§ Mr. John MorrisTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps were taken by the Treasury to satisfy themselves as to the propriety of the amount which they paid to Carter-Ruck solicitors; how the proportion to be paid by the Treasury was arrived at; what assessment was made as to whether this was the most economical way of doing the work; and whether a remuneration certificate was requested from the Law Society as to the reasonableness of the charges carried and paid for by the Treasury.
§ Mr. NelsonThe decision that the Treasury should meet that part of the Chancellor's legal costs which related to the release of a press statement on the evening of 13 April 1991 and to the subsequent handling of extensive press inquiries was taken by the then accounting officer. He was satisfied that the actions taken by the Chancellor and his solicitors were justified in order to retain full confidence in the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and its holder and to forestall or correct misleading and inaccurate press stories which would have been damaging to the Chancellor's reputation and would therefore have had a bearing on his performance of his public duties. The Treasury did not meet any of the costs incurred in evicting the Chancellor's tenant.
Given the extensive interest generated by the press story and the high volume of inquiries which followed, the bill presented by Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners did not appear to the accounting officer to be either disproportionate or unjustified. No approach was made to the Law Society.