That this House supports the proposal from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee for an investment allowance to create a level playing field for council housing and enable local authorities to finance borrowing under the prudential framework to meet the Decent Homes Standard as an alternative to the Government's three current options of stock transfer, private finance initiative and arm's length management organisations; shares the concerns expressed in the critical reports by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office on the cost-effectiveness of stock transfer; believes that a fourth option, allowing councils to improve their own stock, can be funded by reinvesting all the income from tenants' rents, capital receipts and savings on expensive set-up costs; notes the broad consensus of support from tenants, the Local Government Association and local authorities, the TUC and trade unions for the fourth option; and welcomes the recognition by the Deputy Prime Minister on 26th September that public financing of housing doesn't treat local authorities on a level playing field and I want to see that changed and I promised to do that and look at an inquiry into it; and urges him to stand by this promise so that tenants can have a real choice, councils can compete on a level playing field and the public housing stock can be repaired, refurbished and expanded to make its contribution to the growing need for public rented housing, instead of wasting millions to give it away.

That this House supports the proposal from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee for an investment allowance to create a level playing field for council housing and enable local authorities to finance borrowing under the prudential framework to meet the Decent Homes Standard as an alternative to...

That this House notes the considerable dissatisfaction with the handling of complaints against solicitors by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors which is not independent and lacks effective competence and real concern for consumer interests; further notes that endless assurances and changes have not produced demonstrable improvements apart from an unverifiable claim that the backlog of complaints is down to 13,000 (including unsatisfactorily handled complaints); observes that, yet again, the OSS has failed to meet the targets set by the Lord Chancellor, who assured the Home Affairs Committee that he would require much better performance in respect of independence, quality, turnaround time and effectiveness in handling complaints; notes that despite this failure, the OSS seeks more time and weaker targets while the Legal Services Ombudsman, himself an agent of the profession, not the public, is unwilling and unable to effectively control or check their failures; and, in view of this comprehensive failure, now calls on the Lord Chancellor to accept that professional self-regulation, always inadequate and favouring vested interests, has comprehensively failed, and should now be replaced with a competent and independent regulatory body capable of dealing with complaints against both solicitors and the Bar, of ensuring proper professional legal service to consumers and providing effective protection rather than compelling the victims of professional failures to embark on a flawed and risky search for redress by suing professionals in costly court actions.

That this House notes the considerable dissatisfaction with the handling of complaints against solicitors by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors which is not independent and lacks effective competence and real concern for consumer interests; further notes that endless assurances and changes have not produced demonstrable improvements apart from...