| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Jul 2003 : Column 439W—continued
Private Offices
Mr. Flight: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what have been the running costs of Ministers' private offices in his Department and its predecessor in each year since 1997. [123115]
Mr. Lammy: Gross administration costs (formerly known as running costs) for the Ministers' private offices from 1997 to date are set out in the following table:
| Cost | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98(50) | 0 |
| 1998–99 | 1,055 |
| 1999–2000 | 1,257 |
| 2000–01 | 1,585 |
| 2001–02 | 1,620 |
| 2002–03(51) | 2,001 |
(50) Data not readily available without incurring disproportionate cost.
(51) The increase in running costs between 2001–02 and 2002–03 is a result of the Machinery of Government changes and the consequent expansion of the Ministers' private offices to accommodate the additional areas of responsibility.
16 Jul 2003 : Column 440W
Queen's Counsel
Norman Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what process was in place to decide who was offered silk prior to the review of the system announced earlier this year; and if he will make a statement. [125200]
Mr. Leslie: The selection process for Queen's Counsel prior to the announcement of the review was as follows:
Applications were made annually through an advertisement and through the departmental website. The advertisement has for many years usually appeared in early September, and the list of successful applicants was published the following Maundy Thursday.
Much of the Queen's Counsel exercise was conducted by means of written consultation. Written views were automatically sought from the judiciary, specialist legal associations and other senior practitioners. Applicants were invited to nominate up to six names from the list of automatic consultees who were best placed to provide comments against the criteria. They were also requested to nominate a further six consultees of their own choosing.
Meetings were held with the Heads of Supreme Court Divisions; the judges in charge of the Commercial Court, the Administrative Court and the Technology and Construction Court; the Presiding Judges; Family Division Liaison Judges; Circuit Leaders and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council. Meetings were occasionally also held to clarify a consultee's views or, where a consultee has consulted others, the degree of consensus.
Following the consultation period, departmental officials conducted a sift of all applicants, to establish how far the evidence demonstrated that they met the criteria for appointment to the required standard. All marks and comments were given individual consideration. No single comment or mark could, in itself, cause an application to fail.
The sift was a three-stage process. First, departmental officials working independently of each other prepared a written assessment of the evidence. The second stage consisted of two panels, each comprising a senior official and a lay member. The panels reviewed the applications and classified them according to the strength of the evidence that the applicant met the criteria for appointment. The third stage was moderation by Legal and Judicial Services Group's most senior officials to ensure a consistent standard of decision making and recording.
The results were presented to the Lord Chancellor in the form of a long list. This list was divided into categories relating to circuit or practice type. It summarised the evidence on every applicant who appeared to meet the criteria to the required standard, dividing them into four groups according to the strength of the evidence. The long list also included the name of any other applicant whose fees were in the upper quartile for their particular practice type or circuit. The Lord Chancellor was provided with the detailed comments received for each applicant who appeared in
16 Jul 2003 : Column 441W
the long list. He was provided with the names of, and the full comments received on, all ethnic minority, female, and solicitor applicants and those who had a specialist practice on provincial circuits. He also received a separate note of those not included in the long list and a brief summary of the reasons. This material enabled the Lord Chancellor and those he consulted to check the validity of the decision to exclude any of the applicants in the above categories from the Long List.
The Lord Chancellor personally considered the long list and additional detailed material. He did not confine his consideration to the long list alone and based his final recommendations on all the material available to him. Following his initial consideration, he held separate meetings to discuss the applications with the Law Officers and the heads of Supreme Court divisions and their senior judicial colleagues, who also received copies of the same material. The Lord Chancellor then decided which applicants to recommend to the Queen for appointment.
There was no limit to the numbers of new Queen's Counsel who could be appointed in a particular year, nor was there a quota of appointments to be filled. The Lord Chancellor made his recommendations for appointment on the basis of the calibre of each individual applicant, as reflected in the views given in that year's round. All applicants who fulfilled the published criteria to the necessary high standard were recommended for appointment.
Unsuccessful applicants were encouraged to discuss the outcome of their application with a senior member of Legal and Judicial Services Group. Feedback was
16 Jul 2003 : Column 442W
given in confidence and usually by telephone. The aim of the feedback discussion was to help applicants to understand why they were not appointed by reference to the degree of support received and the tenor of the views obtained. They were given a full account of the comments received, edited only to the extent necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the source.
The Department explored any issues of concern to the applicant during the feedback process. If there remained unresolved problems, applicants were encouraged to write to the Director General, Legal and Judicial Services Group or the Lord Chancellor.
If the applicant remained dissatisfied with the way his or her application had been considered, he or she could lodge a complaint with the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments, who would investigate complaints of discrimination, unfairness or maladministration in the way the procedures had been applied.
Solicitors
Mr. Watts: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to prevent solicitors canvassing for business in public areas. [125212]
Mr. Lammy: Professional rules prohibit solicitors or their agents making unsolicited visits or telephone calls to members of the public. In addition, The Law Society has issued guidance in respect of immigration advice which prohibits solicitors or those acting on their behalf approaching people arriving at ports of entry. The breach of the rule and guidance is a disciplinary matter for the Law Society.