| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today for two reasons. First, it demonstrates continuity in the Government's policy by moving from phase 1 to phase 2 of the initiative. Secondly, it supplies an excellent example of where the Government are prepared to put investment into joint ventures with the many others whom he mentioned. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be an encouragement to people in coalfield communities and elsewhere, and an example of what can be done?
Mr. Hunt : We have indeed demonstrated that there is life after coal. The valleys have performed extremely well over many years in supplying much-needed coal for the economy. Now, as the economy changes, the valleys have accepted the challenge of change. They have done so in a marvellous way, to a large extent in response to the extremely good initiative of my predecessor, Lord Walker. It has been an example to everyone. Some Opposition Members shout across the Chamber from time to time, but I know that in private they acknowledge that the programme for the valleys has been a remarkable success.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Does the Secretary of State agree that his principal purpose today has been to quarry away at the adjective mine and claim the mantle of his predecessor as Wales' principal but most vacuous rant boy? Does he agree that what he has offered today over five years is a tenth of the money that his Government lost in a single day on Black Wednesday? Why does not he leave aside the discredited figures on employment and
Column 522
unemployment and look to every other indicator of poverty in Wales such as personal income per head, family income and low wages? He would find that, in relative and real terms, Wales had lost and is still losing. The valleys of Wales are still the capital of lowest wages and highest exploitation of our workers.Mr. Hunt : I am increasingly disenchanted with Opposition Members talking down Wales and the valleys. If they want to be misery merchants, they may, but I do not intend to join them.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that jobs in coal mining in the European Community have fallen from 1.86 million to 260,000? Should not the valleys initiative be a model for the rest of Europe? My right hon. Friend has already said that he is advising parts of Germany, but are there not other ways in which the model could be promoted in the European Community and indeed, the United States, where jobs in coal mining are also being lost?
Mr. Hunt : I completely agree. We are seeing the decline of coal mining as an industry throughout the world. In Wales, we demonstrate that there is a way, so long as people accept the challenge of change. I believe that, in five years, people will see a programme which over 10 years has transformed the dereliction of the past into vibrant, growing communities of the future.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I inquire of the Minister who produced the flatulent statement this afternoon whether the additionality rule has been abandoned for the valleys project. If that is the case, will the additionality rule, which has been applied rigidly throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, be abandoned, for example, in Yorkshire and other coalfield areas?
Mr. Hunt : I do not know why the hon. Gentleman referred to my statement as flatulent. I suppose it is because he is an expert on the matter. I speak for the whole of the United Kingdom when I demonstrate to the European Commission that European funds are genuinely additional. They enable programmes to take place in the valleys and elsewhere in the United Kingdom which would not take place without the support of the EC.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : Does the Secretary of State recognise that his comments were insulting when he expressed surprise at the idea that Welsh communities can have vision and purpose for their own future? Does he recognise that the Welsh communities have always had vision and purpose, and that they require a Secretary of State who places confidence in them and their elected representatives in pursuing that vision and purpose?
Will the right hon. Gentleman set aside the complacency which he showed earlier when he referred to unemployment as if it was disappearing? Does he recognise the devastation that unemployment causes to communities throughout Wales? Hope has been stolen from a whole generation of young people by the threat of unemployment. Will he tell us a simple target that he has set for providing training opportunities and real jobs for young people in those communities?
Mr. Hunt : Again, I am pretty depressed when I hear Opposition Members talk the area down and talk about "a
Column 523
whole generation" losing hope. I hope that he recognises that, since 1979, the Conservative Government have picked up the misery which the Labour party left by closing coal mines. We inherited a country in which slag heaps had not been removed and mining communities were dispirited because new jobs had not been provided. We breathed new life into Wales and the valleys. It is about time that Opposition Members began to recognise that.Column 524
Points of Order
5.4 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely accepted your suggestion this afternoon that my tardy arrival at business questions meant that I had missed the statement and, therefore, would not be called. I accepted that without equivocation, as you know. However, it caused me concern when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who speaks for the Liberal party, arrived halfway through the Welsh statement and was called. I hope that there is no discrimination between tinpot members of the Liberal party who reckon to be Front-Bench spokesmen and other Back Benchers. The same rules should apply to everyone.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you accept that the reason why I was a little late for the statement was that you took the sensible decision not to call the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), which meant that business questions lasted for considerably less time than I had anticipated?
Madam Speaker : Perhaps I might respond to the original point of order. I say seriously to the House that it is not my intention to call Members to question a statement when they have not heard that statement. I think that I have the support of the House on that, including the support of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
It is true that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was one minute late for the statement. He was kind enough to send his Whip post haste to my Chair to explain why he was late. I will not repeat that explanation to the House.
BILL PRESENTED
Non-Domestic Rating (No.
2)
Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. John Redwood and Mr. Robin Squire, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to non- domestic rating for the period beginning with 1st April 1993 and ending with 31st March 1995 ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
Column 525
Orders of the Day
Adjournment (Easter)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn until Wednesday 14th April and, at its rising on Friday 30th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 4th May.-- [Mr. Wood.]
5.7 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : The point of an Adjournment debate is to give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to seek redress of grievance before the House adjourns. That is the purpose of my speech. When I made arrangements to speak in the debate I did so on the assumption that the debate would immediately follow business questions. I did not anticipate that there would be two lengthy statements. I have an engagement later this evening so, if the length of the debate is such that I cannot be present for the reply, I apologise to both the Chair and the Leader of the House. As I intend to raise personal cases, it was my wish to hear the response.
The redress of grievance is one of the principal roles of the House. Seeking redress of grievance is one of the principal roles of a Member of Parliament. My great worry is that, because ministerial responsibility is being hived away to agencies not accountable to the House, I am unable to obtain redress on several extremely serious issues that relate to my constituents. Ministers do not reply to my letters. The agencies to which they refer me do not reply to my letters. When Ministers do not reply and I table questions seeking a reply, Ministers do not answer the questions within a reasonable period. When Ministers do not reply to my letters for three months and I then write to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister does not reply to my letters, other than to acknowledge them and say that he will reply later. All of this I regard as a deliberate destruction of the proper accountability of Ministers to this House of Commons. I want to describe the kind of issues relating to ordinary people seeking to live decent orderly lives which Ministers in this Government appear simply not to care about, because they will not respond.
For example, there is a Mrs. A--I will in no case give the full name of the person concerned, although I will supply it if necessary to the Leader of the House, together with the address--of Longsight, who made an applicahim on 14 December 1992 ; he did not reply to that letter. I wrote to him on 25 February 1993 ; he did not reply to that letter, written now more than five weeks ago. Mrs. A's mobility allowance application, which has now been unsolved for a year, remains unsettled.
Let us take the case of Mrs. J of Fallowfield in my constituency. She made a claim for disability living allowance. The Benefits Agency lost her claim. I have been in repeated correspondence with the Secretary of State for Social Security about that claim. I wrote to him on 20 January, 25 February and 26 March. He has replied to none of my letters about the claim, which has been outstanding for many months.
Let me refer to a claim by Mr. W of Levenshulme, which appeared to relate to unemployment benefit. I wrote
Column 526
to the Secretary of State for Employment in November of last year about this case. The Department of Employment passed it to the Department of Social Security. A junior Minister in the Department of Social Security forwarded it to an agency. We now have a situation in which I have written three times to the Secretary of State for Social Security--on 18 January, 19 February and now again. I have received no reply to any of my letters about a case which has been going on since November of last year and which is unsolved.Then we have the case of Miss H of Levenshulme in my constituency. There again, she applied for disability living allowance last November. When the Benefits Agency received her application they sent her a notification, which they admit was sent to the wrong address. I wrote to the Secretary of State about it on 22 January, again on 25 February and again on 26 March. I have had replies from the Secretary of State to none of my letters.
Let us take the case of Mr. T of Gorton relating to his wife. She made an application for maternity payment in July of last year. A mess has been made of her application and it has still not been sorted out nine months later. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 25 January, 25 February and 26 March. The Secretary of State has replied to none of my letters.
Then there is the case of Mr. G of Gorton. In this case, there were two applications. There was an application for attendance allowance in August 1991. This was converted by the Department into an application for disability living allowance. That claim, 20 months later, is not yet settled. An application for mobility allowance was made in February 1992-- 14 months ago. There was a delay in passing on the claim. I wrote to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 March ; more than three weeks later, all I have had from the Prime Minister is an acknowledgement.
Appalling mistakes have been acknowledged by the Benefits Agency with regard to this claim. It admitted, with regard to the claim for attendance allowance, that
"due to a clerical error"
a decision made in May 1992 was not notified to the person concerned until August 1992.
In the case of the second claim, for mobility allowance, the lady concerned was examined by a doctor in March 1992, but the claim was not passed on to the agency until February 1993--11 months between the two processes--and, as a result, my constituent was without remedy for that period.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Is it not true that in some of the tragic cases so familiar to hon. Members--certainly I get told about exactly similar situations--there are occasions when, tragically, the individual concerned dies before the matter is resolved, causing considerable heartache to the family and not helping the person who should have been getting the assistance?
Mr. Kaufman : I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that it enters into the minds of the Ministers responsible--I shall deal in a moment with cases relating to the Secretary of State for Health--that human beings are involved in this. The letter arrives on the Secretary of State's desk, if it gets that far ; it is then passed on to an agency and, although I repeatedly write to the Secretary of State and describe some of the physical suffering that is being endured, the Secretary of State does not appear to be able to empathise with a fellow human being less
Column 527
fortunately placed than he or she, who is suffering, often in great pain and in the most humiliating circumstances. I shall describe such a case in a moment.Let me take the case of Mr. M of Levenshulme. He applied for disability living allowance in November 1992. His application has not yet been decided. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 8 January, 21 January and 21 February. He has replied to none of my letters. I tabled a question asking him to reply to my letters ; he has not replied to the question either.
I will cite a human case which I regard as, in its way,the saddest of those that I have described. It concerns a constituent of mine, Mr. B, of Rusholme in my constituency, and I will read to the House part of his letter. He says :
"My daughter learned of the highlighted attached vacancies last weekend".
That was an advertisement by the Benefits Agency in the local press, which read :
"The Benefits Agency anticipates a number of vacancies for Administrative Assistants in its District Offices at Wythenshawe and Rusholme
We intend to make sure that there is equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all".
And it said :
"Application forms can be obtained from the local job centre. Completed forms should be received no later than 26.3.93". My constituent told me that his daughter went to the Rusholme jobcentre on 22 March--that was four days before the expiry of the period for receipt of forms--
"to obtain an application form as per the advert. She was told there were no forms left. When she asked where she could obtain one she was told she couldn't ( that's it').
When she told me this I couldn't believe it and went there myself. I was told the same thing. I telephoned the Benefits Agency and they confirmed that only a limited number of forms were printed. I do not know how they were disseminated. It seems grossly unfair for an employer to behave like this to the unemployed."
In my constituency, unemployment is 18 per cent. overall, and very much higher among young people. The letter continues :
"For them to purport to intend to make sure that there is equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all' as an Equal Opportunity employer is a joke. The advert is misleading, untruthful and dishonest. It is depressing enough to be unemployed without the added demoralisation of being denied the right to apply for a job in accordance with the terms of its advertisement within its closing date."
That was a letter I received this week about the conduct of a Government Department. I have written to the Secretary of State about it, but I have not yet received a reply. I shall be extremely surprised if I get a reply and utterly astounded if I get a satisfactory one.
Let me draw attention to two outstanding cases relating to health matters. My constituent, Mrs. M of Fallowfield, had a kidney transplant which failed. As a result, she has to wear--and she came to see me with this--a 14 in wide permanent back wrapped around her. That is how she lives her life. She could be helped if she were given a disconnect ambulatory peritoneal dialysis device which should be available under the national health service. However, because of Government restriction of finance, there is a waiting list and she has to wait for it.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health saying that I would like her to meet my constituent so that she could see how she had to live. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Health could begin to place herself
Column 528
in the position of a woman who has to go around like that all her life and will continue having to do so unless the treatment is provided to her by the national health service.Whenever I have written to the Secretary of State about this matter, she has simply passed my letters on to some agency and when the woman who is suffering in that way wrote to the Secretary of State, she never received a reply. The Secretary of State wrote to me saying that the letter had been lost. That is how the Secretary of State is earning her very large salary.
Let us take the case of Mr. H of Levenshulme who had a prostate operation that was unsuccessful. His consultant told him that it could be of benefit to him if he had a minor operation in which he would be fitted with an artificial urinary sphincter. I wrote to the consultant to find out whether such treatment would be of assistance to my constituent, and the consultant replied in a long letter explaining the situation. He wrote :
"There is no physical contra-indication to such a device being used in Mr. H's case, but yet again I am afraid we find ourselves embroiled in the fiscal issues. With cost improvement programmes and other financial restrictions, together with no prosthetics budget, I simply do not have the money to be able to fund the £3,000 or so that would be necessary for this device I quite understand that he has no means to be able to purchase this prosthesis and I do not really think that it is reasonable that he should be expected to do so I would be extremely grateful for any help that you might be able to give me which would be beneficial to your constituent."
The consultant urologist wrote that such a device could help my constituent, that he would like to fit it, but he did not have the money for it and he asked me whether I could help get the money for it.
I have been in constant correspondence with the Secretary of State for Health since then. She simply passes my letters on to the regional health authority. The last time I wrote to her was on 11 March, which is getting on for a month ago. She has not replied to my letters. I wonder whether she can began to imagine the life that my constituent is living, in pain, discomfort and great inconvenience due to the way that she is failing to administer a satisfactory national health service. She is failing even to respond to the letters that I have sent her about my constituent.
I have chosen just a handful of letters from a file of 400 current cases. I could send the Leader of the House many more. They all relate to two aspects : first, human cases are no longer being dealt with by Ministers but are being shuffled off to agencies in buck passing and, secondly, that the agencies themselves do not and need not respond, because they are completely unaccountable to me or to the House. The Leader of the House is shaking his head. If they are accountable, why do they not reply to my letters and get something done, as my constituents have been suffering for many months? I say again what I have said on several occasions and will continue saying. I will not relent until something is done about it. The way in which the Government are hiving off human concerns to agencies which have no obligation to reply, even to Members of Parliament, is a destruction of democracy through the destruction of accountability of Ministers to the House. That is what Ministers are for. Ministers are there not only to consider high policy such as Bosnia but to examine cases involving individual human beings. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) does not believe that, he is not fit to represent his constituents.
Column 529
Every individual citizen of our democracy has a right to have his or her grievance considered by a Minister. These agencies do not respond satisfactorily ; they do not deal with cases sufficiently. As I have said before, in my view, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency should be dismissed. If Ministers do not do their job properly, they should be dismissed, too.5.27 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale) : I usually find the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) an agreeable companion when I travel north with him--except when he talks politics, so we do not talk politics very often. He was a Minister during the last Labour Government. That was a long time ago and one has to have a good memory to remember those days. When we wrote then as Members of Parliament to him as a Minister, he could not possibly have seen every letter that was sent to him.
Mr. Kaufman : The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) should know that when I was appointed to the Department of the Environment in 1974, the first thing I said to my officials was that I wanted to see every letter and that no letter could be sent until a draft had been put before me and I had either approved or changed the letter. I replied to every Member of Parliament of whatever party who wrote to me. The hon. Gentleman, who is an agreeable companion when he is not talking rubbish, is wrong. I had that responsibility, although it was long ago, and during my five years in Government I replied on individual cases to every Member of Parliament who wrote to me.
Sir Fergus Montgomery : Of course, the right hon. Gentleman used his usual charm when he said that I was talking rubbish. I maintain that it must be difficult for some Ministers, particularly those who receive an enormous amount of correspondence, to respond to every letter. I am sure that it is impossible for the Secretary of State for Health, which is an emotive issue, to read every letter she receives. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps unfair to my right hon. Friend on that score.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow but I had been about to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)--not in an attempt to answer him, which would be improper, in the circumstances until I have an opportunity to speak, but because he courteously informed me that he might not be here when I speak--to place on record that I would be grateful if he would make sure that I have the identifying details of all the cases that he mentioned. I cannot comment on the cases off the cuff, but without that information I cannot get anything done about them.
Sir Fergus Montgomery : I make no apology at all for raising again what I regard as the unsatisfactory hospital provision in my constituency. Those who are regular attenders of this debate will be aware that this sad saga has been going on for years and years. In June 1980, which was a long time ago, I had an Adjournment debate on the need for a new district
Column 530
hospital. I was told then that a decision would be reached with all possible speed, but I heard nothing for a year. In June 1981, I went to see the then Minister and in October 1981 the scheme was accepted by the Department and the regional health authority. My constituents thought that at long last we were on our way and would have the district hospital that we had been promised for many years. In April 1983, in a formal review of capital schemes, the regional health authority could not guarantee a place in the programme, and the previous acceptance of a start in 1987-88 was not confirmed. In October 1983 we were told that we were provisionally in the programme for the 1988 financial year and that the Treasury--this is the important thing--had approved the purchase of the site.In September 1984 our hopes of a district hospital were dashed for ever. There was enormous anger and dismay in my constituency that something which we had been promised for so long had suddenly disappeared. But hope springs eternal, and we had fresh hope that, instead of getting a district hospital, we would at least get a community hospital in our area. This was confirmed by the regional health authority in May 1988 and a suitable site was earmarked. The community hospital was to comprise 24 beds and 24 day places for the elderly mentally infirm, 48 beds and 30 day places for the elderly, two 25 place mental illness day units, four out-patient clinic suites, two radiodiagnostic rooms, 10 investigation beds and one small pathology laboratory. Such a hospital would have filled a desperate need in my constituency because, as I am sure that most hon. Members will agree, the problem of an aging population is a very serious one.
I have no complaint against Trafford health authority because I think that it is as angry as I am. It even offered to fund 39 per cent. of the capital cost by means of disposable proceeds plus a large cash injection. I thought --and I am sure that it thought--that such a commitment would impress the regional health authority. How wrong can one get? As time has gone on, I have wondered more and more what we have to do to impress the regional health authority. Last year our community hospital was included in a shortlist of six projects for consideration by the regional health authority, but in April 1992 we were told that our community hospital was not in the regional capital programme. What I want to know is why Trafford is given such a low priority by the regional health authority.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : It is due to my hon. Friend's representation.
Sir Fergus Montgomery : My hon. Friend could well be right. However, at the previous election my majority went up, for which I am very grateful.
Since 1980, we have been ranked bottom in the region in terms of capital investment per resident. On capital schemes since 1980, Trafford is the only district which has not had a large capital project. Again I ask why.
Mr. Kaufman : Because Trafford is under Tory control.
Sir Fergus Montgomery : The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Trafford is under Tory control. I note that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is to wind up this debate. He is my pair, and I must warn him always to say nice things about me or else I shall pair
Column 531
with someone else. I also warn him that, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I will put him on a Committee that will sit for a long time.Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : The hon. Gentleman should consider the laws of supply and demand a little more carefully than he seems to be doing.
Sir Fergus Montgomery : I will heed what my pair has said. When we were unsuccessful last year, we did get a ray of hope : we were told that there was a long-standing practice of the regional health authority that schemes which were shortlisted one year, if unsuccessful, would be shortlisted and approved the year after. So yet another bid was made. No one can claim that Trafford health authority is not persistent. On 9 March of this year, a presentation was made to members of the regional health authority. We were told that we were on a shortlist of four. On 22 March, the regional health authority papers were received, which recommended that all four schemes should proceed. On 23 March, the regional health authority, without a vote, approved the other three schemes and rejected the south Trafford community hospital. That decision has caused great anger in my constituency.
I am told that there is to be a site visit by regional health authority officers later this month. I urge my right hon. Friend to pass on my views to the Secretary of State for Health and to ask her to do some plain talking to the regional health authority. I want the scheme to be given a firm commitment, and I shall raise the issue at every opportunity until I succeed. I am asking not for preferential treatment, but for a fair deal for the people of my constituency. I wish to deal next with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the need to amend it. The legislation was brought in with the best of intentions, but it is seriously flawed. I get depressed when I see magistrates who have served for years and been of great public service resigning because they feel that they cannot cope with the job that they have to do.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention particularly to juvenile offenders and to the front page of today's edition of the Daily Mail , which makes harrowing reading. It reports the case of a 14-year-old boy, branded an outlaw by a judge, who had his friends laughing and cheering when he was once more placed under the supervision of a council which has admitted that it cannot contain him. Before yesterday's appearance, he had been convicted 42 times in two years. It is worth noting that the magistrate is quoted as saying : "We feel very strongly, as does the public, that these offences warrant a custodial sentence However, our hands are tied" under the new Act. The Northumbria police federation spokesman said :
"Our officers are very, very frustrated and annoyed that the Criminal Justice Act means nothing can be done with persistent offenders of this age.
It is a complete waste of time. We have arrested this boy more times than we care to count. Sometimes he's back on the streets quicker than the officers who arrested him".
Action is desperately needed in cases of that kind.
The seriousness of the situation has been brought home to me recently. In my constituency we have the Beechmount children's home, which is now regarded as unsuitable because it does not comply with the conditions imposed under the Children Act 1989. The council is
Column 532
therefore planning two new eight-bedded children's homes as a replacement. It has been decided that one of the homes will be located in my constituency.The site was chosen in June 1992, and that is when the council should have consulted local residents to make clear to them what was happening and to listen to their views, but it was only recently, when the planning application came up, that the storm broke in the area. There have been massive protests from residents and a packed public meeting was addressed by the chairman of the social services committee and officers from the social services department. At the end of it all, there was a feeling among local residents that their views had not been listened to and that the council had made up its mind. It is the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, where everyone says, "Yes, we must have such places", but nobody wants them in their district. The residents in that area feel genuine anger at the lack of consultation and believe that their views have been disregarded. There is great anxiety that juvenile delinquents on remand could be placed in that institution. It is imperative that people should know exactly what changes in the Criminal Justice Act are envisaged and what is to be done to ensure that dangerous and persistent young offenders are placed in secure accommodation.
Both the issues that I have raised today are of great importance to my constituents. Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I should like an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will raise my strong concerns with the Ministers responsible. 5.41 pm
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : I wish to raise an issue of urgent importance. It is the time of year when university students are entering the final part of their degree courses and are thinking of making the transition from obtaining academic qualifications to obtaining professional qualifications. It is crucial for the Government to address the discrimination that occurs when young people try to qualify as practising lawyers, either barristers or solicitors.
If we want a profession and judiciary that reflect the society in which we live and in which the judiciary sits in judgment, we must guarantee that there are no unjust hurdles or obstacles for anyone with ability and determination to qualify for those professions. Sadly, financial pressures on local education authorities--which, for many of them, includes capping-- result in discrimination against potential trainee lawyers on the grounds of their social status, which often coincides with discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin.
That discrimination and the barriers against entry to the profession have increased disturbingly in recent years. For someone from a working-class or poorer family, the chances of entering university are always diminished-- any statistics on entry to further education demonstrate that. But the chances of qualifying as a barrister or solicitor are much smaller for those who are not affluent, who have many more hurdles to jump.
One reason for the problem is that in order to become a practising solicitor it is usual--if not absolutely necessary--to obtain a university degree, not exclusively in law. Mandatory grants from the local authority are available for that degree. Having obtained that university degree, a prospective solicitor needs to complete a one-year course to gain a final professional qualification.
Column 533
It is only then that the prospective lawyer can begin the two years of practical training. The grant for the tuition for the professional examination to become a lawyer is discretionary, not mandatory. A trainee lawyer cannot receive a mandatory grant for that professional examination, without which a lawyer's training is incomplete. Without that final qualification, the degree for which students are about to sit their finals is as useless as a car with one wheel missing. The matter is urgent ; students need an announcement now as they need to be able to plan their transition and complete their professional qualifications.The pressure on local education authorities, including the pressure of capping, is enormous. It means that in the poorest parts of Britain discretionary grants have virtually run out. I am making a specific case for the profession as I want to keep my speech relatively narrow, but the case has a wider application. Discretionary grants have run out throughout much of the country. There is a clear financial discrimination against people who want to enter the law. The Government should make mandatory grants--subject to capital and income tests--available for the final part of the professional examinations.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : I agree that there is an enormous problem, which the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight. Has he considered whether the Bar Council, the Law Society or the profession generally could make such provision? Ultimately, law chambers, professional firms and the profession generally will benefit from students gaining such qualifications. I am not sure whether it is possible for local education authorities to bear that burden now and perhaps we should look elsewhere.
Mr. Fraser : I shall come to that issue, but I want to be fairly brief.
The matter is urgent as, with the recession, many firms, including big city solicitors and those normally deemed to be affluent, are not investing money in training schemes. In fact, they are often making redundancy payments to lawyers as a consequence of the recession. There is a case for a training board for solicitors. There are training boards in many other professions, trades and skills. However, the Government are winding up training boards, rather than establishing them.
A distinction can be made between the legal profession and some other professions. If someone wants to become an architect, he or she can, I understand, receive a mandatory grant to cover all the necessary academic training needed to qualify as an architect. That is certainly true in the teaching profession, where students receive grants for gaining the degree of Bachelor of Education. They may then begin their vocational training without the interregnum period of one year when they have to manage on their own if they cannot receive a discretionary grant from their local authority.
I am not saying that there is malicious discrimination, but there is discrimination on the grounds of people's social or ethnic status which affects those with working-class backgrounds. I made inquiries of a number of London boroughs, many of which had large black populations and were some of the poorest boroughs, not just in London, but throughout the country.
| Next Section
| Home Page |