650 / 736
THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S VIEWS
Last Friday the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hail-
sham, kindly granted the Editor of the English
Solicitors Journal
an interview. A wide range of
subjects of interest to the profession and beyond
was covered and Lord Hailsham dealt frankly
with the questions asked in a most affable and
forthcoming way. His attitude towards many of
our current problems conies out clearly and so we
are not attempting any summing-up but prefer to
let the answers speak for themselves.
Solicitors' remuneration
Editor:
Lord Chancellor, you will be aware
of the long years of waiting that the solicitors'
branch of the legal profession has endured for an
upward adjustment of fees.
1
(a)
Is
it yet known when
the Statutory
Committee will meet to consider approving new
remuneration orders for non-contentious (convey
ancing) business?
Lord Chancellor:
When I became Lord Chan
cellor I found that a meeting of the Statutory
Committee had been provisionally arranged for a
few weeks ahead. But I had to consider two re
ports of the National Board for Prices and In
comes and counter-proposals by The Law Society.
I had therefore to postpone that meeting to give
myself time to study the whole problem. I was
sorry I had to do this because everyone agrees
that the conveyancing scales in the lower ranges
are unremunerative and that something should
be done to improve them. I hope the Statutory
Committee will be able to meet before very long
and that they will be able to settle some at least
of the questions which are now in issue.
Editor: (b)
Is there not a case for the present
procedure involving the Statutory Committee and
Rule Committees to be replaced?
Lord Chancellor:
There may be, and this is a
matter which I shall be considering. But a change
of this kind would require legislation and what I
am anxious to do now is to resolve the outstan
ding problems as soon as possible.
Editor:
(c) Would you object to The Law
Society being empowered to lay down scales?
Lord Chancellor:
If The Law Society were
free to fix their own scales this would clearly
raise questions in the mind of the public as to the
effect of this on the solicitors' monopoly in con
veyancing business. I am opposed to minimum
scales, which I regard as an undesirable restrictive
practice. It might be another matter to allow The
Law Society to fix maximum charges and to leave
the individual solicitor to charge less if he wished,
though I am told that free competition of this
kind is thought to have had adverse consequences
in the past.
Editor: (d)
Would an independent review body
be more appropriate?
Lord Chancellor:
It may well be that the pres
ent Statutory Committee is not the body best
suited
to consider conveyancing charges even
though the solicitors' profession is powerfully re
presented upon it. But I am by no means sure
that an independent review body would do much
better in settling matters which are after all highly
technical and it might well be subjected to much
the same criticisms as those now levelled against
the Prices and Incomes Board. It may even be
not quite as self-evident as the question assumes
that a review body of any kind is requisite for
solicitors, any more than it is for architects, sur
veyors or accountants. At present the Statutory
Committee is required by statute and I would be
reluctant to add another wheel to this particular
coach after Lord Gardiner's experience with the
Prices and Incomes Board.
Legal aid
Editor:
2 (a) Are you in favour of the intro
duction of The Law Society's £25 scheme?
Lord Chancellor:
In the debate on the Queen's
Speech I said that of all the schemes which I had
seen to fill an admitted need, it was the one which
most attracted me personally.
Editor: (b)
Can any date yet be given for its
being brought into operation?
Lord Chancellor:
In a full year the scheme
would cost £1,500,000 rising to £2,300,000 in four
years. Quite apart, therefore, from any question
of policy, any decision to implement it must be
considered within the context of the general review
of public expenditure.
Editor:
(c) In 1968-69 the legal profession con
tributed £575,000 to the cost of the Legal Aid
Scheme by the deduction of 10 per cent, of their
190