DEBATING HIPs



I wished to propose a member's motion at last week's Law Society Council meeting that outright opposition to home information packs (HIPs) should be the first and main priority of the Society notwithstanding any contingency plans (see 2006 Gazette, 20 July, 8).



This was a matter of great concern to the profession, which merited full debate. Despite this the motion was called with only eight minutes of the meeting left and with other items still to be debated. I protested that this was unacceptable, but I was told to proceed - which I did. My seconder was not even called to speak. A member of the Society's HIPs task force, which opposed the motion, was then called and spoke against. Immediately, a closure motion was proposed by the joint chairwoman of the task force and the treasurer seconded. The closure motion was passed and there was no debate on the substantive motion.



The way that the business of council was handled that day was a travesty and a negation of the responsibility of council to the profession. The motion itself is really of no consequence compared with the perception of manipulation and the disrespect shown to the profession.



The profession will shortly be asked to support financially the new Law Society as a representative body. Does it deserve it on this showing?



Michael King, Law Society Council member for Oxford and Buckinghamshire





Law Society response: The Law Society has consistently warned that home condition reports (HRCs) would disrupt the house-buying process because buyers could not sensibly rely on surveys commissioned and paid for by sellers. HRCs have now been removed from the pack by the government. The government cited the role of the Law Society in opposing HCRs when the matter was debated in Parliament earlier this week.



The more information relating to a property that is available when the offer is made must make the transaction smoother. This is the basis of the Law Society's TransAction scheme.


The debate on Michael King's motion was handled in accordance with the rules governing council meetings. A two-thirds majority of council members voted to end the debate. A democratic process was followed, as were proper rules of debate.


Paul Marsh, Law Society Deputy Vice-President, London