THE LAW SOCIETY: RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE (Hansard, 25 July 1990)

§ Mr. Vaz
I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 28, line 1, leave out 'and rules of conduct'.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 141, in page 28, line 6, leave out 'or rules'.

§ Mr. Vaz
The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the Law Society's existing rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved for the purposes of rights of audience in all courts.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Why should they?

§ Mr. Vaz
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to speak, he is more than welcome to do so.

§ Mr. Carlile
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Vaz
No. The hon. Gentleman may make his own speech.
The effect is to ensure that the society's existing rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved not only for the rights of audience which solicitors already possess, but for the rights of audience in higher courts. The Law Society's training regulations, however, would continue to receive deemed approval only in respect of the rights of audience that solicitors already hold. Approval through the schedule 4 mechanism would be needed before solicitors could obtain extended rights of audience.

§ Mr. Carlile
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Vaz
The amendment would remove the spectre of solicitors' rights of audience in the High Court being blocked by judges unreasonably requiring the society to adopt rules that ape the practices of the Bar—"ape" being an appropriate word—such as separating preparation from advocacy, and would thus help to ensure that the will of Parliament was carried out expeditiously.

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
The amendment has been ably and succinctly moved by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). At the risk of further incurring the wrath of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. The Law Society's rules of conduct are deemed approved for courts to which solicitors already have access under the Bill, and that means magistrates courts and county courts.
There can be many substantial actions at county court level. There are many good solicitor—advocates at county court level. The amendment provides a more logical and rational structure by extending this to the higher courts as well. There can be little difference in terms of rules of conduct between what is deemed to be approved for county courts and what at the moment happens in the higher courts under schedule 4.
This is a logical amendment. The training regulations are new. Solicitors are propping up the rungs of advocacy. As something new, it would need to be dealt with under the schedule 4 procedure, as would any amendments to the existing solicitors' rules of conduct. That seems to me to be sufficient. As for the rules of conduct, deemed approval should apply to all courts.
There are doubts about the schedule 4 procedure. They were voiced in Committee and have led to the tabling of 602 other amendments that relate to the powers of designated judges. If the Government were disposed to accept the amendment, it would resolve some of those doubts.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
I assume from the use by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of the word "ape" that this is some kind of guerrilla warfare by himself and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on behalf of the Law Society. I do not understand how the Law Society, through the hon. Member for Leicester, East, could say in Committee, "When we think about legal executives it is a matter for the new machinery," when it is prepared to say on Report, on a matter that affects the Law Society, that it wants to bypass the new machinery. We have not heard a word that would justify making the Law Society an exception to the rule that the new machinery should decide what are the appropriate rules.
I regret having to say it, but according to the speeches we have just heard, the Law Society has fallen far below the standard that it generally sets for itself. I hope that we shall hear that the Government resist the amendments stoutly and that these matters will be dealt with by the new machinery.

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) either does not understand the framework of the Bill or, regrettably, has misstated it. I must therefore urge the House to resist the amendments. Their effect would be to remove the restrictions as to the extent to which the rules of conduct of the Law Society are deemed to have been properly approved for the purposes of clause 25. The society's rules of conduct would thus be deemed to have been approved in their entirety for the purposes of granting rights of audience and would not require approval or be subject to review on any grounds, including whether or not they would have been approved had they been submitted for approval under the procedure laid down in part I of schedule 4.
The amendments would therefore significantly undermine the provisions for bringing the Law Society in to the new framework for granting the rights of audience created by this part of the Bill. I was therefore somewhat astonished to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who normally follows our proceedings with great care, say that his amendments would reflect the will of Parliament when the will of Parliament is to create a carefully constructed framework which his amendments would entirely undercut.
All other bodies seeking to grant rights of audience to their members are to be subject to the requirement that they possess rules of conduct which are, in the view of the Lord Chancellor and of four senior judges, appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice in relation to the court or proceedings in question. By excluding the rules of conduct of the Law Society from the review mechanism established by clause 30, the amendment would set the Law Society outside that framework, in that it would become the only body whose rules of conduct were not open to scrutiny by the advisory committee, the Director General of Fair Trading, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in respect of its members exercising rights of audience.
It is hard to find any reason why the Law Society should want these amendments to be put forward on its behalf, or to be accorded this unique privilege. Therefore., I must advise the House to resist them.