| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Dennis Cannavan (Falkirk, West) : In view of President Gorbachev's considerable movement of position towards a united Germany, why is the Prime Minister stubbornly insisting that a united Germany must be a full member of NATO and its integrated military structure? Instead of continuing an outdated but nevertheless potentially dangerous confrontation between nuclear powers, would it not be better to work out a coherent and more positive strategy for all European security, involving the Soviet Union and eastern European countries, and to work towards a nuclear-free Germany, a nuclear-free Europe and eventually a nuclear-free world?
The Prime Minister : To borrow a phrase that has been used several times, first on this side of the Atlantic and then on the other, if one had alliances with no nuclear weapons, one would be making Europe free for
Column 150
conventional war. Everyone should know that conventional weapons, however strong, are not enough to stop war. We knew that from world war 1 and world war 2. Since the end of the last war, we have had the longest period of peace in Europe for centuries. That has been achieved because nuclear weapons have stopped any war, and they have therefore been the greatest guardians of the peace. I believe that we must keep them.Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I have to have regard for the subsequent business. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes-- that will allow a full hour of questions to the Prime Minister--and then we must go on.
Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : During the Prime Minister's successful visit to the Soviet Union, did she and President Gorbachev discuss the possibility of a visit by Her Majesty the Queen?
The Prime Minister : We did not discuss it on this occasion. We have it in mind for a future occasion.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : The Prime Minister gave an interesting response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on his question about Trident, on which she touched during her speech. In the light of the decision of President Bush not to modernise the Lance missile, and given the fact that the technology for Trident comes from the United States, has she envisaged a situation in which President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev might decide upon the fate of the Trident missile? Is that not a good enough reason, among other reasons, for us to participate in overall negotiations for the reduction of nuclear weapons?
The Prime Minister : No. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the association between the United States and this country over atomic weapons is of very long standing. In negotiations, it has always staunchly stuck up for our view point and for the special relationship that it has with us. We shall need United States technology for the modernisation of Trident, as we needed it for the delivery mechanism of Trident. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nuclear warhead is our production.
Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West) : Can my right hon. Friend confirm the rumour that, during several hours of talks, President Gorbachev did not once use the word "socialism"? If so, next time she sees him, will she ask President Gorbachev to make available someone from his office to come to London to see whether similar enlightenment can be injected into the Labour party?
The Prime Minister : We were talking pretty nearly all the time about the economy--the free market economy, the necessary changes, its desirability--and I cannot remember one reference to socialism. That is because President Gorbachev is looking to the future.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : Can the Prime Minister throw light on press reports about the much-needed £7 billion aid package to the Soviet Union from the western countries? If so, what part do she, her Government and British business expect to play in this? Would not her efforts be better directed at such an aim rather than at modernisation of nuclear weapons, which every opinion poll in West Germany shows the German people do not want on their soil?
Column 151
The Prime Minister : It is always difficult to throw light on any press reports. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a report to which I partially referred--that there has been talk of West Germany helping considerably with finances to the Soviet Union, particularly for the considerable number of troops that are in East Germany, which would have to stay for a transitional period and then move back to different quarters in the Soviet Union, and possibly adding some more to that. We do it through our know-how agreements with eastern European countries as well. There is also a line of credit.The hon. Gentleman denigrates nuclear weapons, but it is only because this country was staunch on the stationing of nuclear weapons and on Pershing and cruise and then President Reagan was staunch on the strategic defence initiative that, finally, the Soviet Union was made to realise that it could never win on the latest technology of military machines. It was that staunchness that brought the Soviets to that realisation. It would be far better to try to improve the Soviet economic performance by a market economy than carry on with the terrible dead hand of socialism.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury) : During the course of her most successful visit, did my right hon. Friend have the chance to discuss with President Gorbachev the western frontier of the Soviet Union--that part that takes in the piece of Poland that the Soviet Union won through the disgraceful Soviet-Nazi German pact of 1939? Did she perhaps suggest to him that, since it is now 50 years since the war ended, it is time for the Soviet Union to give up any vestige or gain that came from the disagreeable agreement between those countries? Could I press my right hon. Friend a shade further--
Mr. Speaker : No. One question, please ; more than that is not fair.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : May I ask whether my right hon. Friend discussed with President Gorbachev allowing that part of Poland a measure of self-determination?
The Prime Minister : No. We did not go further than discussing the Baltic states. Inevitably one makes reference to the western part of the Ukraine, which also came from Poland as part of the 1939 agreement. That part that came from Poland consisted of Ukrainians who previously came from the Ukraine, and they were probably pleased to get back to the Ukraine.
My hon. Friend knows that the history of central Europe has been a turbulent one and much land has been first the possession of one country and then another. The point of the Helsinki accord signed in 1975 was to stabilise existing frontiers and not to change them at all except by agreement. That is why we have said that, obviously, negotiations must start with the Baltic states. I do not know of any suggested change of the western Ukranian border. I have not heard of any because itself was partly in Poland, then in the Ukraine, then in Poland, then in the Ukraine. I am afraid that there have been many difficult periods in that territory.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : When the Prime Minister was in the Soviet Union selling second-hand capitalism, did she explain to the ordinary working-class people of that country about the cardboard city in the heart of London, about the hundreds of
Column 152
thousands of young people in this country who turn to the blind alley of drugs, about the universal hatred of the poll tax, or about the millions of ordinary, decent working-class families in this country for whom capitalism cannot provide a decent standard of living? Is she aware that the one thing she has in common with President Gorbachev is that, if they stood this week for direct election, neither of them would have a chance of winning?The Prime Minister : Second-hand capitalism is infinitely more valuable than first-hand socialism, which gives a rotten deal to the ordinary citizen. It denies them freedom and prosperity. People came to the British exhibition in the Ukraine, which was a carefully researched exhibition of a person working in a factory and his wife, the housing in which they lived and the goods and car that they had. Those who visited the exhibition were absolutely amazed ; they said that the truth had been kept from them and that if that was capitalism, they wanted it.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : During her very successful visit, was the Prime Minister able to give any assurance to Mr. Gorbachev that Britain would not sign any treaty incorporating East Germany into the European Economic Community if the automatic consequence of that would be to erect the common external tariff and import levies between East Germany and east Europe? Does she agree that any such move would hold back freedom of trade instead of improving it because at present east Europe uses the inner-German trade agreement to facilitate trade? Was she able to give any assurance on that important issue for people?
The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity. As he knows, the unification of Germany will come about through article 23, under which the people of East Germany can apply automatically to join West Germany. I agree that that will cause us problems with the goods from East Germany, which are essentially still made under the Communist system, highly subsidised and without any of the structure of a market economy. We have to be wary of those. In addition, we must make special arrangements and establish a transition period for the common agricultural policy. We hope that those derogations will be as short as possible, but goods from communist countries made under a completely different set of rules cannot circulate freely in the Community.
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : The Prime Minister rightly places heavy emphasis on the importance of NATO, but does she accept that France is a member of the treaty, not of the organisation, which creates some difficulty for NATO in carrying out its operations? Will the Prime Minister seriously reconsider the problems of institutionalising the CSCE? Europe already has institutions, such as the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the EEC, but the difference between them and an institutionalised CSCE is that, in those other institutions, parliaments are represented, whereas in an institutionalised CSCE only Governments will be represented, and that would mean a serious diminution in the democratic nature of the discussions that would take place.
The Prime Minister : France left the military structure of NATO under de Gaulle, and NATO's headquarters moved from Paris to Brussels. I have always thought that that was a retrograde move and hoped that one day France
Column 153
would rejoin. However, we exercise increasingly frequently with French troops and co-operation with NATO is improving greatly, but it is not a recipe that I would advise anyone else to follow. The CSCE is the only structure in all those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned which embraces the western Atlantic countries--the United States and Canada--right across to the Soviet Union. The others do not. Therefore, we think it much better for its Foreign Ministers to meet more regularly so that America the Soviet Union and the European countries- -Nordic countries, west European and central European countries--can meet together. I do not think that it would be possible to have a great amalgam of parliamentary occasions--35 countries would be far too many. I have not forgotten the role of the Council of Europe. It is evident that east European countries--Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia--could be ready to join the Council of Europe long before they were ready to join the EC.BILL PRESENTED
Former Ministers (Interests)
Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to prohibit former Ministers of the Crown, within a period of five years after leaving office, from accepting any employment with or payment from a company which was privatised while they were in office : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 159.]
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Speaker : With permission, I will put together the two motions relating to European Community documents.
Ordered,
Veterinary medicines
That European Community Documents Nos. 4228/89 and COM(90)135, relating to the licensing of veterinary medicines, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
Veterinary checks
That European Community Document No. 8062/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 13th December 1989 and 26th March and 27th April 1990, concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade in live animals with a view to the completion of the internal market, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.-- [Mr. Fallon.]
Column 154
Development Control (Protection of Greenfield Sites) 4.33 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect from development greenfield sites in suburban areas, for the substitution of opportunity sites where there exists a presumption, in district plans, to build.
The Bill would protect green field sites in our urban areas from avoidable development. Many hon. Members represent constituencies in which there is an ever-present threat to precious open space of development by private developers. Recently, the greed of those developers and the building industry has superseded the interests of the communities that they seek to exploit. I do not for one moment suggest that private house building should be unnecessarily constrained or, in the context of the Bill, reduced dramatically. However, a balance between the private and public sectors must be struck in the interests of cohesive development and for the optimum social provision in existing communities.
Of course, that prospect is anathema to the substantial vested interests involved, which the Government have so far failed to address effectively. The result has been the consumption of green fields on a grand scale and their substitution with bricks and concrete in areas where open land is a precious asset for people who live in the vicinity. That is the main issue that my Bill seeks to address. It addresses others, but I regard that issue as the most useful starting point.
Historically, there was a series of planning safeguards designed ostensibly to protect the public from the eccentric development about which I speak. The county structure and local plans, shortly to be replaced by unitary development plans, should have been adequate to the task of developing our towns and cities in the interests of people. The former failed, and I fear that unitary development plans will fail too, unless a proper framework of law is provided outside the UDP proposals which is designed to tackle at the root one of the principal causes of urban sprawl.
My Bill addresses that problem by focusing attention specifically on opportunity or windfall sites, as they are called. These are usually sites in inner urban areas, all of which could not have been considered for housing a few short years ago. Let me say at once that I accept that the need to include windfall sites in any overall development plan is recognised by local planning authorities. I also note that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment also tentatively recognised that fact. However, in his draft response, for example, to the Greater Manchester planning conference, he qualified his position by saying :
"authorities should maintain a general presumption against the release of peripheral open land unless this can be shown to be consistent with urban regeneration, and secondly, that they should ensure that the calculation of the contribution of windfall sites to housing land should be realistic."
That signals a hopeful note, but for me it does not go nearly far enough.
In my constituency, statutory local plans came into force in 1982. Now, eight years on, aside from other factors about which I am profoundly dissatisfied, several green field sites have been unnecessarily lost to housing development. That has happened precisely because there exists only a presumption to calculate windfall sites in the
Column 155
land supply equation. In those eight years, many sites have become available for housing development. It could not have been foreseen that those sites would become available. In my area, three cotton mills, a colliery site, a British Coal workshop and even a cricket field, all of which fulfilled their original purpose in 1982, have or will soon become housing developments.Therefore, it is not a matter of calculation. Those changes were unpredictable and defy calculation. It is a matter of putting in place procedures which will effectively take into account windfall sites. I argue that that can be done only at the time when the windfall occurs. That is the sole purpose of my Bill.
To put the issue beyond all doubt, I propose that, as soon as a windfall occurs, an equal deduction should be made from previously allocated peripheral green field sites. That would be done on the basis of substitution, not calculation. It would be house for house, acre for acre. Only in that way will the interests of the local community be met.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. Ken Eastham.
Development control(Protection of greenfield sites)
Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to protect from development greenfield sites in suburban areas, for the substitution of opportunity sites where there exists a presumption, in district plans, to build : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
Column 156
Orders of the Day
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker : Before I call upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have read the reasoned amendment which the Opposition tabled and which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected for debate. I notice from its contents that it appears that the greatest objection that the Opposition have to this miscellaneous provisions Bill is that it consists of miscellaneous provisions. Perhaps that is not a surprising observation by the Opposition, and naturally we look forward to the constructive contribution that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will make.
This is an important measure covering a wide range of proposals that affect the law and practice in Scotland. It has three major parts and some minor, but useful, provisions. It has already been the subject of extensive debate in another place and some important and helpful amendments have been made. However, the central purposes remain. They are, briefly : to introduce new arrangements for supervising charities in Scotland ; to improve choice in legal services ; and to make important adjustments to the law on liquor licensing.
Part I of the Bill will establish an improved system for the supervision of charities in Scotland. In July 1988, I issued a consultative memorandum, "Supervision of Charities in Scotland", the response to which confirmed my view that the current arrangements for supervising charities are inadequate for modern needs. It is not widely appreciated that Scotland does not have- -and never has had--a Charity Commission. In Scotland, bodies that wish to be recognised as charitable in order to qualify for tax relief must apply to the Inland Revenue for confirmation that their objects are charitable. The difficulty with the current arrangments is not that the Inland Revenue is in any way unsuited to the role of granting charitable recognition. It was evident from the comments made by the numerous charitable bodies that the Inland Revenue's claim branch in Edinburgh has established a considerable reputation for its knowledge and helpfulness in dealing with organisations seeking recognition. The difficulty with the current arrangements is that the Inland Revenue's dealings with charities are governed by a rule of absolute confidence. The Revenue cannot so much as acknowledge to a member of the public, or to any official body, that it has recognised a body as being charitable. Nor is there any body to which it can report instances that it may discover of wrongdoing by a charity where such wrongdoing is not related to a tax matter.
Column 157
For charities to sustain the important function that they play in Scottish society, they must retain the confidence of the public who support them. The best way of maintaining that confidence and good will is to ensure that every charity is openly accountable for the manner in which it conducts its affairs and makes use of the money that it has under its trust. Charities are rightly held in high esteem, but the charitable world, like any other, can attract rogues-- and, as elsewhere, one bad apple can spoil the barrel. In instances where misuse of charitable funds takes place, or where serious mismanagement occurs, it is right that there should be provision for the affairs of the charity to be investigated and for those responsible to be brought to account. Those views are not exclusively mine--they are strongly held in the voluntary sector itself.With those objects in view, clause 1 of the Bill makes provision that will enable the Inland Revenue to disclose to members of the public the names and addresses of bodies that it has recognised as being charitable and to pass to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate information about any non-charitable activity among such bodies. That is a most important provision. For the first time in Scotland, members of the public will have a right to be informed which bodies have received recognition as charities for tax purposes. The clause also requires any charity to provide, for a reasonable fee, to anyone who requests it, a copy of its explanatory document--that is, its trust deed or other document setting out its aims and objectives.
Clause 2 will prevent bodies that have not been recognised by the Inland Revenue--or, if they are established in England and Wales, by the Charity Commission--from representing themselves as charities to the Scottish public. It provides that bodies which have not been recognised and which represent themselves as charities shall be guilty of an offence.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : As to the publication of names and addresses and other information about charities, the Secretary of State will be aware that there is some concern that a full description of the purposes and functions to which the money that the charity receives is applied, if it is a grant-giving charity, may not be disclosed. If it is a charity that is a recipient of grants, again its purposes may not be properly known. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether all such information will be publicly available in future, and whether it will be possible to publish a directory of grant- giving and
grant-receiving charities in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind : As to the hon. Gentleman's initial point, one is likely to find out most about a charity's prime purpose not so much from its constitution, which is likely to be widely drafted--that has been the experience of most charitable organisations--but from the title of the charity and how it distributes its income. Because the charity's accounts will be available, one will know how the sums received by a charity are being allocated. In addition, we have said that we shall be happy to see co -operation with, for example, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, if it wishes to draw up a directory of the type that the hon. Gentleman mentions, to provide the additional information to which he attaches importance.
Column 158
Clauses 3 and 4 place a duty on charities in Scotland to keep proper accounting records and to make available to members of the public, on payment of a reasonable fee, copies of their annual accounts. Those accounts must include a report of the bodies' activities over the year. By those provisions, individual members of the public will, for the first time, be able to discover in respect of any charity in Scotland what its charitable purposes are and what it has done to promote those purposes. Ready, direct, public access to information provides the key to the Bill's supervisory provisions.Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will credit unions fall within the provisions of that part of the Bill?
Mr. Rifkind : I think not, although I shall check that I should not have thought that a credit union would be recognised as a charity by the Inland Revenue for tax-raising purposes. Unless it is, it would not normally meet that criterion. However, I shall certainly have that point checked.
Clauses 5 to 7 are concerned with the investigation of mismanagement and the penalising of offenders. They enable my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to carry out investigations within Scotland where it appears that the organisers of particular charities have been guilty of mismanagement or other wrongdoing. They also give the Lord Advocate powers to petition the court for orders remedying and preventing the continuance of abuse, and for orders imposing penalties on those responsible.
Clauses 8 and 9 concern a different aspect of reform. The doctrine, known as cy pres, or approximation, enables a public trust whose purposes have failed to petition the Court of Session for approval of a scheme authorising the application of trust funds to a purpose as near as possible to the original purpose. Unlike the position in England and Wales, the cy pres procedure is in Scotland available only where it is no longer possible to carry out the trust's purposes in the manner prescribed. Clause 8 widens the opportunity for reorganisation by enabling application to be made to the court where the trust's purposes have become obsolete or lacking in usefulness. Clause 9 goes yet further by providing procedures that will enable small public trusts having an annual income of not more than £5,000 to reorganise without the necessity of seeking court approval at all. Clause 10 enables certain very small trusts no longer capable of achieving the purposes for which they were established to spend capital in order to achieve their charitable purposes. Taken together, those provisions will go a long way towards unlocking charitable funds and enabling them to be applied to better effect in modern society.
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) : Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the unexpected benefits of what is a wholly welcome provision is that health boards might be able to divert money given to them in trust in order to bail themselves out of financial difficulties? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think of Lothian health board, for example, which expects to make an adjustment to its various trusts to help itself out of its present difficulties. Will the Bill contain a safeguard to ensure that the purposes of trusts will not be altered in such a way as to substitute private trust funds for public funding--which I am sure he agrees is the basis on which health boards ought to be funded?
Column 159
Mr. Rifkind : I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and if he looks at clause 9 he will see that that procedure for reorganising the expenditure of the trust without the court's approval applies only to trusts with an annual income of not more than £5,000. We are talking about small trusts and trusts with a more substantial financial establishment, which continue to require the approval of the courts if they wish to depart from the original purposes of the trust. Therefore, I do not think that in practice the considerations to which the hon. Gentleman referred are likely to be affected in any significant way by the provision.I trust that I have said sufficient to outline the broad purposes of part I of the Bill. It has been designed to meet the particular needs and circumstances in Scotland and to take account of concerns expressed not least by the charities themselves.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : The Secretary of State will be aware that the word "charity" has a much broader definition under the law of Scotland than it enjoys under the law of England and Wales. It seems to me that a consequence of clause 2, as proposed, is that if, for example, the trustees of a local hall committee in a small community were to seek to raise money, describing what they were doing as being for charity, because that organisation was not a recognised body, those trustees would be guilty of a criminal offence. Does not the Secretary of State feel that that is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which thus far does not appear to have caused much difficulty?
Mr. Rifkind : I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised to consult the charities, which believe that the provisions are highly desirable. We are concerned about any organisation, large or small, which presents itself to the public as an organisation with charitable purposes, which may be seeking the tax advantages that go with charitable status and which seeks to persuade the public to divest themselves of certain resources to help the objects of the charity. The provisions are applied to protect the public from unscrupulous organisations. I believe that all responsible organisations will be only too happy to welcome the provisions, as indeed those representing charities have already done.
Mr. Foulkes : I want to mention another issue that relates to part I of the Bill, before the Secretary of State moves on. He will be aware that in Scotland, especially in Edinburgh, there are several trusts, such as the George Heriot Trust and the George Watson Education Board, among others, which run private schools. What provisions of this part of the Bill will be applicable to those organisations?
Mr. Rifkind : In so far as those are charitable trusts that currently receive tax benefits recognised by the Inland Revenue, the Bill applies in its entirety to them, in the same way as it would to any other charity.
Part II of the Bill deals with legal services. This part of the Bill is based on the conclusions reached after considering responses to the two consultation papers : "The Practice of the Solicitor Profession in Scotland", and "The Legal Profession in Scotland". As I emphasised in that statement, the fundamental objective of the reforms is, within the Scottish legal tradition, to increase choice for the client of legal services, while at the same time preserving and, where possible,
Column 160
improving, consumer protection mechanisms. The main areas for increased choice are conveyancing and executry work and representation in litigation. Hon. Members will be aware that a number of amendments were made in another place that have strengthened the provisions in part II, which deal with protection of the clients of conveyancing and executry practitioners. I am determined that any new providers of legal services will compete with solicitors on a fair basis, and that clients will enjoy no less protection than that offered by solicitors.As the House would expect, I have attached importance to the distinctive Scottish legal system, and I believe that the provisions fully reflect that. For example, the mechanisms to allow solicitors to qualify for rights in the Supreme Courts build both on existing rights in the sheriff courts and on the essential requirements for practice as an advocate.
The establishment of a unitary regulatory body, the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, to oversee the registration and regulation of conveyancing and executry practitioners, has been widely welcomed. The board will, after an initial period, become self-financing and will fund its activities from the fees that it charges to those registered with it. The board will be an independent body charged with certain statutory functions. Its functions will apply to a very wide range of practitioners, from sole practitioners to large institutions, and it will require to establish its own distinct identity without showing bias towards any one group. Contrary to what some have attempted to suggest, this part of the Bill does not allow just anyone to undertake conveyancing work. Prospective practitioners will have to comply with stringent registration requirements, to be set out in regulations. Once registered, a conveyancing practitioner will be bound to comply with a code of conduct and practice, also to be prescribed in regulations. Finally, disciplinary sanctions are available against those who fail to comply, the deterrent effect of which will be at least as great as that of the sanctions attaching to solicitors. The board's powers will enable it to revoke registration if necessary.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he has not brought forward a code of conduct, which could be included within the primary legislation and which would be much more acceptable to the legal profession?
Mr. Rifkind : Certainly there are some matters that require statutory force, but I should be reluctant to include them in primary legislation because, by its very nature that would require further primary legislation if any subsequent amendment or improvement were required. Therefore, while it would be appropriate to spell out what is proposed and intended, the profession would welcome the flexibility implied by secondary legislation in respect of any future improvements in the light of subsequent experience.
It has been suggested--
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : Before we leave the subject of conveyancing, has the Secretary of State any plans to study surveyors and the inadequacies of the service that they provide?
Mr. Rifkind : I should be interested to hear what the hon. Lady has to suggest. I have expressed views in the
Column 161
past about certain aspects of surveying as it affects house purchase in Scotland. I look forward to the hon. Lady's comments on that subject, which we shall study in some detail.It has been suggested that there is no demand for the changes to the provision of conveyancing services in Scotland. Attention has been drawn to the high levels of customer satisfaction that opinion surveys have revealed for conveyancing work undertaken by solicitors. I readily accept that the solicitors' profession in Scotland provides an extremely high standard of service, and has much of which it can be proud. Whether or not other conveyancing practitioners can offer a service as attractive as that provided by solicitors is something that the public should be able to ascertain for themselves. It is slightly misleading to speak of breaking a monopoly on conveyancing services. Although solicitors, in every practical sense, have had a monopoly, that is the result of the reservation to solicitors of the right to charge for undertaking a relatively small part of the conveyancing transaction. That restriction makes it an offence for persons other than solicitors to draw or prepare the conveyancing deed if they are doing it for a fee.
Under current law it is theoretically possible, therefore, for a person to conclude missives and do everything else involved in a conveyancing transaction, save preparing the actual deed. Nevertheless, the narrow legal restriction has had the wider practical effect of reserving almost all conveyancing business to solicitors. I readily grant that there is a public interest in the quality and accuracy of our registers of deeds and titles to land. That is one reason why it would be wrong to allow simply anyone to undertake conveyancing, but it is not sensible or historically accurate to assert that that restriction is or was designed to perform other functions such as guaranteeing independent advice for house buyers. While that may be one consequence in the existing framework within which conveyancing services are offered, the Government do not believe in forcing clients to use a single set of service providers when others could offer a competent service within a framework which provides adequate customer protection.
Building societies or others will be required to employ suitably qualified persons to provide interviews with each prospective client and to oversee every conveyancing transaction. A "suitably qualified person", in this instance, means either a solicitor or, in due course, a qualified conveyancer. Solicitors who join the employ of, say a building society do not thereby lose any of their competence in conveyancing. I am firmly of the view that all those qualified and capable of offering conveyancing services should be able to do so, subject of course to rigorous consumer safeguards. Part II of the Bill satisfies that objective, and provides clients with greater choice, while maintaining and sometimes enhancing existing safeguards.
I have been concerned throughout the Bill to ensure that a level playing field is established between solicitors and other providers of legal services-- [Interruption.] The phrase has regular contemporary currency and I knew that it would be clear to the House exactly what I intended to convey.
I am particularly concerned that there is no threat to the network of rural solicitors' offices. A number of measures,
Column 162
both in the Bill and in regulations to be prescribed in future, will serve to prevent unfair competition and thus diminishing the availability of legal services in rural areas. Those measures include the requirement, to be included in regulations made under clause 15, that all conveyancing practitioners offer all prospective clients an interview with a suitably qualified person, either close to the property being conveyed or close to the client's home or place of work. It will prevent anyone from offering conveyancing services from his head office without establishing face-to-face contact between the conveyancer and the client.Such regulations will also require conveyancing practitioners to price each service separately. To support the measures, clause 81 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill makes it an offence for a provider of lending services to make any loan conditional on the purchase of another service or to make any service available only if the client takes out a loan.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : As the Bill allows anybody to go into partnership with a licensed or qualified conveyancer, why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that only building societies, banks and institutions of that nature will take advantage of the Bill? If it is on a level playing field, why could not hairdressers say, "While you are having your hair cut, why not arrange to buy your house?"?
Mr. Rifkind : That may be a theoretical possibility, if those people are able to meet the statutory requirements. Whether they would be likely to have much success in attracting clients on that basis is at the least doubtful.
The measures should serve to prevent any market dominance by conveyancing practitioners that is detri-mental to the availability of legal services in rural areas. If any further fine tuning appears necessary in that context, we shall be receptive to suggestions. Moreover, my Department has been undertaking research into the geographic availability of legal services throughout Scotland, so that it will be possible in future to ascertain whether or not increased competition has led to any diminution in the availability of legal services, particularly in rural areas. That is something, therefore, which the Government are keeping under review because, while I do not believe that the proposals relating to conveyancing in the Bill will adversely affect rural solicitors, I consider it to be an important enough issue to merit vigilance.
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : How long will that review take? By the time it is completed, all the lawyers' practices in rural areas might be closed.
Mr. Rifkind : We are publishing this week a document on the current availability of solicitors' offices in various parts of Scotland, including the rural areas. We intend to monitor on an on-going basis any changes in that provision over the next few months and years.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Obviously, that is a matter of great concern to individuals such as myself. How will the Secretary of State ensure that, in the interim, facilities are available in rural areas? Conveyancing may represent the bread-and-butter money of rural practices and rural solicitors may have built up expertise in farming or fishing law, which is of great importance to individuals in my constituency. What will happen if there is a diminution of
Column 163
services during that period? Will my fishermen and farmers be expected to travel to multi-disciplinary practices in Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow, or will the Minister ensure that facilities remain available to them in the interim period? Mr. Rifkind : It is reasonable to conclude that, as long as there is a demand for solicitors' services in the towns in the hon. Lady's constituency, solicitors will be only too happy to provide those services. The hon. Lady should have the confidence that I certainly have in members of the legal profession in her constituency continuing to attract members of the public to use the services that they provide. I remember when it was proposed to take undefended divorces from the Faculty of Advocates and allow those matters to be dealt with in the sheriff court. Many members of the faculty, including myself, were worried whether that would lead to the destruction of the Faculty of Advocates. In practice, over the period that has elapsed since then, there are virtually double the number of advocates working in Scotland doing other forms of work.Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm what he said earlier, that reasoned amendments to ensure the survival of rural practices and rural solicitors would be received kindly by the Government, who would co-operate if possible? Was that the substance of what he was saying?
Mr. Rifkind : Naturally, we are anxious to ensure that the end of one restrictive practice does not lead to the creation of another. That means that there must be an opportunity for fair competition between solicitors' practices and building societies or banks that may employ solicitors or licensed conveyancers to do conveyancing work. I confirm that we shall consider in a positive light constructive and sensible proposals to ensure that that is achieved.
Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) : I have listened most carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has just confessed that he is a member of the Faculty of Advocates, and I should like to offer him some free advice. Perhaps he should have mentioned that when he opened the debate, if not as a declared interest, certainly as a moral declared interest.
| Next Section
| Home Page |