| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Housing
9. Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): If he will make a statement on the development of community ownership of housing in Glasgow. [70828]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Glasgow city council is currently conducting a feasibility study of options for the possible transfer of the council's housing stock into community ownership.
From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Davidson:
I welcome any prospect of additional money for Scottish housing in general and Glasgow in particular. I welcome also the Government's enthusiasm for the community ownership of housing. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that it is important that any new tenants who go into community housing do so willingly and do not feel that they have been bribed or bludgeoned into doing so?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if there is to be any new money for Scottish housing, that money should be available whatever the result of any ballots about transfer of ownership, whether people choose to stay with the local authority, go to community housing or go somewhere else? Does he agree that it is essential that there are no rigged ballots for disposing of Scottish housing in future?
Mr. Dewar:
I do not accept the implication that there have been rigged ballots. "Rigged" is a rather serious word to use. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the emphasis on community ownership. It is an exciting initiative. It is only one option open to local government, which is at the absolute centre of the housing partnerships on which we are working.
I stress that not only does a local authority have to agree before a community ownership scheme can be set up, but the decision must be endorsed by tenants. It is important that any ballot is conducted on the basis of full information so that tenants have the opportunity to assess exactly what kind of tenancy agreement and rent policy would result. I am interested not in railroading anyone into that decision, but in taking an exciting new approach to housing and providing an opportunity to deal with the problem of residual debt, while involving tenants in managing their own affairs.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will take pleasure--as I have--in the enormously positive response of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Shelter and many other organisations to the recently published Green Paper.
29. Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull):
When he last discussed with the Association of Magisterial Officers the qualifications required of a clerk to a magistrates court. [70849]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
I last spoke with the Association of Magisterial Officers about qualifications for court clerks on 14 January 1999.
Mr. Taylor:
Does the Minister mind telling the House, on the matter of the solicitor's qualification, why a clerk of a magistrates court should need to be trained and examined in conveyancing, probate, wills and trusts?
Mr. Hoon:
I had thought that the policy of the previous Administration was in favour of requiring magistrates
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford):
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the concession that he made to allow clerks over 40 years of age to continue in their job without obtaining the qualification, and I congratulate him on the fact that he has put in place the training of non-qualified clerks so that they can obtain the qualification. Having said all that as his friend, may I ask him once more about the question of certificates of competence for those who have not attained the age of 40 but have done the job for many years and have thereby proved their competence? Why should they be obliged to obtain another qualification if they can already receive a certificate, as suggested by the Justices' Clerks Society, for one?
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, but there is no suggestion that there is any criticism of the competence of those giving legal advice. However, it is important that we achieve a fully professional service to meet the challenges facing magistrates courts today and those that they are likely to face in future. The difficulty is that, if we exempt the great majority of those in post at present, it will take until at least the fourth decade of the next century to achieve the legal qualification.
30. Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford):
If he will make a statement about the financial efficiency of the Legal Aid Board. [70850]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
The grant allocated for the Legal Aid Board's administration costs is determined with reference to a business plan, which sets out performance targets for processing the board's business under the legal aid scheme. In the financial year 1997-98, the board's unit costs fell by 1.7 per cent.
The Access to Justice Bill will reform legal aid and replace the Legal Aid Board with a Legal Services Commission, which will develop the managerial and strategic systems to implement the new legal aid arrangements and monitor them in future.
Mr. Burns:
Does the Minister agree that one way of improving the financial efficiency of the Legal Aid Board would be for the Minister to reform the system to stop the ludicrous position--which is affecting some of my constituents--whereby a European Union national or anyone from outside the EU can come to this country and immediately qualify for legal aid, whereas most British citizens cannot travel the world and get free legal services in other countries at their taxpayers' expense? Does the Minister agree that it is time that this nonsense was stopped?
Mr. Hoon:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are engaged in a significant reform of the legal aid scheme. However, I must tell him that reciprocity in the availability of legal aid with other European Union countries actually works to the advantage
Jacqui Smith (Redditch):
Last week I was able to visit and see the excellent work of the Redditch citizens advice bureau, and I was impressed by the potential that exists there for providing accessible legal advice to my constituents. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, in the legal aid reforms, the Government will not only keep control of current expenditure on legal aid, but ensure that a larger proportion is made available to provide legal advice in areas such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres--and widen the ambit of legal aid to cover areas, such as welfare benefits, that currently are not covered?
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. She and I were elected on a manifesto that pledged to create a community legal service. It is precisely the Government's intention to get the existing legal aid scheme under control to provide resources to fund a community legal service that will give help to the most disadvantaged in our society.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
The Government believe that the introduction of conditional fee agreements will substantially reduce the legal aid budget. They also believe that that will open up access to justice to middle-income Britain. Will the Minister tell the House whether, under conditional fee agreements, the costs of successful plaintiffs--whether they be the uplift in cost, disbursements, experts' fees and insurance premiums, if they are affordable and available--will be recoverable on a full indemnity basis?
Mr. Hoon:
Subject, obviously, to the approval of the House, the Access to Justice Bill specifies that a successful plaintiff, under a conditional fee agreement, would be able to recover both an insurance premium and the success fee from the unsuccessful defendant.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
Under the Minister's plans, the only money that will be left for civil legal aid will be what is left over after the requirements of criminal legal aid have been met. If that is what he intended when he introduced his reforms, why did he not say so 18 months ago, or is this just another example of his failure to give attention to detail?
Mr. Hoon:
It is clear that the proposed criminal defence service and the proposed community legal service budgets are separate, but those budgets are set with an expenditure settlement that is settled for the next three years. In that context, proposals to ring-fence one or both budgets would not be realistic. All services funded by the Government are funded by the taxpayer and the Government must be free to consider competing priorities for the finite resources that are available.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |