§ Mr. FraserI beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 50, line 1, leave out 'has a 10 year' and insert
'is a solicitor or barrister of 10 years standing with a'.The purpose of the amendment—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the Government Whips for moving our amendments, and if they are prepared to carry on doing so, I shall sit down, but I expect that they will change their minds.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the period of qualification of a solicitor to count towards the total period of qualification for the purpose of receiving judicial office. I can give an example from my experience. I think that I have been a solicitor for about 30 years, almost to the day. If the Law Society were to obtain rights of audience in a higher court, and if I were to choose to be an advocate in a higher court—I am not sure that I would—with my considerable experience of 30 years as a solicitor, as the rules stand I would have to start all over again if I wanted to clock up 10 years to obtain judicial office. It is a personal example, but it is a good one. It 609 would seem a pity if I had to put in 40 years' experience in order to qualify for appointment for judicial office. That is why it would he right if rights of audience were given, and I could count the 30 years, as well as the time that I was qualified to be an advocate in the higher court.
§ Mr. Temple-MorrisI agree with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. Many solicitors are already experienced advocates. I salute the hon. Gentleman's 30 years. Many have specialties that are useful for the bench, which is different from the Bar in terms of the attributes that sometimes make good and great judges. Many solicitors also have wide experience which is useful to the bench. Advocacy experience is not always needed for the bench.
Last, but not least, one does not have to appoint Lords Justices. All that is required, under the amendment, is the largest pool of experience and, hopefully, wisdom for the main office that needs those qualities.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI think that there is some misunderstanding about the effect of the clause as amended. The personal example offered by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) illustrates the importance of stressing that the Government have made special provision for those currently qualified as solicitors and who in future obtain full High Court or Supreme Court rights of audience. The deeming provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 17 will enable those solicitors—this will include the hon. Member for Norwood—to count their years' standing and years' possession of rights of audience in the lower courts as if they were years' possession of higher qualifications. Solicitors qualifying in future would have to hold the higher qualification for the full period required for any particular appointment.
The amendment would have undesirable effects which I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not intend, and would put an undue burden on others who become freshly qualified, requiring them to last longer. I hope that my explanation has been satisfactory, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. FraserI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.