HL Deb 25 October 1990 vol 522 cc1599-600

125 Before Clause 24, insert the following new Clause:—

Revocation of rights granted under section (Consideration of applications made under section 23)

'.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a body has failed to comply with a direction under section (Review of rules made by the Secretary of State) (6) of this Act, he may by order made by statutory instrument revoke the grant of the application made by that body under section 23 of this Act.

(2) No instrument shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.

(3) With effect from the date on which an order under subsection (1) above takes effect, any member of the body concerned who has acquired rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience by virtue of the scheme shall cease to hold those rights.'

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125A, 150 and 151. These amendments enable the Lord President and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to initiate a review of a particular rule or, in the case of bodies exercising practising rights under Clause 23, a scheme, where that rule or scheme does not appear to be operating satisfactorily.

Honourable Members will be aware that the approval of the Secretary of State, once given, puts a particular practice rule beyond the scope of a challenge at the hands of the proposed competition authority. It may also be that that Lord President, or the Secretary of State for that matter, may come to recognise that a particular rule or scheme which has been approved is not operating in the public interest or in the interests of justice. In such circumstances, they will be able under the scheme proposed in these amendments to invite the body concerned to revise that rule and ultimately—this is an ultimate sanction —should they not revise it to their satisfaction, direct them to change it.

In the case of bodies which have acquired practising rights under Clause 23, the second of the new clauses in this group provides that the Secretary of State for Scotland may take the further step of revoking a body's practising rights if it fails to comply with a direction that it amend its rules in a particular fashion. In view of the seriousness of that step, the clause also provides that the measure will be implemented by statutory instrument approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The amendments are essentially of a public protection nature. They provide a safeguard against unsatisfactory rules and schemes for rights of audience.

I turn now to Amendment No. 125A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. He makes the point that there should be arrangements to secure continuing representation when a body ceases to have rights under Clause 23. I do not, however, consider that that needs to be a matter for the revocation order. Provision along the lines suggested could be made at the time a scheme is first proposed. The Bill already allows for such matters to be included in an initial application. Although it is not spelt out in terms, Clause 23(4), the purpose of which was questioned by the noble and learned Lord at an earlier stage, will allow for that provision to be included. Accordingly, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)