§ Q3. Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Lord Chancellor to the Scottish Law Society at Aviemore, Invernesshire, on criminal legal aid on 9th May, 1971 represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterIn this speech my noble and learned Friend expressed certain views, based on his own experience as an advocate, of the operation of the 571 present provisions for legal aid in criminal proceedings. He emphasised that any departure from these provisions would require very careful consideration and wide consultation.
§ Mr. DavisIs the Prime Minister aware that that speech has caused widespread concern among those practising in our criminal courts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion was made that legal aid should be severely restricted, and there seemed to be implicit in those words that legal aid should not be granted in cases where an accused person was pleading guilty? Does not the Prime Minister think that all this gives encouragement to those courts which are restrictive in their attitude towards legal aid and which very often refuse it where it should be granted? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that one of Her Majesty's judges suggested that what the Lord Chancellor was saying was that legal aid should be granted only after an acquittal?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that those conclusions can be drawn from my noble and learned Friend's speech. He referred to the successful way in which the Legal Aid Committee works in civil cases. I do not think that there is any great criticism on that aspect on either side of the House. My noble and learned Friend went on to discuss whether criminal cases should be similarly handled by the Legal Aid Committee, and he said that if there were to be any change it should be made only after consultation with all those concerned.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsIs there any significance in the fact that the Prime Minister did not answer my hon. Friend's Question about whether the speech represented Government policy?
§ The Prime MinisterMy noble and learned Friend made it plain that he was expressing his personal view, which as Lord Chancellor he is entitled to do from his own experience as an advocate, and not as a Minister. My noble and learned Friend is perfectly entitled to draw upon his own experience and to put forward a constructive suggestion as to how legal aid should be handled.
§ Mr. AwdryDoes not my right hon. Friend feel that some parts of the speech 572 were rather unfortunate? Cannot the country afford to make legal aid fully available in all serious criminal cases?
§ The Prime MinisterMy noble and learned Friend was discussing not how much legal aid cost but the way in which it should be handled. He pointed out that civil cases are handled by the Legal Aid Committee and that the system works very well. He went on to discuss whether in criminal cases the existing situation should continue or whether they might not, after consultation, be similarly handled by the Legal Aid Committee.