---

Office for the Supervision of Solicitors

23. Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): What recent discussions he has held with the Law Society about the office for the supervision of solicitors. [193532]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The office for the supervision of solicitors has been replaced by the consumer complaints service, which was launched by the Law Society on 19 April 2004. I am, of course, in frequent communication with the Law Society concerning its progress on improving complaints handling for consumers.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he consider that the Law Society is still drinking in the last chance saloon so far as supervision of complaints regarding solicitors is concerned, and has he reviewed his potential powers under the Access to Justice Act 1999 on the regulation of such complaints?

Mr. Lammy: We set up the legal services complaints commissioner because we were very concerned about the way in which the Law Society was dealing with complaints. We made it clear at the time that things had to improve by April 2006 and that process continues. However, as my hon. Friend knows, at the same time the Clementi review is looking at the entirety of regulation of our legal services. That review is timely and I look forward to hearing what Sir David Clementi has to say.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Is it at all possible that the current system of self-regulation can survive the Clementi report, and what contingency planning is my hon. Friend's Department undertaking to separate regulation of solicitors in the consumer's interest from professional representation and professional disciplinary matters, which the Law Society is capable of dealing with in the longer term?

Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend's question cuts to the heart of what Sir David Clementi is looking at, and it would be quite wrong of me to pre-empt the outcome of that review; however, it is right that the review examines these issues, and for two reasons. First, we have 22 regulators in this field, and in the 21st century that must by any calculation be too many. Secondly, it is a privilege for our legal profession to be both the representative body—the trade union, as it were—and in charge of regulation. We know that there have been problems with complaints handling, particularly in respect of the Law Society, which is why it is right that we look at these issues afresh and examine whether the current situation is appropriate in the early 21st century.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1289
 

Magistracy

24. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): If he will make a statement on the Secretary of State's plans for the magistracy. [193533]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): There are 28,500 magistrates in England and Wales, representing one of the most significant commitments to volunteering in this country and ensuring that we have one of the finest local justice systems in the world. The Government remain firmly committed to the lay magistracy and we will continue to reinforce and enhance their position.

Richard Ottaway: I thank the Minister for that answer. This may not be the best week to bring up pay and allowances, but has he considered the remuneration of magistrates? He has just said that they make a tremendous contribution to the local community. If remuneration is given to councillors in local government, why not to magistrates who, after all, make a substantial and significant contribution entirely on a voluntary basis and in their own time?

Mr. Leslie: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is, of course, no magic tree with pound notes and other money growing off it, so we would obviously have to find resources for spending on remunerating magistrates. However, I believe that it is important to do more to recruit and retain existing magistrates and the Secretary of State and I are discussing that matter with the Magistrates Association, among others.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

House Committees (Laptops)

33. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): What progress has been made in removing the barriers to the use of laptop computers in Standing and other Committees in the House. [193519]

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): The Liaison Committee has agreed that laptops, palmtops and similar devices may be used by Select Committee members in public session, as well as in private deliberations as before, as long as the individual Select Committee so wishes. I also understand that the Chairmen's Panel continues to have concerns about allowing the use of laptops in Standing Committees.

Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for his answer, which confirms the existing anomaly between Standing and Select Committees in respect of the use of the electronic devices that he mentions. Could not the Modernisation Committee further look into the conundrum whereby the House allows pocket or hand-held computers of similar computing power and programme capability to be used in Standing Committees, without allowing the use of laptops of equivalent power and the same
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1290
 
programmes? Is it not time that the anomaly was ended and that Members of Parliament were able to use that equipment in pursuit of their duties, irrespective of the type of equipment that they use and where they choose to use it?

Mr. Woolas: I should acknowledge the modernising tendencies of the right hon. Gentleman, who is an avid user of a powerful tablet PC. I have to choose my words carefully when referring to laptops and other forms of computer. The right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Information Committee, is knowledgeable about these matters and knows that there are anomalies. There is also the point that Standing Committees are the prerogative of the Chairmen's Panel, so we must seek to influence that body. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is an avid supporter of modernising procedures in the House, and the Modernisation Committee will look further into the matter in the future.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): May I press my hon. Friend a little further on the issue? Many hon. Members now have Blackberries, as do members of Congress in the USA, which make it possible to send and receive e-mails, for example. Would it not be more sensible if the House did not to have to print so many copies of every piece of legislation coming before us? Allowing us to have full access to legislation and to send and receive e-mails in Standing Committee would help us to transact our business far more effectively.

Mr. Woolas: I have the advantage of having an 11-year-old son to help me in answering these questions. I recognise the value of the technology, as hon. Members have described it, and there is an inevitability about technology influencing our procedures. However, as I said in answering the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), at the end of the day these are matters for the relevant Committees, although the Government are sympathetic to the points that have been made.

Sitting Hours

34. Mr Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): When he intends to review the sitting hours of the House. [193520]

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The Modernisation Committee, which I chair, is conducting an inquiry into the sitting hours of the House. I hope that it will report its findings by the end of the year so that we can debate and vote on it early in the new year.

Mr. Mackay: The Leader of the House is aware that broadly I support the new sitting hours, which I believe have worked pretty well. However, there may be a case for extending Tuesdays until 10 pm in order to allow private Members' Bills and other non-controversial business, which is usually dealt with on Fridays, to be dealt with after 7 pm on Tuesdays. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that proposal favourably when he reports back to the House.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1291
 

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It was expressed very strongly by members of the Modernisation Committee and in the evidence that we received from a variety of sources, some of whom were extremely eminent. The contention is that it would be advantageous to the House if we were to eliminate the remaining 13 Fridays and take private Members' Bills on a Tuesday evening. There are many pros and cons in this matter, but I shall certainly bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy of the case.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will know that many Labour Members find the current hours extremely convenient and that they do not want any substantial change to them. Will he consider a proposal in January to extend the current pilot scheme into the new Parliament, so that the newly elected MPs who come in after the election can make their own decisions about the House's sitting hours?

Mr. Hain: I note my hon. Friend's strong advocacy of the—as it were—more modern sitting hours. There are a number of anomalies that we need to address, and the Modernisation Committee is considering them. We are looking at the whole week, and it might be advantageous to the House if I were to describe briefly some of the problems that we are encountering. For example, it is now very difficult to take full parliamentary business on Thursdays, as hon. Members find it very convenient to leave at 6 pm. I do not want to put back that time, so we are looking at whether we can adjust the business of the week to make it more possible for us to take Opposition day debates and legislative measures more regularly on a Thursday. There are various problems, but the points that my hon. Friend raises will be taken into account.

We also have the benefit of the very thorough review conducted by the Procedure Committee. The questionnaire that it sent out received a very big response. We will get back to my hon. Friend and the rest of the House as soon as we can.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Does the Leader of the House recall that a principal purpose of the present arrangements and sitting hours was to try and make our business more voter and media friendly, rather than just MP friendly? After all, the people who send us here need to know what we are doing. Has the current review undertaken any systematic analysis of the extent to which the quality of media coverage may have changed? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one advantage of our current hours is that Ministers have less time to brief and spin before they make a statement in the House?

Mr. Hain: As a member of the Cabinet, I have not noticed any improvement in the quality of media coverage since we changed the hours of the House. However, the current hours are more sensible and mean that deadlines can be met more easily. After all, all Members have an interest in ensuring that this Chamber is at the centre of political debate, rather than the "Today" or "Newsnight" studios, important though they both are. The present hours are an advantage from
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1292
 
that point of view, but I am looking at a balanced package of changes that will meet the concerns of most hon. Members.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many Members of this House, especially those who live away from the London area, believe that we should no longer sit on a Friday? That is the day on which, unless an issue of national importance arises, we should be able to commit ourselves to our constituency with absolute certainty. However, hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north and elsewhere in the country do not want to be deprived of the opportunity to take part in the debates on private Members' Bills that take place on a Friday. I therefore suggest that those debates should be held on a Tuesday evening, to fill the gap that exists after 7 o'clock.

Mr. Hain: Again, my hon. Friend makes his case very powerfully, and the Modernisation Committee, of which he is a member, will consider it very seriously. Many other members of that Committee share his view on these matters, but the ultimate decision rests with the whole House. I know that many Ministers, as well as Back-Bench Members, take the same view as my hon. Friend. Often, Ministers will clear a constituency Friday so that they can remain in London to answer a debate, only to find that that debate is not reached. Some Back-Bench Members encounter that problem as well, so there is a case for changing certain things. After all, we sit on only 13 Fridays in the year anyway, so any change would not be revolutionary.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): It is clear from the Procedure Committee's report analysing the results of the questionnaire that there are complex issues to do with Thursdays, Fridays and so on, some of which the Leader of the House has described. However, a strong majority in the Committee was clearly in favour of sitting until 10 o'clock on Tuesdays. Is not it the right hon. Gentleman's duty to find time for an early vote on that proposal, given the support expressed for it in all parts of the House?

Mr. Hain: Undoubtedly, the Procedure Committee questionnaire showed that 52 per cent. favoured going back to the old hours on a Tuesday. That is not a large majority and I am not sure what would happen if the issue were put to a vote. I do not want prematurely to hold a vote in isolation on Tuesday nights: I want to look at the whole week so that we can formulate a coherent proposition. Of course, Members will ultimately take the decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made a point earlier to which I failed to respond, on whether we should allow the next Parliament to make the decision. The present hours lapse at the end of this Parliament and we therefore need to make a decision. That is why we will provide an opportunity for the House to vote on the issue at some time in January or February.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): Is it not clear that most hon. Members
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1293
 
now know where they stand on most of the key issues that need to be determined? Is not there a case for making the decision much sooner than my right hon. Friend suggests?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful for the contribution that my hon. Friend has made to trying to achieve a consensus
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1294
 
on this issue. He has worked hard and I acknowledge that. However, it will not be long before we are able to take a decision on the matter and I would like to take that decision in the round about the whole week, rather than taking the Tuesday nights issue in isolation. After all, it may have an impact on other decisions we take for the rest of the week.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1293
 

 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1295
 

---