§ Miss McIntoshTo ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 44, concerning representations from the Scriveners' Company, what other representations he has received concerning proposals to amend the Scriveners' jurisdiction; [73285]
(2) pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 44, what representations he has received on proposals to amend scriveners' jurisdiction from sources other than the Scriveners' Company. [73972]
§ Mr. FlightTo ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what representations he716W has received calling for the abolition of the monopoly of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of notarial work in London; [73468]
(2) what discussions he has had regarding the proposal to end the monopoly of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of notarial work in London. [73467]
§ Mr. ChopeTo ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many responses were received to his consultation on the abolition of the scriveners' jurisdiction. [74214]
§ Mr. HoonIn the course of the review of the monopoly undertaken by the Department last year, the Lord Chancellor received representations from 12 parties. Of these, six were in favour of ending the monopoly, four were in favour of retaining the monopoly, and two were neutral. The respondents were:
In favour of abolition of the monopoly:
- The Office of Fair Trading
- The Law Society
- The Association of Solicitor Notaries in Greater London
- Mr. Kober-Smith
- Mr. Hartwig
- Ms Roney
In favour of retention
- The Worshipful Company of Scriveners
- The Society of Public Notaries of London
- John Venn & Co.
- Mr. O'Meara
Neutral
- The Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury
- The Notaries' Society.
The Lord Chief Justice, the Bar Council, the Institute of Legal Executives, and the Corporation of London were also consulted but did not make any representations.