Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 22 October 1985)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

§ Lord Denning
My Lords——

§ The Lord Chancellor
The Question is that the Commons amendments be now considered.

§ Lord Denning
My Lords, I am sorry that I was a little hasty. Before your Lordships consider these 37 pages of amendments from the Commons I should like to make one or two general observations. First, when the Bill came before this House on Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated that the provisions were relatively small, helpful and non-controversial. In its progress through the House the contrary has been shown—they are relatively large, unhelpful and highly controversial.
The particular amendments which I hope your Lordships will consider are those in Part I relating to solicitors. My noble and learned friend explained on Second Reading that hitherto solicitors' Acts have always been introduced by a Private Member and have not been Government Bills. In this case the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it would be the Government's responsibility, but went on to say: The Government therefore do not and should not seek ministerial control over the domestic concerns of the professions… the proposals in this part of the Bill come from the Law Society… the Government… should assist the Law Society whenever it is convenient."—[Official Report, 14/1/85; col. 779.] I deduce from those statements that Part I of the Bill emanates from the Law Society itself.
Before we go into details, I should like to explain to your Lordships that one of the first provisions in this Bill was for disciplinary sanctions when solicitors do not do their work properly. In this House we tried, quite unsuccessfully, to get through some amendments. In the other place they have passed an amendment which improves it a Utile, but not all that much—I will not object to that. The most important thing that I hope your Lordships will consider is a new subject-matter altogether, which was not put before your Lordships on Second Reading or on any other stage. It is that in future solicitors should no longer be just individuals or partners in a firm, but should be 963 able to turn themselves into limited liability companies. If this principle goes through it will occur throughout all the professions: barristers I suppose and certainly the medical profession, chartered accountants and so on. Contrary to the whole practice of the profession for years, they will turn themselves into limited liability companies. For what reason? To save the partners from their individual liabilities and responsibilities.
That is a most important change in the law. It was not proposed in this House. It has been proposed for the first time in the Commons. Furthermore, it is contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and the Royal Commission. The Law Society then did not put it forward. They said they would not seek any incorporation of this kind. They made it perfectly plain. Now in the Commons it has been put forward that in future firms of solicitors can be incorporated companies. That is a most important provision. It ought to have been in the Bill as presented to this House so that we could have discussed it on Second Reading and gone into it in plenty of time.
Furthermore, it now comes back to your Lordships at the top of the list, when there is a lot of other work before your Lordships to be completed. Is that right? When we come to the detail of these incorporated companies—about 18 pages of provisions—I shall ask your Lordships in this particular case not to accept this amendment of the Commons. At the moment I do not think I can object to your Lordships considering these amendments, but I make that as a general observation to start with.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, I wish briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and to express my surprise at the position in which we find ourselves with regard to the new clause to follow Clause 6. That new clause runs to two and a half pages and the schedule which goes with it runs to 16 pages, and together they make a very far-reaching change in the status of solicitors, who after all constitute the greater part of the legal profession in this country.
At this very late stage of the Session we find ourselves being asked to consider, and no doubt to approve, this far-reaching change, and we do so without having the advantage of the Notes on Clauses which are often available to guide us and without an Explanatory Memorandum which explains and to some extent justifies the provisions of the Bill. It seems an unusual use of the procedures of your Lordships' House and of the obligation which we have to consider amendments coming from another place.
It may be that at this stage of the Session there is nothing much that we can do about it, but it is to be hoped that we shall receive a full and convincing explanation of those changes when we come to them. Meanwhile I do not propose to discuss the merits.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I shall not say anything more than that I think it would have been much better had both the noble Lords who have spoken raised this matter on the question when it arose and that they are entirely mistaken in saying that the House was not previously informed of it. I see nods 964 from the Front Opposition Bench. I undertook that these amendments should be brought forward on the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly rise to add to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In fact I was the one who raised the matter by an amendment, when many members of your Lordships' House were present. I regret if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was not there but it will be found in the record of the proceedings. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that in principle he agreed with the idea, that the matter would be further considered and that suitable amendments would be made to the Bill. Your Lordships' House had this matter before it.