§ 67. Mr. Weetchasked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for the representation of corporate bodies in English courts.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralYes, Sir. My noble Friend is satisfied with the existing practice, under which county courts and magistrates' courts have a discretion to permit representation in appropriate cases by persons other than practising solicitors or barristers.
§ Mr. WeetchIs my hon. and learned Friend aware that on October 17th the Chairman-Director of Homes Limited was refused permission, in a peremptory and offhand way, to say a word in defence of his company in Greenwich magistrates' court? Is he also aware that it was indicated that unless a solicitor was appointed—against the wishes of the defendants—the company would not be allowed to conduct its own defence in response to the charge? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that such a decision is quite intolerable, and so are any other decisions like it? May I suggest that it is a matter of basic and natural justice that any corporate body in a court should be able to defend itself, through its own representative if it wishes, and ask my hon. and learned Friend to prevail upon the Lord Chancellor to see that there is some urgent reform in this direction?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralMy hon. Friend will be aware that this case is sub judice, so I am in something of a difficulty. The court took the view that it was a complicated matter of law in which qualified representation was desirable, but I take the point that my hon. Friend has made.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceIs my hon. and learned Friend aware that this case has thrown up a nasty piece of restrictive practice, which he ought to take extremely seriously? Is he aware that of all the restrictive practices in this country, those of his own profession are 1254 among the nastiest, and that this is one that needs dealing with?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI am sure that the legal profession is always prepared to consider these matters. In these days of consumer protection, there is something to be said for ensuring that the public has qualified advice where it is required.
§ Mr. BrittanLeaving aside that case, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether he thinks there is any justification, in principle, for saying that a company that decides, in a responsible way, that it wishes to represent itself and does not wish to be represented by a lawyer should not be allowed to do so? If he thinks that there is justification for such a rule, will he tell the House what it is?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThis is perhaps something that ought to be considered, and it may be more easily considered when this case is no longer sub judice.