Skip to main content

Clause 8—(Function Of Law Society)

Volume 465: debated on Tuesday 31 May 1949

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, to leave out "may provide."

When the Clause was discussed in Committee it was pointed out that it would include lay members of the central supervisory committee. As hon. Members will recollect, any scheme which will provide for the inclusion of lay members has to be approved by the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that the inclusion of lay members is to be a sine qua non of the scheme and that we should make provision for them by using the imperative "shall" instead of the permissive "may." Solicitors with whom I have discussed the matter have expressed an opinion on the point. They have realised the desirability of having lay members on the central supervisory committee and they have no objection to the inclusion of the imperative "shall" in lieu of the permissive "may," to ensure that there shall be lay representation on these committees.

When this matter was discussed in Committee there was a good deal of talk about the ratio of independent persons to representatives of the legal profession on the central committee. The Cameron Report said that there should be three members. The White Paper accompanying the Bill left the number to be decided by the Secretary of State. The Clause says that the number may not exceed one-third of the total membership. In Committee, the Lord Advocate favoured a policy of flexibility by leaving the number to be fixed by the Secretary of State of the day. It will put the matter in proper perspective if I quote the observations which the Lord Advocate made in Committee.

Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman quotes that, will he observe that this Amendment does not in any way deal with the question of numbers?

No, but it does make mandatory what was permissive, and in the quotation I was about to read the Lord Advocate argued in favour of the power being permissive and not mandatory. That is the whole point. I am trying to show the House that the Lord Advocate has now changed his mind in bringing forward this Amendment. He said:

"If the scheme proposed by the committee of the Law Society to which I have referred were to include so few lay representatives as not to have proper consumer interest on the committee, then undoubtedly the Secretary of State of the day would consider whether or not that was a proper scheme, if there was a lack of balance between lay and professional representation. Therefore, it is not necessary to put in the imperative "shall." The permissive "may" is sufficient for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 30th March, 1949; c. 391.]
That was the Lord Advocate's view on the Committee stage and it is our view now. It is rather unfortunate that he should have resiled from the attitude he took then, although it would appear that in the meantime he has consulted members of the legal profession.

This Amendment covers the point of an Amendment I had down, and to that extent I welcome the change from the permissive to the mandatory.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 18, at end, insert:

"by the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Woodburn.]