MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 116 (Hansard, 25 October 1990)

§ Lord McCluskey
rose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment a moment ago. I apologise to the House for my unfamiliarity with the proceedings. I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116 for the reasons that I have just expanded upon.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(Lord McCluskey.)

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, as I indicated, Amendment No. 116 seeks to insert the words "or body" after the word "person". I confirm to the noble and learned Lord, if such confirmation is for him necessary, that we are indeed talking about the 1576 Council of the Law Society of Scotland. However, as I understood his point when he spoke to Amendment No. 116, it dealt with the relationship between subsection (12) and what is required under subsection (15), which is a rather different matter, if I may say so.
Amendment No. 116 is only in relation to a "body". It was meant to be helpful in expanding upon a "person". I recollect making a serious error in your Lordships' House by saying that there was a difference between natural persons and unnatural ones and I got a flea in my ear. It is on that basis that it was expanded upon to indicate that it was a person or a body, rather than using that more curious language. There is nothing more sinister or complicated about it than that and as I see it the relationship between subsections (12) and (15) is in no sense affected by Commons Amendment No. 116.

§ Lord McCluskey
My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, with respect I think I have the right of reply on this matter. As the Bill stands, without Amendment No. 116, when a function is conferred on any person by that section, he shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable". There was no obligation upon the council, as I understand it. The obligation was imposed only upon "persons". The amendment—which is not just a drafting amendment—now apparently imposes upon the council, being the body referred to, a duty to act as soon as is reasonably practicable. It appears that instead of having an option to bring or not to bring into force the rules, with regard to any function the council is obliged to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable.
There is therefore a contradiction between subsections (15) and (12). That is the point that I sought to make. I have not yet had a reply. I hope —it may be improper for me to do so—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may be able to reply to the particular question that I asked.

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply. I thought that I had indicated that the relationship between subsections (12) and (15) was unaffected by the amendment. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying. However, perhaps I ought to expand upon that.
If one considers subsection (12)—the noble and learned Lord explained it earlier—what is conferred under it is a power. Subsection (15) relates to a function.

§ Lord McCluskey
My Lords, that is an extraordinary statement. However, I shall let it go. I do not press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.