---

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Bowman Report

Mr. Fitzpatrick: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his response to the

18 May 2000 : Column: 209W

recommendation in the Bowman report on the Crown Office List that there should be a comprehensive review of the present structure, jurisdiction, procedures, remedies and routes of appeal of tribunals. [123129]

Jane Kennedy: The Lord Chancellor has welcomed Sir Jeffery Bowman's recommendation. It has been 43 years since the last thorough review of tribunals. The number of tribunals has grown greatly since then. There has also been a fundamental change in the nature of, and pressures on, their work. The Lord Chancellor has therefore decided that there should be a wide ranging, independent review of tribunals.

Its terms of reference will be:

To review the delivery of justice through tribunals other than ordinary courts of law, constituted under an Act of Parliament by a Minister of the Crown or for purposes of a Minister's functions; in resolving disputes, whether between citizens and the state, or between other parties, so as to ensure that:

There are fair, timely, proportionate and effective arrangements for handling those disputes, within an effective framework for decision-making which encourages the systematic development of the area of law concerned, and which forms a coherent structure, together with the superior courts, for the delivery of administrative justice;

The administrative and practical arrangements for supporting those decision-making procedures meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for independence and impartiality;

There are adequate arrangements for improving people's knowledge and understanding of their rights and responsibilities in relation to such disputes, and that tribunals and other bodies function in a way which makes those rights and responsibilities a reality;

The arrangements for the funding and management of tribunals and other bodies by Government Departments are efficient, effective and economical; and pay due regard both to judicial independence, and to ministerial responsibility for the administration of public funds;

Performance standards for tribunals are coherent, consistent, and public; and effective measures for monitoring and enforcing those standards are established; and

Tribunals overall constitute a coherent structure for the delivery of administrative justice.

The review may examine, insofar as it considers it necessary, administrative and regulatory bodies which also make judicial decisions as part of their functions.

The review will be led by Sir Andrew Leggatt, supported by Dame Valerie Strachan, and a team of expert advisers. It will operate in an open, consultative way, involving and seeking views from as wide a range of interests as possible. The Lord Chancellor has asked Sir Andrew to report to him by 31 March 2001.

Green Transport

Mr. Moore: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the key buildings for which the Lord Chancellor's Department (a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122622]

Mr. Lock: In line with the target set in the Integrated Transport White Paper, green transport plans for three Headquarters buildings were completed by March 1999. Draft plans for a further 55 key buildings have been prepared and these will be introduced by July 2000.

18 May 2000 : Column: 210W

The key buildings are:

Birmingham county court


Bolton Combined court


Bow county court


Bradford Combined court


Brighton county court


Bristol county court


Cardiff Civil Justice Centre


Central Criminal court


Central London Trial Centre


Coventry Combined court


Croydon Combined court


Crown court at Birmingham


Crown court at Bristol


Crown court at Manchester

Crown court at Southwark


Crown court at Wood Green


Derby Combined court


Exeter Combined court


Immigration Appellate Authority, Taylor House


Immigration Appellate Authority, York and Wellington Buildings


Inner London Sessions House


Judge Advocate General's Office/Council On Tribunals


Judicial Studies Board, Millbank


Kingston upon Hull Combined court


Law Commission


Leeds Combined court


Leicester Crown and county court


Liverpool Combined court


Maidstone Combined Court


Manchester county court


Milton Keynes county court


Newcastle upon Tyne Combined court


Northampton Bulk Issue Centre

Northampton Combined court


Northern Circuit Office


Norwich Combined court


Nottingham Combined court

Office of the Social Security Commissioners


Official Solicitors Office/Chichester Rents Crown court


Oxford Combined Court Centre


Plymouth Combined court


Portsmouth Combined court

Preston Combined court


Principal Registry of the Family Division


Reading county court


Royal Courts of Justice


Sheffield Combined court


Snaresbrook Crown court


South Eastern Circuit Offices


Southampton Combined court


Stoke on Trent Combined court


Teesside Combined court


Willesden county court


Wolverhampton Combined court


Worcester Combined court.

18 May 2000 : Column: 211W

Marriage Support

Ms Kelly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the Lord Chancellor's Department has spent since 1997 on (a) marriage support funding and (b) marriage counselling services; and how many people have been helped in each year. [122600]

Jane Kennedy: Spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department on marriage and relationship support and research for the financial years since 1997 is as follows: 1997-98: £3.4 million; 1998-99: £3.0 million; 1999-2000: £3.2 million. In line with Sir Graham Hart's recommendations in his report to the Lord Chancellor on Marriage Support Funding (published in November 1999), the allocation is being increased as follows: 2000-01: £4 million; 2001-02: £4.5 million; 2002-03: £5 million.

This spending is currently provided to the central bodies of the main marriage and relationship support and research organisations towards expenses incurred in the development of training and support to local services, including the selection, training and supervision of counsellors, administrative costs and research. The Government do not directly fund the provision of counselling services. It is therefore not possible to calculate precisely how many people are helped in each year.

Open Government

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for information he received under the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many were granted. [121855]

Jane Kennedy: I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government as a whole, Official Report, columns 216-17W.

Civil Servants

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior Civil Service, in his Department for 1999-2000; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [121645]

Jane Kennedy: This reply covers non-industrial civil servants working in the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department and Associated Offices, the Court Service, and the Public Trust Office.

The average increase received by non-industrial civil servants who achieved a satisfactory or better performance was 4 per cent. The main increases were not staged, but they were paid with effect from 1 October 1999 rather than the normal settlement date of 1 August.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Mike Tyson

Ms Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on Mr. Mike Tyson's application for entry clearance. [123031]

18 May 2000 : Column: 212W

Mr. Straw: I have today informed Mr. Tyson that he will be granted entry clearance for a single visit of three weeks' duration strictly for the purpose of a boxing match in Scotland on 24 June 2000.

The decision to grant entry clearance has been taken in accordance with Rule 320(18) of the United Kingdom Immigration Rules which requires that admission will not normally be given to those with criminal convictions for relatively serious offences unless it can be justified for strong compassionate reasons, but also bearing in mind the residual discretion which I have under the Rule.

In reaching my decision, I took note of the fact that Mr. Tyson has relevant convictions for the purposes of the application of this Rule. I also noted that there are recent allegations of an assault on an employee of a nightclub in Las Vegas, but we understand this is still under investigation. And I took into account the views expressed by the public about Mr. Tyson visiting the United Kingdom.

I did not consider that there were strong compassionate reasons which would justify admission in Mr. Tyson's case for the purpose of the Rule. However, I concluded that there were other exceptional circumstances which justified his entry to the country for the purpose of participating in the boxing match. My decision took account of the following factors:

that Mr. Tyson's behaviour on his previous visit to the United Kingdom was satisfactory;

that any risk to the public to which his criminal convictions and other allegations referred to above might be relevant, would be minimised by the circumstances of his proposed visit--ie his high media profile, the presence of his trainers and other supporting entourage, and the limited duration of his visit; and

that a refusal to permit entry would result in a loss of economic benefit to the United Kingdom, and in particular to the areas in which engagements took place, and would not enhance the United Kingdom's standing as a venue for major sporting events.

I also took account of the fact that Rule 320(18) currently operates in an inconsistent manner in that those in the public eye whose convictions are known are more likely to be caught by its provisions.

---