FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (Hansard, 25 July 1990)

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 31, line 33, at end insert '(including conditions as to repayment)'.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 28.

§ The Solicitor-General
These are minor and technical amendments.

§ Mr. Vaz
I am somewhat surprised at what the Solicitor-General said. I understood that the amendments dealt with the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. I was given to understand by the Government Whip, who asked me not to speak on the Ways and Means resolution, that the Solicitor-General would speak to the amendments. They are important. They relate directly to the Solicitor-General's letter to me and, I assume, other members of the Committee about the changes that were envisaged on the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.
The House may not be aware that this morning members of the Committee received a letter from the Solicitor-General dated 24 July 1990 about the amount of grant that is to be given to the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. It is to be a grant of some £900,000. He went into great detail about exactly what the grant is to be used for. The main emphasis of the letter is the cost per square metre of the premises of the board. He told us that the central charge per square metre is likely to be in the region of £375, with rates—I think that he means poll tax—of some £115 per square metre and maintenance and other charges at approximately £40 per square metre. On the basis of those charges, a quarter of a million pounds in respect of the grant of £900,000 of taxpayers' money is to be paid in rent and rates—or poll tax—for the board.
The Solicitor-General went on to set out the conditions under which the grant is repayable. He said that the aim is that the board should become self-financing as soon as possible. That is precisely the point that I and other hon. Members raised in Committee. How much of the money will be repayable? Will it be pump-priming money—the phrase used by the Solicitor-General in describing the £460,000 given to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers? When will the board be self-financing? Is there a timetable? All that he said in his letter to me and other members of the Committee was that it would be as soon as possible.
The Solicitor-General went on to say that any further money would be recouped through subsequent fees. He did not say how much the fees would be. I raise the matter because it is of concern to me. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill and on the Committee on the Legal Aid Bill. I heard the Solicitor-General go on about the need for value for money. The Government are giving 604 away almost £1 million of taxpayers' money on a scheme that has no timetable. Is it a bottomless pit? Will he come back at a later stage and say, "£900,000 is not enough because the rent has risen from £250,000 to another figure. We should like some more money, please."?
It is important that, rather than telling us that the amendments are technical, the Solicitor-General should give us an explanation of them. He also promised on an earlier amendment that he would tell us the amount that he proposes to pay to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. He said earlier—I respected his honesty—that he did not know whether the latest grant of £130,000 would be the final grant paid to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. I saw the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) go to speak to those in the civil service Box, and presumably he was supplied with an answer to the question. When the Solicitor-General replies, I hope that he will convey the answer to the House. If the two figures are added together. we are talking of £1.5 million. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston has moved to the civil service Box once again, so I shall continue until the necessary information is conveyed to the Minister.
About £1.5 million of taxpayers' money will be paid without any conditions being set. There is no timetable for when the money will come back. We do not know what the fees will be. There is no understanding of how long the enterprise will last. We have not been told how the expenditure will be monitored. We hear, however, that value for money is the prime criterion of the legal aid fund. We wait in hope for answers from the Solicitor-General. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston is about to return to his place. Let us be supplied with the figures. These important amendments should not be passed on the nod, as the Solicitor-General would wish.

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is right to describe the amendments as technical. As I explained, the pump-priming funding of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board amounts to about £900,000 a year. I summarised the contents of my letter, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He rightly quoted from it.
The board must provide itself with suitable accommodation, and it is the sort of board that one would expect to find accommodated in London. That is a major part of the cost. That and other matters are set out in my letter.
It is not easy to say how quickly the authorised conveyancing practitioners will make application and become self-financing. As there is considerable enthusiasm on the part of several fairly large bodies to participate, I hope that the process will not be over long.
I have received such advice as can be given on the pump-priming money for the council that will represent the licensed conveyancers. It is not possible to say when the money will cease to be necessary and when the council will become self-financing. That is not entirely surprising. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has had the benefit of being a solicitor, and he is now moving into his new profession. He will appreciate that to start a new profession—albeit a small one with about 700 members—costs money. I have in mind the licensed conveyancers and the expenditure of £430,000 so far. It is the will of Parliament that this should be done. The hon. Gentleman would rightly be the first to complain if Parliament willed the end but not the means.
605 The same can be said of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the board as if he were not in favour of it, but I do not think that that is his stance. I think that he accepts that it must be properly funded. We must look to the future to ascertain how quickly it becomes self-financing. I am sorry that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman further, but I have done my best.

§ Mr. Vaz
I am sorry, but I must speak again—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member has already spoken once. We are on Report. I must now put the Question.