II of that Act.
    Register of licensed conveyancers
    6.—(1) Where an advocacy, litigation or probate licence is in force with respect to a licensed conveyancer, the Council shall enter details of the licence in the appropriate place in the register of licensed conveyancers maintained by it under section 19 of the Act of 1985.
    (2) The Council shall accordingly cause the appropriate entries to be made on the issue of any advocacy, litigation or probate licence and deletions on any such licence ceasing to be in force.
    (3) Where any such licence is for the time being suspended, the Council shall cause that fact to be noted in the register against the name of the licensed conveyancer concerned.
    Code of conduct
    7.—(1) The rules made by the Council under section 20 of the Act of 1985 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline) shall also be made in pursuance of the Council's general duty under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) (5).
    (2) Those rules may also provide for regulating the association of licensed conveyancers with respect to whom advocacy, litigation or probate licences are in force, with other persons in connection with the provision of advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services to members of the public.
    Effect of suspension or disqualification under Part II of the Act of 1985
    8. Where a licence issued under Part II of the Act of 1985 ceases to be in force (whether because it is suspended or the licensed conveyancer concerned is disqualified from holding a such a licence or for any other reason), any advocacy, litigation or probate licence in force with respect to that licensed conveyancer at the time shall cease to have effect to the same extent as the licence under Part II of the Act of 1985.
    Removal of disqualification from holding a licence
    9.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order directing that a licensed conveyancer shall be disqualified (either permanently or during a specified period) from holding an advocacy licence, a litigation licence or a probate licence, he shall not, while his disqualification continues in force, be issued with a licence of a kind to which the disqualification relates unless the Committee, on an application made to them in that behalf, direct otherwise.
    (2) An application under this paragraph shall not be made to the Committee—

    (a) within ten months of the date of the Committee's order relating to the kind of licence in question; or

    1477

    (b) within ten months of a previous such application by the licensed conveyancer concerned with respect to that kind of licence.

    Revocation on grounds of error or fraud
    10.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee are satisfied that a relevant licence was issued to any person as a result of any error, or as a result of fraud on the part of that person, they may if they think fit by order revoke that licence and any other relevant licence issued to that person.
    (2) Where a person has had a relevant licence which was held by him revoked, he shall not be issued with any relevant licence except on the advice of the Committee given to the Council as the result of an application made by that person to the Committee.
    (4) Paragraph 9 shall apply in relation to a direction under sub-paragraph (3) as it applies in relation to any direction of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
    Recognised bodies
    11. Section 32 of the Act of 1985 (provision of conveyancing services by recognised bodies) shall have effect as if the references to conveyancing services included references to advocacy, litigation or probate services.
    PART II
    Amendments of Provisions Relating to Powers of Council Etc.
    Delegation of powers etc.
    12.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment, the Council may arrange for any of its functions (other than those of making rules, schemes or standing orders under Part II of the Act of 1985) to be discharged—

    (a) by a committee of the Council; or

    (b) by a member of the Council's staff.

    (2) The Council may make rules providing for functions conferred by Part II of the Act of 1985 on any committee established under that Part to be discharged by a committee established under this paragraph.
    (3) In exercising its powers under sub-paragraphs (I) or (2), the Council may impose restrictions or conditions on the committee by which the functions concerned are to be discharged.
    (4) The Council may make rules providing for any of its committees (including one established under Part II of the Act of 1985) to refer any matter of a kind specified in the rules, in such circumstances as may be so specified, to any other such committee, or to the Council.
    (5) Where any matter is referred under sub-paragraph (4) to a committee of the Council or to the Council, that committee or (as the case may be) the Council shall have the same power to deal with it as the committee referring it.
    (6) The number of members of a committee established under this paragraph, and the terms on which they are to hold and vacate office, shall be fixed by the Council.
    (7) A committee established under this paragraph may include persons who are not members of the Council (whether licensed conveyancers or not) but a majority of the members of any such committee (including the chairman) shall be members of the Council.
    (8) The validity of any proceedings Of such a committee shall not be affected by any casual vacancy among its members.
    (9) Any rules made under this paragraph—

    (a) may make such incidental and supplemental provision as the Council considers appropriate; and

    (b) may make different provision for different circumstances.

    Council's intervention powers
    13.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 (intervention in licensed conveyancer's practice) shall also be exercisable where—

    (a) the Council is satisfied that a sole licensed conveyancer has abandoned his practice; or

    (b) the Council is satisfied that a licensed conveyancer has been practising in breach of any condition imposed on him in connection with any relevant licence of his.

    (2) The powers—
    1478

    (a)conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985; and

    (b) exercisable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) (b), shall only be exercised if the Council has given the licensed conveyancer notice in writing that it is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (b) and also (at the same or any later time) notice in writing that the powers conferred by Part II of that Schedule are accordingly exercisable in his case.

    Inadequate professional services
    14.—(1) The Council may take any of the steps mentioned in paragraph 15 ("the steps") with respect to a licensed conveyancer where it appears to it that the professional services provided by him in connection with any matter in which he or his firm has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a licensed conveyancer.
    (2) The Council shall not take any of the steps unless it is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to do so.
    (3) In determining in any case whether it is appropriate to take any of the steps, the Council may—

    (a) have regard to the existence of any remedy which it is reasonable to expect to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and

    (b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been begun by him, have regard to whether it is reasonable to expect him to begin them.

    (4) The Council's powers under this paragraph are exercisable in relation to a person who was, at the material time, a licensed conveyancer even though he is no longer a licensed conveyancer and references to a licensed conveyancer in this paragraph and paragraphs 15 to 20, so far as they relate to the exercise of those powers, shall be construed accordingly.
    Inadequate professional services: steps that may be taken 15.—(1) The steps are—

    (a) determining that the costs to which the licensed conveyancer is entitled in respect of his services ("the costs") are to be limited to such amount as may be specified in the determination and directing him to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more of the permitted requirements as appear to the Council to be necessary in order for effect to be given to its determination;

    (b) directing him to secure the rectification, at his expense or at that of his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the matter in question as it may specify;

    (c) directing him to pay such compensation to the client as the Council sees fit to specify in the direction;

    (d) directing him to take, at his expense or at that of his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as it may specify.

    (2) The "permitted requirements" are—

    (a) that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs be refunded;

    (b) that the whole or part of the costs be remitted;

    (c) that the right to recover the costs be waived, whether wholly or to any specified extent.

    (3) The power of the Council to take any such steps is not confined to cases where the client may have a cause of action against the licensed conveyancer for negligence.
    Inadequate professional services: compensation
    16.—(1) The amount specified in a direction by virtue of paragraph 15(1) (c) shall not exceed £1,000.
    (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the sum of £1,000 such other sum as he considers appropriate.
    (3) Before making any such order the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Council.
    (4) Any statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    Inadequate professional services: failure to comply with direction

    1479
    17.—(1) If a licensed conveyancer fails to comply with a direction given under this Part of this Schedule, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Discipline and Appeals Committee; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.
    (2) On the hearing of such a complaint the Discipline and Appeals Committee may, if it thinks fit (and whether or not it makes any order under section 26(2) of the Act of 1985), direct that the direction be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.
    Inadequate professional services: fees
    18.—(1) The Council may, by regulations made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make provision for the payment, by any client with respect to whom the Council is asked to consider whether to take any of the steps, of such fee as may be prescribed.
    (2) The regulations may provide for the exemption of such classes of client as may be prescribed.
    (3) Where a client pays the prescribed fee it shall be repaid to him if the Council takes any of the steps in the matter with respect to which the fee was paid.
    (4) In this paragraph "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.
    Inadequate professional services: costs
    19. Where the Council takes any of the steps with respect to a licensed conveyancer it may also direct him to pay to the Council—

    (a) the amount of the fee repayable by the Council to the client under paragraph 18(3); and

    (b) an amount which is calculated by the Council as the cost to it of dealing with the complaint, or which in its opinion represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost.

    Duty of Discipline and Appeals Committee
    20. Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee—

    (a) is considering, or has considered, an application or complaint with respect to a licensed conveyancer; and

    (b) is of the opinion that the Council should consider whether to take any of the steps with respect to that licensed conveyancer,

    it shall inform the Council.
    Power to examine files
    21.—(1) Where the Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating any complaint made to it—

    (a) alleging professional misconduct by a licensed conveyancer; or

    (b) relating to the quality of any professional services provided by a licensed conveyancer,

    the Council may give notice to the licensed conveyancer or his firm requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Council, at a time and place to be fixed by the Council, of all documents in the possession of the licensed conveyancer or his firm in connection with the matters to which the complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).
    (2) The provisions of paragraphs 9(2) to (12), 11 and 12 of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 shall apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule.
    Interest on clients' money
    22. Where a licensed conveyancer—

    (a) is required by rules made under section 23 of the Act of 1985 to place any sum of money in a separate deposit account; but

    (b) fails to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable,

    the Council may give a direction requiring him to account to the client in question for any interest which has not been earned but which would have been earned if that sum had been placed in a separate deposit account as soon as was reasonably practicable.
    Full and limited licences
    23. In section 15 of the Act of 1985 (issue of licences by Council), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
    "(7) A licence issued under this Part may be endorsed by the Council as—

    (a) a full licence, if the Council is satisfied that the person to whom it is issued has complied, or will comply, with the requirements made under this Part with respect to professional indemnity and compensation; or

    (b) as a limited licence, if the Council is not so satisfied.

    (8) Rules made under section 21 may make provision for the making, or removal, of endorsements while a licence is in force and for the recording of' any such endorsement, or of its removal, in the register maintained under section 19."
    Cases in which conditions may be attached to licences
    24. In section 16(1) of the Act of 1985 (cases in which conditions may be attached to licences), the following shall be substituted for paragraph (i)—

    "(i) after having been committed to prison in civil proceedings;

    (ia) after having been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or deception or a serious arrestable offence (as defined by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984); or".

    The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 202. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 106.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 202—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
203 Schedule 8, page 90, line 27, at end insert:
'Duty to comply with requests for information
7A.—(1) Where the Advisory Committee is carrying out an investigation under paragraph 7 it may require the approved body concerned to provide it with such information, including copies of such documents, as it may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation.
(2) No person shall be required under sub-paragraph (1) to provide any information or produce any copy of a document, which he could not be compelled to provide or produce in civil proceedings before a court.
(3) Where an approved body fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a request made to it by the Committee under sub-paragraph (1), paragraph 6(2) (c) shall be taken to have been satisfied in relation to that body.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
204 Schedule 9, page 94, line 18, leave out paragraph 12.
205 Page 94, line 37, at end insert:
'County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c.25 (N.I.)) County Court Judge
13A. In section 103 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (qualifications for appointment as county court judge in Northern Ireland) after paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

"(aa) he is a solicitor who has practised for not less than ten years as a solicitor in Northern Ireland; or".'.

206 Page 95, line 27, leave out 'High Court qualification' and insert 'general qualification'.
207 Page 98, line 34, leave out from `under' to 'that' in line 35 and insert 'Schedule 10 to'.
208Page 98, line 48, at end insert:
'Coroner appointed under section 2 of the Coroners Act 1988.'.
209 Page 99, leave out line 11.
210 Page 99, line 13, leave out 'Metropolitan or provincial'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 204 to 210. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 212, 213, 227 and 273, which all concern qualifications for judicial or related appointments.
Amendments Nos. 204, 227 and 273 all concern senior posts in the Land Registry, and remove the requirement that the Chief Land Registrar and certain of his senior staff be lawyers. This reflects the enormous change in the role of the Chief Land Registrar, who nowadays is the administrative head of a substantial organisation.
The Land Registry was established as an Executive Agency. The Chief Land Registrar will be the Agency Chief Executive. The best candidate for the job may in future not always be a lawyer. It would be anomalous if the Chief Land Registrar could be a non-lawyer but his senior officials could not, and that requirement has also been removed. However, Amendment No. 227 also puts beyond doubt the Lord Chancellor's ability
1482
to use his regulation-making power under Section 126(5) of the Land Registration Act 1925 to require that certain legal functions be undertaken by lawyers.
Amendment No. 205 reflects in Northern Ireland legislation the removal, at paragraph 31(1) of Schedule 9, of the requirement that solicitors in England and Wales serve part-time as a recorder before they may be appointed as a circuit judge. The amendment removes the statutory requirement that a solicitor candidate for appointment as County Court judge in Northern Ireland must first serve as a deputy judge for at least three years.
At the request of the General Synod of the Church of England the proposed eligibility requirement for appointment as a judge of the Consistory Court has been changed from a seven year High Court qualification to a seven year general qualification, thus opening the post up to solicitors.
Amendments Nos. 207, 208, 209 and 210 concern the list of office holders who will become eligible for appointment to the circuit bench after three years full-time service. There are two substantive changes: to remove district probate registrars from the list; and, following an undertaking I gave to this House to consider the proposal—in answer to an amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies—to add coroners to it. I think the more appropriate promotion route for a district probate registrar is (as now) to the post of district judge of the Principal Registry of the Family Division.
The two drafting amendments correct the references to social security legislation in this list, and delete the reference to the non-statutory position of provincial stipendiary magistrate. That does not, however, affect the eligibility of provincial stipendiaries for appointment under this provision.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 add to the schedule the posts of legal secretary to certain senior judges, and Crown Prosecutor. These posts are currently open to solicitors and barristers. The amendments simply convert those qualification requirements, in line with the changes used for other comparable posts in the schedule, to possession of the "general qualification".
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again I thank the noble and learned Lord for promoting the coroner to be an office-holder eligible for appointment as a circuit judge. We are grateful for the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
211 Page 100, leave out lines 30 to 35.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 211. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 124.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
212 Page 102, line 20, at end insert:
'Judge's legal secretary
46A. In section 98(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (appointment by certain senior judges of a legally qualified secretary) for the words "barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "person who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.
213 Page 107, line 21, at end insert:
'Crown Prosecutors
.—(1) In section 1(3) of that Act (Crown Prosecutors) for the words "who is a barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".
(2) In section 5(1) of that Act (conduct of prosecutions by barristers or solicitors) for the words from "who is" to "authority" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 212 and 213.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
214 After Schedule 9, insert the following schedule—
'SCHEDULE
Judges Etc. Barred From Legal Practice
The following are the offices for the purposes of section (Judges etc barred from legal practice)—

Lord of Appeal in Ordinary

Lord Justice of Appeal

Puisne judge of the High Court

Circuit judge

District judge, including district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division

Master of the Queen's Bench Division

Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals

Admiralty Registrar

Master of the Chancery Division

Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court

Taxing Master of the Supreme Court

Registrar of Civil Appeals

Master of the Court of Protection

District probate registrar

Judge Advocate General

Vice-Judge Advocate General

Assistant or Deputy Judge Advocate General Stipendiary Magistrate

Social Security Commissioner appointed under section 97 of the Social Security Act 1975

President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals or chairman of such a tribunal appointed under Schedule 10 to that Act

President of Industrial Tribunals or chairman of such a tribunal appointed under the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales) Regulations 1965

President or member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal appointed under Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971

Member of the Lands Tribunal appointed under section 2 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949

1484

President of Value Added Tax Tribunals or chairman of such a tribunal appointed under Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983

Special Commissioner appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970

Charity Commissioner appointed under the First Schedule to the Charities Act 1960

Coroner appointed under section 2 of the Coroners Act 1988.'.

The Lord Chancellor:
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 214.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
215 After Schedule 11, insert the following schedule—
'SCHEDULE
  PARTNERSHIPS AND RECOGNISED BODIES
    PART I
      REGISTRATION

        General
        1. In this Schedule—
        "the Act of 1974" means the Solicitors Act 1974;
        "controlled trust" means, in relation to a registered foreign lawyer who is a member of a multi-national partnership, a trust of which he is a sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of the employees or other partners of that partnership and of which he is a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;
        "the Council" means the Council of the Law Society;
        "the register" means the register maintained by the
        Society under section (Foreign lawyers: recognized bodies and partnerships with solicitors);
        "registration" means registration in that register;
        "the Society" means the Law Society; and
        "the Tribunal" means the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
        Application for registration
        2.—(1) An application for registration or for renewal of registration—

        (a) shall be made to the Society in such form as the Council may prescribe; and

        (b) shall be accompanied by such fee as the Council may, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, prescribe.

        (2) Where such an application is duly made by a foreign lawyer, the Law Society may register the applicant if it is satisfied that the legal profession of which the applicant is a member is one which is so regulated as to make it appropriate—

        (a) for solicitors to enter into multi-national partnerships with members of that profession; and

        (b) for members of that profession to be officers of recognised bodies.

        (3) Any registration may be made subject to such conditions as the Society sees fit to impose.
        (4) The Council may make regulations, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, with respect to—

        (a) the keeping of the register (including the manner in which entries are to be made, altered or removed); and

        (b) applications for registration or renewal of registration.

        (5) The register may be kept by means of a computer. Duration of registration
        3.—(1) Every registration shall have effect from the beginning of the day on which it is entered in the register.
        (2) The Council may make regulations—

        1485

        (a) prescribing the date ("the renewal date") by which each registered foreign lawyer must apply for his registration to be renewed; and

        (b) requiring every entry in the register to specify the renewal date applicable to that registration.

        (3) Any such regulations may—

        (a) provide different renewal dates for different categories of registered foreign lawyer or different circumstances;

        (b) provide for the Society to specify, in the case of individual registered foreign lawyers, different renewal dates to those prescribed by the regulations;

        (c) make such transitional, incidental and supplemental provision in connection with any provision for different renewal dates as the Council considers expedient.

        (4) Where a foreign lawyer is registered, the Society may cancel his registration if—

        (a) the renewal date for his registration has passed but he has not applied for it to be renewed; or

        (b) he has applied to the Society for it to be cancelled. Evidence as to registration

        4. Any certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that a particular foreign lawyer—

        (a) is, or is not, registered; or

        (b) was registered during a period specified in the certificate,

        shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence of that fact and be taken to have been so signed.
        PART II

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Intervention in practices
5.—(l) In this paragraph "the intervention powers" means the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule I to the Act of 1974 (intervention in solicitors' practices) as modified by this Schedule or under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors).
(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the intervention powers shall be exercisable in relation to a person who is or has been a registered foreign lawyer and the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member as they are exercisable in relation to a solicitor and his practice.
(3) The intervention powers are only exercisable where—

(a) the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the registered foreign lawyer, or on the part of an employee of the multi-national partnership, in connection with—

(i) the practice of that partnership; or

(ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

(b) in the case of a registered foreign lawyer who has died, the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of his personal representative, in connection with—

(i) the practice of the multi-national partnership; or

(ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

(c) the Council are satisfied that the registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with rules made under section 32 or 37(2) (c) of the Act of 1974;

(d) a bankruptcy order (as defined in paragraph 10(3)) has been made against him or he has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;

(e) he has been committed to prison in any civil or criminal proceedings;

(f) the powers conferred by section 98 (emergency powers) or 99 (appointment of receiver) of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been exercised in respect of him;

(g) his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been suspended or cancelled;

(h) he has purported to act as a member of a multi-national partnership at a time when he was not registered;

(i) the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with any condition, subject to which he is registered, to the effect that—

1486

(i) he may only be a member of a partnership which is approved by the Society; or

(ii) he may only be an officer of a recognised body which is so approved; or

(iii) he may only be such a member or such an officer.

(4) The intervention powers shall only be exercisable under sub-paragraph (3) (c) if the Society has given the foreign lawyer notice—

(a) that the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with rules specified in the notice; and

(b) that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

(5) The intervention powers (other than those conferred by paragraphs 5 and 10 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974) shall also be exercisable where—

(a) a complaint is made to the Society that there has been undue delay on the part of a registered foreign lawyer in connection with—

(i) any matter in which he, or the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, was instructed on behalf of a client; or

(ii) any controlled trust;

(b) the Society by notice invites the registered foreign lawyer to give an explanation within a period (of not less than 8 days) specified in the notice;

(c) the registered foreign lawyer fails within that period to give an explanation which the Council regard as satisfactory; and

(d) the Society gives notice of the failure to the registered foreign lawyer and notice that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

(6) Where the intervention powers are exercisable in relation to a registered foreign lawyer, they shall continue to be exercisable—

(a) at any time when his registration is suspended;

(b) after his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been cancelled; or

(c) after his death.

(7) Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall have effect in relation to the intervention powers exercisable by virtue of this Schedule, subject to—

(a) any express modifications made under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors); and

(b) any modifications necessary in the light of this paragraph.

(8) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall be read with paragraph 4(2) of Part I of that Schedule.
(9) The notices required to be given by this paragraph must be in writing but need not be given at the same time.
The Compensation Fund
6.—(1) Where the Council are satisfied—

(a) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of a registered foreign lawyer, or of an employee of a registered foreign lawyer, in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which the foreign lawyer is or was a member or in connection with any trust of which that foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or

(b) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer hardship in consequence of failure on the part of a registered foreign lawyer to account for money which has come to his hands in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, or in connection with any trust of which he is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or

(c) that a registered foreign lawyer has suffered or is likely to suffer loss or hardship by reason of his liability to any client of his, or of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, in consequence of some act or default of any of his partners or employees in circumstances where but for the liability of that registered foreign lawyer a grant might have been made out of the Compensation Fund to some other person,

the Society may make a grant out of the Compensation Fund for the purpose of relieving that loss or hardship.
(2) Section 36 of the Act of 1974 (Compensation Fund) shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to grants under this paragraph as it applies in relation to grants under that section.
Contributions to the Fund
7.—(1) On an application for registration, a foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society a contribution to the Compensation Fund ("the initial contribution") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.
(2) On each application for renewal of his registration, a registered foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society—

(a) a contribution of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine ("the annual contribution"); and

(b) where it appears from his application that—

(i) he has, at any time during the period specified in the application, held or received clients' money in connection with a multi-national partnership of which he is, or was, a member; or

(ii) he is, or was at any time during that period, an officer of a recognised body which has, at any time during that period, held or received clients' money,

a further contribution ("the special levy") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.
(3) The Council may make rules providing, in circumstances specified by the rules, for a foreign lawyer—

(a) to pay a reduced initial or annual contribution or special levy; or

(b) not to be required to pay such a contribution or levy.

(4) Any rules under sub-paragraph (3) shall be made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.
Accountants' reports
8.—(1) Unless the Council are satisfied that it is unnecessary for him to do so, every registered foreign lawyer shall, once in each period of twelve months ending with 31st October, deliver to the Society (whether by post or otherwise) a report signed by an accountant and containing such information as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under section 34 of the Act of 1974 (accountants' reports).
(2) The provisions of that section shall apply in relation to accountants' reports required by this paragraph, and registered foreign lawyers, as they apply in relation to accountants' reports required by subsection (1) of that section and solicitors.
Certification for purposes of investment business
9. For the purposes of enabling the Law Society to issue certificates under Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (regulation of investment business) to any multi-national partnership or to any recognised body managed or controlled by solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers—

(a) the Society shall be taken to be the appropriate professional body for that purpose;

(b) the registered foreign lawyer concerned shall be treated—

(i) as if he were a member of the Society; and

(ii) as if he were a solicitor for the purposes of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1986 (requirements for recognition of professional body); and

(c) Part I of that Act shall have effect subject to any modifications which the Secretary of State sees fit to make by order under this paragraph with a view to enabling certificates to be issued to such partnerships or such recognised bodies.

Effect of bankruptcy
10.—(1) The registration of any foreign lawyer against whom a bankruptcy order is made shall be suspended on the making of that order.
(2) The suspension of any registration by reason of a bankruptcy order shall terminate if the order is annulled and an office copy of the order annulling it is served on the Society.
(3) In sub-paragraph (I), "bankruptcy order" includes any order which is not a bankruptcy order but which has the same, or a similar, effect under the law in force in any territory outside England and Wales.
Effect of disciplinary action
11.—(1) Where a registered foreign lawyer is struck off, or suspended from practice, his registration shall be suspended.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "struck off" and "suspended from practice" mean—

(a) any action taken within the jurisdiction by reference to which the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered; or

(b) where the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered by reference to more than one jurisdiction, any action taken within any one of those jurisdictions,

which is the equivalent, respectively, of a solicitor being struck off the roll or suspended from practice under the Act of 1974.
Re-instatement of disciplined foreign lawyer
12.—(1) Where a person's registration has been suspended by virtue of paragraph II, it shall be revived—

(a) if his right to practise in the jurisdiction in question is restored; and

(b) a copy of the instrument restoring his right, certified to be a true copy by an officer of the appropriate court in the jurisdiction in question, or the professional body concerned, is served on the Society.

(2) Where a person whose registration is suspended by virtue of paragraph 11 applies to the Society for the suspension to be terminated, the Society may terminate it subject to such conditions, if any, as it thinks fit to impose.
Effective date of revived registration
13. Where a foreign lawyer's registration is revived (whether as the result of the termination of its suspension, restoration by order of the Tribunal or for any other reason), that revival shall take effect on such date, and subject to such conditions, as the Society may direct.
Appeal against conditions or refusals
14.—-(1) Any foreign lawyer may appeal to the Master of the Rolls against—

(a) the refusal of the Society to register him or to renew his registration;

(b) the refusal of the Society to terminate the suspension of his registration on an application made by him under paragraph 12;

(c) the failure of the Society to deal with any application by him for registration, renewal of registration or the termination (under paragraph 12(2)) of a suspension within a reasonable time; or

(d) any condition imposed by the Society under paragraph 2(3), 12(2) or 13.

(2) An appeal under sub-paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (d) must be brought within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the Society notifies the applicant of its decision on his application.
(3) On an appeal to him under this paragraph, the Master of the Rolls may make such order as he thinks fit.
Jurisdiction and powers of Disciplinary Tribunal
15.—(1) Subject to paragraph 16, section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of this Schedule as it applies in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of that Act.
(2) Any application—

(a) to strike the name of a foreign lawyer off the register;

(b) to require a registered foreign lawyer to answer allegations in an affidavit;

(c) to suspend the registration of a foreign lawyer for a specified or indefinite period;

(d) by a foreign lawyer whose name has been struck off the register by order of the Tribunal to have his name restored to the register;

(e) by a foreign lawyer whose registration has been suspended for an indefinite period by order of the Tribunal for the termination of that suspension,

shall be made to the Tribunal.
(3) Any person who alleges that a registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with any rule made under section 31, 32, 34, or 37 of the Act of 1974 may make a complaint to the Tribunal.
(4) On the hearing of any application or complaint made to the Tribunal with respect to a foreign lawyer, the Tribunal shall have power to make such order as it may think fit, and any such order may in particular include provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the striking off the register of the name of the foreign lawyer to whom the application or complaint relates;

(b) the suspension of that foreign lawyer's registration indefinitely or for a specified period;

(c) the payment by that foreign lawyer of a penalty not exceeding £5,000, which shall be forfeit to Her Majesty;

(d) the termination of that foreign lawyer's unspecified period of suspension from registration;

(e) the restoration to the register of the name of a foreign lawyer which has been struck off the register;

(f) the payment by any party of costs or a contribution towards costs of such amount as the Tribunal may consider reasonable.

(5) Any order made under subsection (4) of section 47 of the Act of 1974 varying the maximum amount of the penalty which may be imposed under subsection (2) (c) of that section may make the same variation in the corresponding amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) (c).
Foreign lawyers assisting the Tribunal
16.—(1) For the purposes of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), the Tribunal may make rules providing for it to be assisted, in dealing with any application or complaint of a kind mentioned in paragraph 15, by a member of the legal profession in the jurisdiction by reference to which the foreign lawyer is or was qualified to be registered.
(2) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.
(3) Subsection (12) of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (rules to be made by statutory instrument etc.) shall apply to rules made under this paragraph as it applies to rules made under subsection (9) of that section.
Appeals from Tribunal
17.—(1) An Appeal from the Tribunal shall lie—

(a) in the case of an order on an application under paragraph 15(2) (d) or (e), or the refusal of any such application, to the Master of the Rolls;

(b) in the case of any other order or refusal under paragraph 15, to the High Court.

(2) The High Court and the Master of the Rolls shall have poser to make such order on an appeal under this paragraph as they may think fit.
(3) Any decision of the Master of the Rolls on an appeal under this paragraph shall be final.
(4) The Master of the Rolls may make regulations about appeals to him under this paragraph.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 215. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 215.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
216 After Schedule II, insert the following schedule—
'SCHEDULE
  Inadequate Professional Services
  The following are the provisions which are inserted in the Solicitors Act 1974 as Schedule 1A—
SCHEDULE 1A

  Inadequate Professional Services
  Circumstances in which Council's powers may be exercised
  1.—(1) The Council may take any of the steps mentioned in paragraph 2 ("the steps") with respect to a solicitor where it appears to them that the professional services provided by him in connection with any matter in which he or his firm have been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a solicitor.
  (2) The Council shall not take any of the steps unless they are satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to do so.
  (3) In determining in any case whether it is appropriate to take any of the steps, the Council may—

  (a) have regard to the existence of any remedy which it is reasonable to expect to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and

  (b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been begun by him, have regard to whether it is reasonable to expect him to begin them.

  Directions which may be given
  2.—(1) The steps are—

  (a) determining that the costs to which the solicitor is entitled in respect of his services ("the costs") are to be limited to such amount as may be specified in the determination and directing him to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more of the permitted requirements as appear to the Council to be necessary in order for effect to be given to their determination;

  (b) directing him to secure the rectification, at his expense or at that of his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the matter in question as they may specify;

  (c) directing him to pay such compensation to the client as the Council sees fit to specify in the direction;

  (d) directing him to take, at his expense or at that of his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as they may specify.

  (2) The "permitted requirements" are—

  (a) that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs be refunded;

  (b) that the whole or part of the costs be remitted;

  (c) that the right to recover the costs be waived, whether wholly or to any specifed extent.

  (3) The power of the Council to take any such steps is not confined to cases where the client may have a cause of action against the solicitor for negligence.
  Compensation
  3.—(1) The amount specified in a direction by virtue of paragraph 2(1) (c) shall not exceed £1,000.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the sum of £1,000 such other sum as he considers appropriate.
  (3) Before making any such order the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Law Society.
  (4) Any statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Taxation of costs
  4.—(1) Where the Council have given a direction under paragraph 2(1) (a), then—

  (a) for the purposes of any taxation of a bill covering the costs, the amount charged by the bill in respect of them shall be deemed to be limited to the amount specified in the determination; and

  (b) where a bill covering the costs has not been taxed, the client shall, for the purposes of their recovery (by whatever means and notwithstanding any statutory provision or agreement) be deemed to be liable to pay in respect of them only the amount specified in the determination.

  (2) Where a bill covering the costs has been taxed, the direction shall, so far as it relates to the costs, cease to have effect.
  Failure to comply with direction
  5.—(1) If a solicitor fails to comply with a direction given under this Schedule, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Tribunal; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.
  (2) On the hearing of such a complaint the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit (and whether or not it makes any order under section 47(2)), direct that the direction be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.
  Fees
  6.—(1) The Council may, by regulations made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, make provision for the payment, by any client with respect to whom the Council are asked to consider whether to take any of the steps, of such fee as may be prescribed.
  (2) The regulations may provide for the exemption of such classes of client as may be prescribed.
  (3) Where a client pays the prescribed fee it shall be repaid to him if the Council take any of the steps in the matter with respect to which the fee was paid.
  (4) In this paragraph "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.
  Costs
  7. Where the Council take any of the steps with respect to a solicitor they may also direct him to pay to the Council—

  (a) the amount of the fee repayable by the Council to the client under paragraph 6(3); and

  (b) an amount which is calculated by the Council as the cost to them of dealing with the complaint, or which in their opinion represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost.

Duty of Tribunal
8. Where the Tribunal—

(a) is considering, or has considered, an application or complaint with respect to a solicitor; and

(b) is of the opinion that the Council should consider whether to take any of the steps with respect to that solicitor,

it shall inform the Council.

Interpretation
9. The Council's powers under this Schedule are exercisable in relation to a person even though his name has been removed from, or struck off, the roll and references to a solicitor in this Schedule, so far as they relate to the exercise of those powers shall be construed accordingly.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
217 Schedule 12, page 118, line 14, at end insert:
'The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c.54)
3A.—(1) Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (provisions supplementary to section 15) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)—

(a) for the words "relevant infant" there shall be substituted "supervised person"; and

(b) the words from "and the justice" to the end shall be omitted.

(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) Where a supervised person is brought before a justice under subsection (3) of this section, the justice may—

(a) direct that he be released forthwith; or

(b) subject to subsection (3C) of this section, remand him to local authority accommodation.

(3B) A justice who remands a person to local authority accommodation shall designate, as the authority who are to receive him, the authority named in the supervision order in respect of which the application or reference is being made.
(3C) Where the supervised person has attained the age of eighteen at the time when he is brought before the justice, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

(a) to a remand centre, if the justice has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this subsection; or

(b) to a prison, if he has not been so notified."

(4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) Where an application is made to a court under section 15(1) of this Act, the court may remand (or further remand) the supervised person to local authority accommodation if—

(a) a warrant has been issued under subsection (2) of this section for the purpose of securing the attendance of the supervised person before the court; or

(b) the court considers that remanding (or further remanding) him will enable information to be obtained which is likely to assist the court in deciding whether and, if so, how to exercise its powers under section 15(1)."

(5) In subsections (5) (b) and (c) and (6) (a), after the word "12A", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "12AA".
3B.—(1) Section 32 of that Act (detention of absentees), as amended by paragraph 27 of Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989, shall be further amended as follows.
(2) In the new subsection (1A), in paragraph (b) (ii), for the words "section 23(1)" there shall be substituted "section 16(3A) or 23(1)".
(3) In the new subsection (1C), after the words "section 12AA" there shall be inserted ", 16(3B)".'.
218 Page 118, line 23, at end insert:
'The Adoption Act 1976 (c.36)
4A. In section 65A of the Adoption Act 1976 (which was inserted by paragraph 29 of Schedule 10 to the Act of 1989 and which makes similar provision with respect to the appointment of panels of guardians ad litem to that made by section 41 of the Act of 1989), the following subsection shall be added at the endߞ
"(4) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such grants with respect to expenditure of any local authority—

(a) in connection with the establishment and administration of guardian ad litem and reporting officer panels in accordance with section 65;

(b) in paying expenses, fees, allowances and in the provision of training for members of such panels, as he considers appropriate.".

'The Child Care Act 1980 (c.5)
4B. After section 21(2) of the Child Care Act 1980 (power of local authority to allow child in care to be under charge and control of parent, etc.) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above and section 22A below a child shall be regarded as being under the charge and control of a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".'.
219 Page 118, line 39, at end insert:
6A. In section 21(2) (c) (i) of the 1989 Act (provision of accommodation for children on remand) after word "section" there shall be inserted "16(3A) or".'.
6B.—(1) In section 23 of the Act of 1989 (provision of accommodation and maintenance made by local authority for children whom they are looking after), in subsection (2) (e) after the word "provided" there shall be inserted "in accordance with arrangements made".
(2) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) a child shall be regarded as living with a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".
6C. At the end of section 24 of the Act of 1989 (advice and assistance) there shall be added the following subsections
"(14) Every local authority shall establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaint) made to them by a person qualifying for advice and assistance about the discharge of their functions under this Part in relation to him.
(15) In carrying out any consideration of representations under subsection (14), a local authority shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection."
6D. In section 27 of the Act of 1989 (co-operation between authorities)—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "or other person" and the words "or person" shall be omitted; and

(b) in subsection (3) for the word "persons" there shall be substituted "authorities" and after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".

6E. In section 29 of the Act of 1989 (recoupment of cost of providing services etc.), in subsection (9), for the words "expenses reasonably" there shall be substituted "reasonable expenses".'.
220 Page 118, line 42, at end insert:
'7A. In section 41 of the Act of 1989 (appointment of guardian ad litem for child in certain proceedings), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(12) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such grants with respect to expenditure of any local authority—

(a) in connection with the establishment and administration of guardian ad litem panels in accordance with this section;

(b) in paying expenses, fees, allowances and in the provision of training for members of such panels,as he considers appropriate.".'.

7B.—(1) Section 42 of the Act of 1989 (right of guardian ad litem to have access to local authority records) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a), after the word "authority" there shall be inserted "or an authorised person".
(3) At the end of subsection (1) there shall be added—

";or

(c) any records of, or held by, an authorised person which were compiled in connection with the activities of that person, so far as those records relate to that child."

(4) The following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(4) In this section "authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 31."
7C. For section 45(10) of the Act of 1989 (appeals against emergency protection orders) there shall be substituted—
"(10) No appeal may be made against—

(a) the making of, or refusal to make, an emergency protection order;

(b) the extension of, or refusal to extend, the period during which such an order is to have effect;

(c) the discharge of, or refusal to discharge, such an order; or

(d) the giving of, or refusal to give, any direction in connection with such an order."

7D. In section 47(11) (d) of the Act of 1989 (persons obliged to assist local authority investigations), after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".'.
221 Page 118, line 44, at end insert 'and in subsection (1) (f) after the word "provided" there shall be inserted "in accordance with arrangements made".
8A. In section 93(2) of the Act of 1989 (rules of court)—

(a) in paragraph (f) for the words "the United Kingdom" there shall be substituted "England and Wales"; and

(b) in paragraph (g) after the word "is" there shall be inserted "or resides".

8B. In section 94(l) (appeals), for the first word "An" there shall be substituted "Subject to any express provisions to the contrary made by or under this Act, an".
8C. In section 97(8) of the Act of 1989 (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) for the words "Section 71 of the Act of 1980 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings)" there shall be substituted "Sections 69 (sittings of magistrates' courts for family proceedings) and 71 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings) of the Act of 1980".
8D. In section 108(12) of the Act of 1989 (provisions extending to Northern Ireland), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word "18" shall be omitted.
8E. In paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1989 (regulations as to conditions under which child in care is allowed to live with parent, etc.), the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end—
"(d) the records to be kept by local authorities.".
8F. In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1989 (supervision orders) paragraph 7 shall be omitted.'.
222 Page 119, line 5, at end insert:
'9A. In paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1989 (registered children's homes—meaning of "responsible authority") for the word "Part" there shall be substituted "Schedule".
9B.—(1) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 to the Act of 1989 (disqualification from registration as child minder etc. under section 71) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), there shall be added at the end "unless—

(a) he has disclosed the fact to the appropriate local authority; and

(b) obtained their written consent."

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) (g), for "61" there shall be substituted "69".
9C. In Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989 (minor amendments), paragraph 25 (which amended section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) shall be omitted.
9D. In Schedule 13 to the Act of 1989 (consequential amendments), paragraph 40 shall be omitted.
9E.—(1) Schedule 14 to the Act of 1989 (transitionals and savings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 15 (children in compulsory care) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added "; or—

(h) in care by virtue of an order of the court made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

(3) In paragraph 16 (modifications)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words from "under" to "1973" there shall be substituted "—

(a) under section 4(4) (a) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

(b) under section 43(5) (a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or

(c) in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

(4) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Cessation of wardship where ward in care
9F. Where a child who is a ward of court is in care by virtue of—

(a) an order under section 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969; or

(b) an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,

he shall, on the day on which Part IV commences, cease to be a ward of court."
(5) In paragraph 22(a) for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)".
(6) In paragraph 36(5) (b) for the words "subsection (4)" there shall be substituted "subsection (6)".'.
223 Page 119, line 13, after 'Act' insert '(including that provision as applied in relation to Northern Ireland by section 97(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)'.
224 Page 119, line 19, at end insert:
'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)
11A. In section 94(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (interpretation), in the definition of "supervision order" for the words from first "has" to "1969" there shall be substituted "means a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or the Children Act 1989".'.
225 Page 119, line 45, at end insert:
'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
14A. In section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (meaning of family proceedings), paragraph (k) shall be omitted.'.
226 Page 120, line 6, at end insert:
'The Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
15A. In section 116(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (visiting of patients who are children) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

"(a) a child or young person—

(i) who is in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order within the meaning of the Children Act 1989, or

(ii) in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 217 to 226 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 217 to 226.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
227 Schedule 13, page 120, line 12, at end insert:
'The Land Registration Act 1925 (c.21)
1A. In section 126 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (business of the Land Registry), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(6A) The fact that the Chief Land Registrar and other officers of the Land Registry are not required to be legally qualified is not to be taken as preventing the making of regulations under this section which provide for certain acts to be done by an officer who is legally qualified."
The Administration of Justice Act 1956 (c.46)
1B. Section 53 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (only certain barristers or solicitors eligible for appointment as the Chief Land Registrar, a registrar or assistant registrar in the Land Registry) shall cease to have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 227. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 204.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 227.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
228 Page 120, line 12, at end insert:
'The Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (c.27)
In section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (proof of instruments creating powers of attorney)—

(a) in subsection (1) (b), after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted "duly certificated notary public"; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the word "section" there shall be inserted " 'duly certificated notary public' has the same meaning as it has in the Solicitors Act 1974 by virtue of section 87(1) of that Act and".'.

229 Page 120, line 32, at end insert:
'The Juries Act 1974 (c.23)
3A. In Group B in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (ineligibility and disqualification for and excusal from jury service) after the entry relating to legal executives in the employment of solicitors there shall be inserted—
"Public notaries".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 228 and 229. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 204.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 228 and 229. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
230 Page 120, line 43, at end insert:
'4A. Section 4 of that Act (which sets out conditions to be satisfied before certain overseas solicitors may be admitted) shall cease to have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
231 Page 121, line 18, at end insert:
'7A. In section 36(4) of that Act (witness not to be punished for failing to appear if he is not offered payment of his reasonable expenses of attending), for the words from "the expenses", to the end, there shall be substituted "—

(a) the expenses of coming and attending to give evidence and of returning from giving evidence; and

(b) any other reasonable expenses which he has asked to be defrayed in connection with his evidence,

was tendered to him at the time when the writ was served upon him.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
This amendment effects a minor change to Section 36(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. At present this subsection prevents a court from punishing a person summoned to give evidence for his absence where he was not given,
"a reasonable and sufficient sum of money to defray the expenses of coming and attending to give evidence and of returning from giving evidence".
The Supreme Court Procedure Committee has recently recommended that witnesses be able to recover the costs of copying and transporting documents which they were required to bring with them in addition to their travelling expenses. To reflect this, the amendment applies Section 36(4) whenever a person has asked for, but not been given, his costs of attendance and any other reasonable costs of complying with the summons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 231.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
232 Page 121, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert:

1497
'8.—(1) Section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (register to be kept of county court judgments) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) A register of every—

(a) judgment entered in a county court;

(b) administration order made under section 112; and

(c) order restricting enforcement made under section 112A,

shall be kept in such manner and in such place as may be prescribed."
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a)—

(i) after the word "judgments" there shall be inserted "or orders"; and

(ii) after the word "judgment" there shall be inserted "or order"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), after the word "judgments" there shall be inserted "or orders".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232. This amendment requires administration orders and orders restricting enforcement to be registered in the register of county court judgments. The register is open for inspection by the public and is principally used by potential creditors to inform decisions as to whether or not it would be prudent to provide loans or services on credit to a particular customer. The information that a potential customer is subject to an administration order is likely to be helpful to someone deciding whether to lend him money, since some creditors who would be prepared to lend to a customer with an existing judgment debt would not be willing to do so if they knew that an administration order was in force. This amendment therefore provides for that information to be included in the register.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
233 Page 121, line 41, at end insert:
'The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c.34)
12A. In section 15 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (availability of, and payment for, representation in civil proceedings under Part IV) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) A person may not be refused representation for the purposes of any proceedings on the ground (however expressed) that it would be more appropriate for him and a legal representative of his to enter into a conditional fee agreement (as defined by section 48 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 233. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 75.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 233.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
234 Page 121, line 41, at end insert:
'The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c.34)
1498
I2B.—(1) In subsection (5) of section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (presumption that solicitor is authorised to deliver certain instruments), after the word "solicitor", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted ", duly certificated notary public".
(2) In subsection (6) of that section (meaning of expressions used in subsection (5)), after the words "Act 1925" there shall be inserted—
" 'duly certificated notary public' has the same meaning as it has in the Solicitors Act 1974 by virtue of section 87 of that Act;".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
235 Schedule 14, page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)
2A. In section 50(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (matrimonial causes rules), for the words from "one registrar of the divorce registry" to "local law society" there shall be substituted "one district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division, two Circuit judges, one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984, two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
236 Page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Fair Trading Act 1973 (c.41)
2B. In section 133(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and

(b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 236. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 236.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
237 Page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Juries Act 1974 (c.23)
2C. In Group B in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (ineligibility and disqualification for and excusal from jury service), after the entry relating to barristers and solicitors there shall be inserted—
"Any person who is not a barrister or solicitor but who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) and—

(a) any legal executive or person corresponding to a legal executive; or

(b) any person corresponding to a barristers' clerk or assistant clerk,

who is employed by such an authorised advocate or authorised litigator.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237.
Barristers and solicitors together with barristers' clerks and assistants, solicitors' articled clerks and legal executives employed by solicitors are all ineligible for jury service. The Bill will provide in the future for persons who are not barristers or solicitors to become authorised advocates or authorised litigators. This amendment simply adds such persons, and certain members of their staff, to the list of persons concerned with the administration of justice who are ineligible for jury service.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
238 Page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c.39)
2D. In section 174(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and

(b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 238. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 238.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
238A Page 122, line 17, at end insert:
'2E. In section 7 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (entry of names in the roll and restoration of names struck off), the following shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b)—"
"or

(c) of an order under section 47(2) (h) for the restoration of a person's name to the roll".

2F. In section 8 of that Act (removal or restoration of name at solicitor's request), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection(2)—
"(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to a former solicitor with respect to whom a direction has been given under section 47(2) (g).".'.
239 Page 122, line 18, leave out paragraph (3).
240 Page 122, line 34, leave out from 'date" ' to end of line 36.
241 Page 122, line 36, at end insert:
'5A. In section 20 of that Act (unqualified person not to act as solicitor) the following subsections shall be added at the end—
"(3) A person exempted from the provisions of section 23(1) by virtue of section 23(2) or (3) of this Act or section 47 of Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 may, in any non-contentious or common form probate business, apply for a grant of probate or for letters of administration or oppose such an application without committing an offence under this section.
(4) In subsection (3) 'non-contentious or common form probate business' has the same meaning as in section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981."
5B. In section 25 of that Act (costs where unqualified person acts as solicitor) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(3) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does an act which would be an offence under section 23 were it not for the provisions of section 46 or 47 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, this section does not apply in relation to that Act.".'.
242 Page 122, line 42, at end insert:
'6A. In section 41 of that Act (employment by solicitor of person struck off or suspended), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
(1A) No solicitor shall, except in accordance with a written permission granted under this section, employ or remunerate in connection with his practice as a solicitor any person if, to his knowledge, there is a direction in force under section 47(2) (g) in relation to that person."
6B. In section 42 of that Act (failure to disclose certain facts to solicitor employer), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Any person—

(a) with respect to whom a direction is in force under section 47(2) (g); and

(b) who seeks or accepts employment by a solicitor in connection with that solicitor's practice without previously informing him of the direction,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale.".'.
243 Page 122, line 43, leave out paragraph 7.
244 Page 122, line 44, at end insert:
'7A.—(1) Section 80 of that Act (powers to act on behalf of Society) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words "to committees conferred on the Council" there shall be substituted "conferred"
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) after the word "Council", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "or sub-committee"; and

(b) for the words "or the committee" there shall be substituted ", committee or sub-committee".'.

245 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'(3B) Where it appears from his application for a practising certificate that a solicitor has not held or received clients' money at any time during the period specified in the application, the Council may require him—

(a) to pay an annual contribution of a specified reduced amount on that application, or

(b) to pay no annual contribution on that application.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238A to 245. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238A to 245. —(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
246 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (c.34)

1501
9A. In section 41(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and

(b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
247 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'The Patents Act 1977 (c.37)
9B.—(1) In section 102 of the Patents Act 1977 (right of audience etc in proceedings before the comptroller), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990."
(2) In section 102A of that Act (right of audience etc in proceedings on appeal from the comptroller), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990." '.
'The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
9C. In section 16 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (powers of court to make orders for the protection of a party to marriage or a child of the family), in subsection (6) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "that the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as may be prescribed by rules".'.
'The Estate Agents Act 1979 (c.38)
9D.—(1) In section 10(3) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and

(b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.

The Competition Act 1980 (c.21)
9E. Section 19 of the Competition Act 1980 (restriction on disclosure of information) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".
(3) In subsection (3) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (1)—
"(m) the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247. This amendment makes changes in three broad areas which we have already considered in relation to the preparation of documents by registered patent agents and trade mark agents,
1502
family proceedings in magistrates' courts and related matters and paragraphs consequential on the six new clauses.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
248 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'The Social Security Act 1980 (c. 30)
9F. In section 13 of the Social Security Act 1980 (Social Security Commissioners) in subsection (5) (a), for the words "(2) or (4)" there shall be substituted the words "or (2)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 248. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 124.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 248.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
249 Page 123, line 1I, at end insert:
'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
9G.—(1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 150(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "impose imprisonment" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;".
(3) For the words—

(a) "counsel or a solicitor" in sections 4(4) (b), 6(2) (b), 23(1) (a) and 128(1B);

(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 122(1) and (3); there shall be substituted "a legal representative".

(4) For the words—

(a) "solicitor" in sections 6(2) (a), 12(2), 128(1A) (ii) and (3B);

(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 72(3) (a) and (4);

(c) "solicitor or barrister" in section 145(1) (d), there shall be substituted "legal representative".

(5) For the words "counsel and solicitors" in section 8(4) (d) there shall be substituted "the legal representatives".
(6) For the words—

(a) "solicitors and counsel" in section 69(2) (b);

(b) "solicitors or counsel" in section 69(4),

there shall be substituted "legal representatives".
(7) In section 144(3) (members of the rule committee) in subsection (3), for the words "one justices' clerk" to the end there shall be substituted—

"(a) one justices' clerk;

(b) one person who has a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(c) one person who has been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 249. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 249.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
250 Page 123, line 39, at end insert:
'14A. The following section shall be inserted in that Act at the beginning of Part III—
"Transfer of accrued benefits.
29A. Schedule 1A shall have effect with respect to the transfer of accrued rights into and out of the judicial pension schemes constituted by this Act and the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 250. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 173.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 250.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
251 Page 124, line 11, at end insert:
'18A.—(1) In section 85 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Supreme Court Rule Committee)—

(a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

"(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

"(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph."
(2) In section 86 of that Act (Crown Court Rule Committee)—

(a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

"(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

"(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 251. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 251.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
252 Page 124, line 19, at end insert:
'20A. In section 90 of that Act (Official Solicitor) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) The holder for the time being of the office of Official Solicitor shall have the right to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings.
(3B) When acting as Official Solicitor a person who would otherwise have the right to conduct litigation by virtue of section 26(2) (a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 shall be treated as having acquired that right solely by virtue of subsection (3A)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 252. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 252.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
253 Page 124, line 38, leave out paragraph 22.
254 Page 125, line 12, leave out paragraph 25.
255 Page 125, line 17, leave out paragraph 26.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 253 to 255. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 124.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 253 to 255.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
256 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'30A. For section 75(7) of that Act (members of the rule committee) there shall be substituted,—
"(7) The rule committee shall consist of the following persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor—

(a) five judges of county courts;

(b) two district judges;

(c) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(d) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

30B. For section 143(1) of that Act (prohibition on persons other than solicitors receiving remuneration for work in county courts) there shall be substituted—
"(1) No person other than—

(a) a legal representative; or

(b) a person exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation by virtue of an order made under section 9 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (representation in county courts),

shall be entitled to have or recover any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party in proceedings in a county court."
30C.—(1) In section 147(1) of that Act (interpretation) after the definition of "landlord" there shall be inserted—
" "legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990."
(2) For the word "solicitor" in sections 13(1) and (4), 61(2) and 126 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(3) For the word "solicitors" in sections 18, 24(1), 27(6), 75(3) (f) and 79 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representatives".'.
257 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)
30D. In section 40(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (family proceedings rules), for paragraphs (c) to (g) there shall be substituted—

"(c) one district judge of the principal registry of that Division,

(d) two Circuit judges,

(e) one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984,

(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and

1505

(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 256 and 257. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 256 and 257. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
258 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)
30E. In section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (rights of audience etc. of Crown Prosecutors), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) to (3)—
"(1) Crown Prosecutors shall continue to have the same rights of audience, in any court, as they had immediately before the coming into force of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
(2) Subsection (1) is not to be taken as preventing those rights being varied or added to in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct, as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits, that Crown Prosecutors, or such category of Crown Prosecutors as may be specified in the direction, may have rights of audience in the Crown Court.
(3A) Any such direction may be limited to apply only in relation to proceedings of a description specified in the direction.
(3B) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the availability of persons with rights of audience in the court or proceedings in question.
(3C) Any direction under this section may be revoked by direction of the Lord Chancellor.
(3D) Any direction under this section may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient.
(3E) Any exercise by the Lord Chancellor of his powers to give a direction under this section shall be with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor.".
30F.—(1) In section 14(1) (a) of that Act (regulations in relation to fees of counsel) for the word "counsel" there shall be substituted "any legal representative".
(2) The following definition shall be inserted in section 15(1) of that Act after the definition of "Director"—
"legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
30G. In section 20(2) of that Act (regulations providing for the recovery of sums paid by the Legal Aid Board or out of central funds), in paragraph (a) for the words "party to proceedings" there shall be substituted "person".'.
The Administration of Justice Act 1985 (c. 61)
30H.—(1) Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a)—

(a) after the word "solicitors", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "or solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers"; and

(b) at the end there shall be inserted "or by multi-national partnerships".

(3) In subsection (8), the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
1506
—"multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;
registered foreign lawyer" means a person who is registered under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".
30I. In paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (which extends the offence in section 42(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 of seeking employment whilst struck off or suspended to employment by an incorporated practice) for the words "Section 42(1)" there shall be substituted "Section 42(1) and (1A)".
30J. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to that Act (incorporated practices)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "section" to "and (8))" there shall be substituted "Schedule 1A of the Act of 1974 (except paragraphs 5(1) and 9"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "section 44A(1) (a)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 2(1) (a) of Schedule 1A to the Act of 1974".

30K. In Schedule 2 to that Act (incorporated practices), in paragraph 18 the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (2)—
"(2A) Where, on the hearing of any application or complaint made to it under this Schedule, the Tribunal is satisfied that more than one allegation is proved against the recognised body to whom the application or complaint relates, it may impose a separate penalty (by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) (b)) with respect to each such allegation."
30L. In Schedule 6 to that Act (incorporated licensed conveyancers) the following shall be substituted for paragraph 4(3)—
"(3) Where it appears to the Council that the professional services provided by a recognised body in connection with any matter in which that body has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of that body, the Council may take any step with respect to that recognised body as it could take under paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 with respect to a licensed conveyancer in similar circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 258. This amendment brings together a number of miscellaneous and consequential amendments moved during the Commons Committee and Report stages. All except the first paragraph concern amendments which have been considered in earlier groups. Paragraph 30E breaks the link between Crown prosecutors and solicitors in relation to rights of audience in the Crown Court.
Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 currently gives Crown prosecutors the rights of audience enjoyed by solicitors holding practising certificates together with such extended rights of audience as may be conferred by the Lord Chancellor by directions similar to those that he can make in respect of solicitors under Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It is clear that this provision cannot stand in its present form as under the framework in the Bill different categories of solicitors may, in the future, obtain different rights of audience, thus ending the present uniformity. The amendment preserves Crown prosecutors' current rights of audience while also providing for them to be varied.

1507
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 258.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, may wonder, as I do, how subsection (3) of the amendment will operate. I would not have expected it to be written into the provision but I would have hoped that my noble and learned friend could let us know whether the power he is given to direct that Crown prosecutors may have rights of audience in particular Crown Courts will be exercised after consultation with professional bodies, including the Law Society, the Bar Council and perhaps the Criminal Bar Association and the leaders of the circuits. It would be highly desirable for there to be such consultation before there is an extension of the rights of appearance of Crown prosecutors.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I presume that the provision relates only to certain inaccessible Crown Courts. If the noble and learned Lord agrees with that, the consultation which is set out in subsection (3E) is sufficient.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this matter is similar to what we discussed in some detail on the basis of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in an earlier debate. The House will remember that Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 gave wide powers for the Lord Chancellor to vary rights of audience. I took the view that these ought to be used only in relation to restricted types of case but the wording permitted a wider view to be taken. I agreed to modification. This represents that modification. The important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has pointed out, is that any exercise by the Lord Chancellor of his powers would be with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and indeed all four designated judges. The purpose would be simply to deal with, I would not say a little local difficulty, but something of that kind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
259 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c.34)
30M. The Legal Aid Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
30N. The following entries shall be inserted in the appropriate places in section 43 (definitions)—
"'authorised body' has the meaning assigned by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;"
" 'legal representative' means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;".
30P.—(1) In section 2(6), for the words "is only by persons who are solicitors or barristers" there shall be substituted "shall only be by legal representatives".
(2) For section 2(7) there shall be substituted—
"(7) Subject to section (Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, regulations—

(a) may prescribe the circumstances in which representation shall be only by one legal representative and may require him to be from a prescribed category;

(b) may regulate representation by more than one legal representative from any one or more prescribed categories.

(7A) If it is satisfied that the circumstances of a particular case in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords warrant a direction under this subsection, the Board or, in the case of criminal proceedings the competent authority may direct that representation in that case shall be by one legal representative.
(7B) In subsection (7A), 'competent authority' shall be construed in accordance with section 20.".
(3) In section 10, in subsections (1) (b) and (3) (a), for the word "counsel" in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "an additional legal representative".
(4) In section 15(6), for the words "solicitor for acting for him and to pay any fees of counsel for so acting" there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(5) In section 26(2), for the words "same as the solicitor" there shall be substituted "one".
30Q.—(1) In section 31—

(a) in subsection (1) (a), for the words "counsel, solicitor" there shall be substituted "the legal representative";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "solicitor shall be treated as having paid counsel's fees" there shall be substituted "legal representative shall be treated as having paid the fees of any additional legal representative instructed by him".

(2) In section 32—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "select" to "willing" there shall be substituted "select the legal representative to advise, assist or act for him from among the legal representatives willing";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "a solicitor or" to the end there shall be substituted "one or more legal representatives or direct that he may only select a legal representative from among those with whom such a contract subsists.";

(c) in subsection (8), for the words "solicitor or counsel or solicitor and counsel" there shall be substituted "one or more legal representatives";

(d) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection 9—

"(9) None of the following persons may be selected or assigned under this section—

(a) a solicitor who is for the time being excluded from legal aid work under section 47(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (powers of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal);

(b) a barrister excluded from such work under section 42 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (exclusion of barristers from legal aid work);

(c) any other legal representative excluded from such work for disciplinary reasons by an authorised body.".

30R.—(1) For the words—

(a) "counsel or a solicitor" in each place where they occur in sections 14(3), 31(1) (a) and 38(6); and

(b) "solicitor or counsel" in the first place whether they occur in section 32(6),

there shall be substituted "a legal representative".
(2) In sections 16(8), 32(10) and 34(8) (b), for the word "solicitor's" in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "legal representative's".
(3) For the words—

(a) "solicitor or counsel" in sections 2(4), 16(9), 32(3) and 32(6);

(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 25(2) and 32(5);

(c) "solicitor and counsel" in sections 31(2);

(d) "solicitor or his firm" in section 10(3),

in each of the remaining places where they occur, there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(4) In each of the remaining places where it occurs in sections 9(5), 9(6), 9(7), 10(1), 11(2), 11(3), 15(7), 15(8), 25(2), 26(2) and 32(10), for the word "solicitor" there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(5) For the words—

(a) "solicitors" in section 32(7);

(b) "solicitors and counsel" in section 34(2) (e);

(c) "barristers and solicitors" in section 34(9);

(d) "barristers or solicitors" in section 38(1) (f),

in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "legal representatives".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 259. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 75.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 259.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
260 Schedule 15, page 125, line 38, at end insert:
'Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers
1A. Nothing in section (Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers) shall have effect in relation to anything done before the date on which that section came into force in relation to a pupillage or tenancy which began before that date.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 115.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
261 Page 126, line 35, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5.
262 Page 127, line 5, at end insert:
'Judicial oaths
.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to any person who, immediately after the coming into force of section (Judicial Oaths), holds any of the offices listed in subsection (1) of that section.
(2) The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall have effect as if in section 6 for the words "as soon as may be after his acceptance of office" there were substituted "not later than 6 months after the coming into force of section (Judicial Oaths) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 261 and 262. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 121.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 261 and 262. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
263 Page 127, line 50, at end insert:
'Overseas solicitors
10A.—(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 4 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (under which the Overseas Solicitors (Admission) Order 1964 has effect) training regulations made under section 2 of that Act may contain provisions expressed to have effect in relation to territories listed in Schedule 1 to that Order.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the power in section 2(3) (d) of that Act to make different provision for different classes of person and different circumstances.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of any such training regulations which contain provisions applying in relation to any territory—

(a) which is listed in the Order of 1964; but

(b) which is identified in the regulations otherwise than by reference to that list.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 263. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39.
1510
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 263.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
264 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'Notaries
.—(1) Subsection (2) of section (Notaries) and the repeal by this Act of the provisions relating to the serving of apprenticeships mentioned in subsection (3) of that section shall not have effect in relation to any person who, at the date on which subsection (2) of that section comes into force, is serving such an apprenticeship.
(2) The Master of the Faculties may make rules providing—

(a) for a reduction in the period of apprenticeship of any person to whom this paragraph applies with a view to securing that no such person is required to undertake a period of training longer than the period which he would have been required to undertake, by virtue of rules made by the Master, had he started his training after the commencement of subsection (2) of section (Notaries); or

(b) for all such apprenticeships to be brought to an end on such day as may be prescribed.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 264. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 264.—(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
265 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'Redress for inadequate professional services
11A. Section (Redress for inadequate professional services) and the repeal by Schedule 16 of—

(a) section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974;

(b) section 47A of that Act; and

(c) paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985,

shall not affect any case in which the final bill of costs was delivered to the client concerned before the commencement of section (Redress for inadequate professional services) or those repeals.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 265. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 265.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
266 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'The Council for Licensed Conveyancers
.—(1) The following provisions—

(a) section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers);

(b) the repeal by Schedule 16 of section 26(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; and

(c) paragraph 30L of Schedule 14,

shall not affect any case in which the final bill of costs was delivered to the client concerned before the commencement of section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers).
(2) Until such date as may be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor, the provisions of—

(a) paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers); and

1511

(b) paragraph 4(3) and (3A) of Schedule 6 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as substituted by paragraph 30L of Schedule 14),

shall have effect as if they conferred powers on the Discipline and Appeals Committee and not on the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.
(3) Any order made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (2) may make such transitional, consequential or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer of jurisdiction under the provisions in question from the Discipline and Appeals Committee to the Council.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 266. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 106.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 266.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
267 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'Immunity of magistrates etc.
.—(1) The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 89, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a justice of the peace, as if section 89 had not been enacted.
(2) The Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a resident magistrate or justice of the peace, as if section 90 had not been enacted.
(3) Section 63 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a person to whom this sub-paragraph applies, as if section 90 had not been enacted.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to—

(a) a resident magistrate, including a deputy resident magistrate;

(b) a justice of the peace; and

(c) a person specified in section 63(7) of the Act of 1985 (county court judges sitting in connection with certain appeals and members of juvenile court panels).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 267. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 149.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 267.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
268 Page 128, leave out lines 11 to 14.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 268. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 152.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 268.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
269 Schedule 16, page 128, line 22, column 3, leave out 'Section 10' and insert:

'In section 1, the words "in manner hereinafter directed".

Sections 2 to 5. Sections 7 to 10.'

270Page 128, line 25, at end insert:

'3 & 4 Will 4 c. 70.

The Public Notaries Act 1833.

The whole Act.

6 & 7 Vict c. 90.

The Public Notaries Act 1843.

Sections 1 to 3. In section 6, the words "nor any service under this Act". Section 9.

In section 10, the words "and also in the Public Notaries Act 1833".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 and 270. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 and 270. —(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
271 Page 128, line 26, column 3, leave out 'Section 8' and insert `The whole Act.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 187.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
272 Page 128, line 39, at end insert:

'4 & 5 Geo 5 c. 91.

The Welsh Church Act 1914.

Section 37.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, if I may be allowed to interrupt, I have noticed that all the rest of the amendments are repeal amendments. I cannot believe there is anything to be said about any of them by anybody. Could they not be taken en bloc?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am delighted to accept that suggestion from the noble Lord. Let us see just how far we can go.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
273 Page 129, line 5, at end insert:

'4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c. 46.

The Administration of Justice Act 1956.

Section 37. Section 53'.

274 Page 129, line 17, at end insert:

'1969 c. 54.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

In section 16(3), the words from "and the justice" to the end.'.

275 Page 129, line 17, at end insert:

'1969 c. 58.

The Administration of Justice Act 1969.

Section 29.'.

276 Page 129, line 20, column 3, at beginning insert:

'Section 17(6).'.

277 Page 129, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

'section 4.

section 5.'.

277 Page 129, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

'section 4.

section 5.'.

278 Page 129, line 31, column 3, at end insert:
'In Section 7(a), the words "or a judge acting for him under section 3(2).".'.
279 Page 129, line 38, column 3, at end insert:

'section 44A.'.

280 Page 129, line 40, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert 'section 47A.'.
281 Page 129, line 45, column 3, at end insert:

'In Schedule 3.paragraph 7'

282 Page 129, line 45, at end insert:

'1975c. 14

The Social Security Act 1975

In Schedule 10, paragraph 1A(8).'.

283 Page 130, line 2, at beginning insert:

'1978c. 22

The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

Section 16(7).

Section 17(2).

Section 23(1).

Section 24.

Section 30(2)to(4).'.

284 Page 130, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:

'Section 31(4)(b).'.,

285 Page 130, line 7, column 3, at end insert:
'In secion 53(1), the words "and of section 54 below".'.
286 Page 130, line 8, at end insert:

'1980c.30.

The Social Security Act 1980.

Section 13(4).'.

287 Page 130, line 8, at end insert:

'1980c.43.

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 65(1)(k).'.

288 Page 130, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

'Section 94.

Section 100(5).

Section 101(2).

Section 102(6)

Section 103(6).'.

289 Page 130, line 32, column 3, at beginning insert:

Section 10.'.

290 Page 130, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

'In Section 60, subsection (1), and in subsection(2) the words "not being a person entitled to address the court by virtue of subsection (1)" and "as if he were a person so entitled.".'.

291 Page 130, line 47, column 3, leave out ' "them" ' and insert ' "and prescribing" '.
292 Page 130, line 48, column 3, at end insert 'Section 105'.
293 Page 130, line 50, column 3, at end insert:

'Section 143(2).'.

294 Page 130, line 57, at end insert:

'1985 c.23

The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Section 4(5). In section15(1), the definition of "solicitor", and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

295 Page 131, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:

'Section 1.

Section 3.

In Section 9(8) the second "and". Section 26(3).'.

296 Page 131, line 3, column 3, at end insert:

'In Schedule 1,

paragraphs 4 and 11,

297 Page 131, line 4, column 3, leave out from '2' to end of line 10 and insert 'paragraph 4(2) (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and paragraphs 8, 15 and I9.'.
298 Page 131, line 10, column 3, at end insert:

'In Schedule 3,paragraph 8.'.

299 Page 131. line 11, column 3, at end insert:

'and in paragraph 5 the words "or under Section 47A".

300 Page 131, line 29, column 3, at beginning insert:

'and in paragraph 5 the words "or under Section 47A".

'In section 27(1), the words "or other person" and the words "or person".
'In section 42(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (b) and in paragraph (b) the word "other".'

'In section 42(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (b) and in paragraph (b) the word "other".'

301 Page 131, line 31, column 3, at beginning insert:

'In section 108(12),in the entry relating to Schedule 14,the word "18".

'In Schedule3,paragraph 7.'.

302 Page 131, line 38, column 3, at beginning insert:

'In Schedule 12,paragraph 25.'.

303 Page 131, line 39, column 3, leave out 'and 25' and insert:

'25 and 40.

In Schedule 14, in paragraph 15(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph(g)

304 In the Title, line 13, leave out 'to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the remaining amendments, Nos. 273 to 304, en bloc at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. The noble Lord has mentioned Amendment No. 292. That is a repeal amendment and I understood that the noble Lord wished to deal with all the amendments, including that one, when he talked of repeal amendments, and I will accede to that.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, very well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments formally.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 273 to 304.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been on or at the Woolsack for nearly seven and a half hours. I think that is something that has to go into the Guinness Book of Records. I should merely like to add that I greatly admire him for his endurance and that I am grateful to him for his attention.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches I echo those remarks. The noble and learned Lord has, as always, shown great courtesy, great patience and great skill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to echo those sentiments, if I may. Perhaps I should add that the noble and learned Lord has sat on the Woolsack for 10 hours at one go and therefore this is not a record. I feel that I have made at least one contribution to altering the whole constitutional principle of going through amendments one by one.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and to then
1516
noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for the kind things they have said. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for allowing me to take what was perhaps a slight short cut. I did not wish to do it off my own bat but I very much welcomed the suggestion when it came from somebody else. I did not wish to be accused of hurrying the matter unduly.
I should like to take the opportunity, since this is the last Question I shall put in relation to this Bill —at least I hope so—to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates, both today and during the earlier stages. I believe the result is an even better Bill than the one which first arrived in your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 273 to 304.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.