---

30 Jun 2003 : Column 124W—continued

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Keith Vaz: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many Immigration Tribunals (a) he and (b) the Secretary of State has attended. [121891]

Mr. Lammy: Since taking up office in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Secretary of State and I have not yet had an opportunity to visit the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). However, I hope to visit the IAA before the summer recess.

Simon Hughes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to establish a quality control mechanism to ensure that the decisions of adjudicators in paper-only appeals adhere to the standards required by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. [120599]

Mr. Lammy: The Immigration Appellate Authority is an agency whose judicial decisions are made independently of the executive. Issues of quality control of judicial decisions are matters for the Chief Adjudicator and his deputies. All new adjudicators receive training on immigration appeals, including family visitor paper-only appeals, as part of their induction process. In addition, copies of Immigration Appeal Tribunal decisions are used to identify potential training requirements.

Legal Aid

Kate Hoey: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, whether the Lord Chancellor issues criteria for decisions on the awarding of legal aid in civil cases. [121060]

Mr. Lammy: Funding in civil cases is available through the Community Legal Service, providing the case is within the scope of the scheme and the application meets the standard means and merits tests. The criteria are set by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Legal Services Commission and the legal profession, and are approved by both Houses. The scope of the scheme is set out in Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999; the means test is set out in the Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations 2000 (as amended) and the merits test is contained in the Funding Code. All these documents can be consulted in the Library of this House.

30 Jun 2003 : Column 125W

Tony Lloyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what assessment the Lord Chancellor has made of the need to review legal aid for personal injury claims where a provider of legal services on a contingent fee basis has gone out of business through insolvency. [121285]

Mr. Lammy: No assessment has been made. The Access to Justice Act 1999 removed negligently caused personal injury claims from the scope of legal aid. This was done because of the availability of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and meant that the limited public funds available for legal aid could be better targeted on priority areas of law. CFAs have proved successful as a means of bringing personal injury actions, and this remains the case. The demise of one provider would not prevent people with genuine claims obtaining access to justice. They can do so either by approaching solicitors' firms who deal with such claims or accident intermediaries. The Government believe the personal injury market is able to absorb the loss of individual organisations because there is a strong network of CFA providers.

Lord Chancellor

Vera Baird: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, who will be the head of the judiciary after abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. [120240]

Mr. Leslie: I refer the hon. and learned Member for Redcar to the statement I made on 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 19WS. The Government have undertaken to consult on the arrangements for the new Judicial Appointments Commission and for a new Supreme Court before the summer recess. The question of who will head the judiciary once the office of Lord Chancellor has been abolished will be considered in the light of responses to that consultation.

Office for the Supervision of Solicitors

Judy Mallaber: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to secure an improvement in the effectiveness of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [121945]

Mr. Lammy: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 23 June 2003, Official Report, column 637W, where I indicated that there is already some evidence of improvement at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS).

To ensure this improvement continues, in March 2003, the former Lord Chancellor agreed the OSS's proposals for a challenging package of performance standards for 2003 that we expect to deliver real benefits to complainants.

Some of the targets have been increased. Complaints must be resolved speedily, but the OSS must also ensure that the standard of quality is not lowered. The OSS's proposal to ensure that the quality standards continue to improve means that the more straightforward cases will be handled quickly and effectively, but more time will be available for complex cases.

30 Jun 2003 : Column 126W

Some targets have been reduced for 2003 only. In 2004, they revert to their former level, and in 2005, they will exceed the former level.

However, we continue to have concerns about the age profile of cases and about the performance of the OSS in recent months. We will be monitoring the overall situation closely to see if the measures undertaken by the OSS in my answer of 23 June 2003 and the package of challenging performance targets, deliver real benefits to consumers.

Official Spelling

Bob Russell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make it her policy that official (a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from her office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118865]

Mr. Leslie: I can confirm it is my Department's policy to use the United Kingdom English spelling of words in preference to the US version. Departmental publications are prepared in line with the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

Parliamentary Draftsman

Mr. Key: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, how many officials, broken down by grade, are working on the draft of the new tri-service Bill which will replace the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts; and if he will make a statement. [121297]

Mr. Lammy: None

Privy Council Judicial Committee

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council last met. [121460]

Mr. Leslie: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council usually sits on Mondays to Thursdays every week during the Law Terms. It is sitting Monday, Tuesday and Thursday this week.

Public Guardianship Office

Gregory Barker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what key performance measures and targets have been set for the Public Guardianship Office Executive Agency for 2003–04. [120923]

Mr. Leslie: Key performance measures and targets for 2003–04 have not yet been finalised for the Public Guardianship Office (PGO). The Department for Constitutional Affairs is conducting a comprehensive review of all its planned expenditure and initiatives, and this may have implications for the PGO's plans. Therefore, it was not possible to finalise key performance measures before the start of the financial year. We do, however, hope to agree these as soon as the outcome of the review is known.

30 Jun 2003 : Column 127W

Public Service Agreements

Mr. Cash: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, whether the Government plan to (a) adopt and (b) change the Lord Chancellor's Department Public Service Agreements; what plans he has to introduce new Public Service Agreements; and to what timetable. [120271]

Mr. Leslie: My Department has taken over responsibility for the Lord Chancellor's Department's Public Service Agreement and its priority is to deliver that agreement, and the specific targets in it.

We are currently considering the implications of the Machinery of Government changes for the agreement and will publish any additions or amendments in due course.

Regulatory Impact Assessments

Bob Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been received in respect of the Department over the last year. [120825]

Mr. Lammy: A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector.

Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

From this year the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role independently to evaluate a selection of RIAs. In their Annual Report, published in February 2003, the Better Regulation Task Force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

---