§ 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 ChancellorMy 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 RentonMy 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 ChancellorMy 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 MishconMy 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 ChancellorMy 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.