HC Deb 03 March 1976 vol 906 cc1292-3
7. Mr. Dempsey

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the largest amount of money paid under the free legal aid scheme in the last financial year to any firm of solicitors for legal services rendered; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing)

The largest amount paid to a single firm of solicitors from the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund in the year ending 31st March 1975 was £257,762. Of this total, approximately £97,000 was in respect of fees retained by the firm. A similar amount was in respect of fees remitted to other legal firms for whom the solicitors acted as agents, and approximately £64,000 was in respect of outlays.

Mr. Dempsey

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are no abuses in the operation of this scheme? Is it true that solicitors are applying for an increase in their fees under the scheme? If so, will he assure the House that any increase will be confined to the £6 a week maximum which applies to the rest of the community?

Mr. Ewing

The House will note with interest the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday of the setting up of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession in Scotland, part of the remit of which will be to examine the remuneration of solicitors in Scotland. The points that my hon. Friend raises will be dealt with in that examination. As to whether increases can be kept within the £6 limit, I certainly hope so, but that is a matter for others.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

But is the hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the supervision of this scheme, which dispenses hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money? Is he aware that a spokesman of the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday reported abuses of the scheme under which up to £10 an hour has been claimed by solicitors for time spent travelling between their offices and the court? Is he sure that they are claiming fairly and properly?

Mr. Ewing

I find the criticism from the Opposition interesting when their instant reaction yesterday was that the Royal Commission was not necessary. They now look rather silly against the background of the exchanges which have taken place. I am always concerned about criticism of the administration of the legal aid scheme. That is why the Royal Commission was set up with those terms of reference.

Dr. M. S. Miller

Will my hon. Friend try to impress upon the legal profession the fact that it should not advise its clients to plead guilty to certain offences because the fine would be much smaller than the cost of the services provided in defending them?

Mr. Ewing

I think that my hon. Friend will accept that it is not for me to consider giving advice to solicitors about what advice they in turn should give their clients.