HC Deb 06 December 1949 vol 470 cc1765-7
Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, after "partner," to insert "or employee."

This is a drafting Amendment to improve the effect of this Bill. The Clause provides that where a solicitor is sitting as a justice of the peace it shall not be lawful for himself or for any partner of his to practise directly or indirectly before any of those justices. I am sure the Committee will agree with that but, of course, quite apart from a solicitor having partners, some solicitors employ at a salary other solicitors who are not partners but employees. The Clause as drawn would not, as I see it, prohibit the appearance before that bench of a salaried, fully qualified employee of a firm of solicitors, a member of which was sitting as a justice of the peace—

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington)

Is not that covered by the words "practise directly or indirectly"? If that phrase has any meaning at all, does it not mean practise by oneself or by one's employees?

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the point I was coming to. I agree that the words "practise directly or indirectly" are a little difficult to interpret. Practise directly is easy, but practise indirectly is not as precise as one would like. I thought the words "practise indirectly" were meant to take into account something in the nature of agency cases, where one solicitor employs another as an agent although not as a regular employee. I have no doubt that it is the intention to prohibit the salaried qualified employees, and it would be much better drafting if the words "or employee" were included in this subsection so that it was clear beyond doubt that such action by a salaried and qualified employee would be prohibited. For that reason, while agreeing with the spirit of the subsection, I think those words should be added.

6.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I shall certainly look at this again and consider the Clause carefully in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The Clause is intended to cover the solicitor who practises by his qualified clerk, and we think that the words we have used are apt to cover not only the solicitor who practises in person but the one who practises by his qualified clerk.

We had a reason for not using the word "employee." We thought that if that word were used it might be held to embrace not only the qualified clerk in the firm of solicitors but an independent firm acting as agents for that firm, and we did not intend to exclude from the right of practice in court before justices, one of whom was a solicitor, the agent of that solicitor dealing with an independent case not within the scope of his agency. It is not the intention of the Clause to exclude that case, and we wanted to find a form of words that was apt to cover the real employee, the qualified clerk, but not to embrace the agent dealing with cases of his own. However, I will look at it again and make sure it achieves that purpose.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at it again because the inclusion of the word "indirectly" makes this Clause apply to the very class of case he does not want it to apply to, that is, the agent who is employed. On that ground, too, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look at the drafting and, as he has said he will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Since the Attorney-General is looking at this again, may I ask him to look also at subsection (4) where there is the following phrase: his being a justice for the county shall not affect the right to practise of any partner of his. This may want a little further study because, in comparison with the elaboration of subsection (2) it is rather thin, and one would wonder whether his partner would be entitled to practise by his clerks, and to practise directly or indirectly. In the end one would get to the point where the solicitor was practising himself. I do not suppose there would be any great harm in it, but there would be virtue in having it fairly closely defined.

Another point concerns subsection (2). Could not the Attorney-General get some better phrase than "practise directly or indirectly"? Perhaps "practise by his clerks or by his agents"? In a profession where we are supposed to try to keep our English correct, this is an odd phrase. I have practised badly, well, angrily and courteously, but I am not conscious of having practised indirectly.

The Attorney-General

I will certainly look at it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.