The Gazette 1967/71

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