| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Solicitors (Supervision)
35. Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans his Department has to review the supervision of solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [18013]
Mr. Hoon: The Department has no current plans to review the arrangements for handling complaints against solicitors. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was established by the Law Society in September 1996 in response to public concern that the Solicitors Complaints Bureau was not sufficiently responsive to the needs of lay clients. I agree with the legal services ombudsman's last annual report, published in June 1997, which said that it will take two to three years before the office can be properly judged by results.
Mr. Hughes: I hope that during the next two to three years the Minister will not simply wait and see what happens. He must be aware that there is huge dissatisfaction with the performance of many solicitors. A Consumers Association report revealed widespread incompetence. Many of us have constituents who complain, with justification, that either they are not dealt with properly or they get very poor remedies. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in this Parliament the Government will seriously consider establishing an independent inspectorate of legal services so that we can end the policing of solicitors by solicitors, headed by another solicitor?
Mr. Hoon: I am well aware that there is huge dissatisfaction with the way in which the Solicitors Complaints Bureau operated. It was felt to be doing a poor job and, as a Back Bencher, I entirely accepted that criticism. It always seemed to me that the Solicitors Complaints Bureau was finding reasons for not investigating cases instead of investigating them, but when a completely new body has been set up in a completely new way, I think it right that it should have the chance to prove that it can deal satisfactorily with complaints against solicitors. The Department will review the body's performance; when it publishes its first annual report, as it is due to do shortly, we will investigate to ensure that it reflects reality.
Mr. Tipping: Does my hon. Friend accept that what is proposed is merely the son of the Solicitors Complaints
Bureau and that there is widespread discontent with the way the system operates? After he examines the annual report, will he take the time to talk to the Law Society and others to ensure that a scheme that really meets the needs of consumers is put in place?
Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the criticism; it has largely been levelled in the past against the SCB. There will be some differences, however. Under the new system, the adjudication and appeals committee will be replaced by two new standing committees. There will be a client relations committee, with a lay majority, and a professional regulation committee, with a professional majority. That should provide a different approach.
I have stated my profound dissatisfaction with the way the Solicitors Complaints Bureau operated; we want a significant improvement in the way the office operates.
Magistrates Courts (Lancashire)
36. Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement about the future of magistrates courts in Lancashire. [18014]
Mr. Hoon: The Lancashire magistrates courts committee continues to be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts. The Department has no proposals in respect of magistrates courts in Lancashire.
Mr. Pickthall: Will my hon. Friend give me his thinking on two aspects? First, in any reconfiguration of the Lancashire courts, will he expect the court areas to be co-terminous with police areas? Secondly, what is his attitude to mini private finance initiative schemes for the refurbishment of existing buildings instead of the building of brand new ones?
Mr. Hoon: Coterminosity is a matter for the local magistrates courts committee, although I recently told the House that we would welcome any voluntary proposals to bring it about. We see real advantages in consistent
boundaries for police authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and magistrates courts committees, and real benefits for the justice system in such consistency.A number of PFI schemes have already attracted tremendous interest from the private sector. They will allow us to build the new magistrates courts that are desperately needed. I have every expectation that they will be successful.
Magistrates
37. Helen Jones: What steps he intends to take to ensure that each magistrates bench is representative of the community it serves. [18016]
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor directs his advisory committees to attract candidates for the lay magistracy from a broad spectrum of the community. To assist them, my right hon. and learned Friend has commissioned research into how best to undertake this task.
Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In Warrington, only 36 per cent. of members of the Bench come from the Warrington, North constituency; most of the others come from Warrington, South. Many of them live as far away as Shropshire and Crosby. The central areas of Warrington are represented by only two magistrates. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will look seriously at such places to ensure that the communities--which often suffer the worst aspects of crime--are actually represented on the Bench?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. We shall continue to make considerable efforts to attract as wide a variety of applications as possible. Such efforts have already been made by the Cheshire advisory committee, from which I know my hon. Friend has received a letter asking her to make suggestions on how to improve the system and on how we can encourage her constituents to apply for these important positions. I should be delighted if she took away that letter and encouraged as many as possible of her constituents to apply.
Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of the Prime Minister's refusal to answer important written questions of considerable public interest, about the discussions that he had with representatives of the British film industry before the July Budget. Those questions were asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), answered on 24 November, and myself, answered on 28 November.
It is not disputed that a number of prominent figures in the film industry were significant financial supporters of the Labour party before the election--one thinks particularly of Lord Puttnam. The Budget contained a major packet of assistance by way of tax breaks to the British film industry. In the case of formula one, the principle was clearly established by Sir Patrick Neill that, where a major contributor to the Government party's funds had benefited by way of a particular policy, that financial contribution should, in order to preserve the appearance of propriety, be returned to the donor.
I do not allege that there is necessarily any impropriety in this case, but for the House to be satisfied that that is so, it is clearly essential for the Prime Minister to come clean and answer these questions. May we have your guidance on whether it is appropriate for any Minister--let alone the Prime Minister--to refuse to answer in that way?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When you get a chance to look at this Opposition proposal, will you also examine precedents? It is important that, in all these cases, we know exactly what has gone on in previous years. Perhaps in your research you will come across the fact that the Tories received £440,000 from Asil Nadir. Suddenly, although he was under arrest, he escaped. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Prime Minister of the day said, "I think we had better let Asil Nadir get away to Cyprus, because if he ever gets to court, he will reveal all the skeletons in the Tories' cupboard."
You might also examine some other instances, Madam Speaker. For instance, the Tories received £10 million from Bernie Ecclestone, who, in my opinion, was acting on behalf of the tobacco companies; I do not think that it came out of his pocket. Somehow, the Tories--including the then Prime Minister and every member of his Cabinet--refused to support any ban on tobacco advertising. It just might be that there is a whole series of connections. Otherwise, it is just plain, downright hypocrisy.
Madam Speaker:
No, I have had enough, thank you. I know exactly what I am doing on this question.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |