---

22 Jul 2004 : Column 531W—continued

Departmental Publicity

Mr. Alan Duncan: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was spent by his Department on (a) advertising and (b) public relations consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available. [185824]

Mr. Lammy: In 2003–04 the Department for Constitutional Affairs did not spend anything on advertising and public relations consultants. Figures for 1996–97 are not available since my Department only came into existence on 12 June 2003.
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 532W
 

Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether (a) his Department and (b) agencies for which it is responsible (i) have a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel and (ii) have a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186084]

Mr. Lammy: In the Department for Constitutional Affairs including its agencies, (i) at present all staff at Span 3 (formerly AO) and below have a normal retirement age of 65. Staff at Spans 4 and 5 (formerly EO) normally retire at age 62. Staff may stay on under the "short service concession" rule, that is if they have not completed 20 years reckonable service. The normal retirement age for all other staff is 60, although even then all staff may stay on beyond 60 if there are sound business reasons. The DCA board has recently agreed that the normal retirement age should be increased to 65 for all staff with effect from 1 April 2005, subject to consultation with the departmental trade unions. (ii) There is no set maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered. Business managers compare the cost and time of training a new entrant against the length of service available.

Ineffective Trials

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much has been spent on ineffective trials in (a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts in each year since 1997; and for what main reasons trials prove to be ineffective. [185374]

Mr. Leslie [holding answer 20 July 2004]: It is not possible to provide information in the form requested. The costs of an ineffective trial separately accrue to a number of agencies (the CPS, the police, the court, defence solicitors).

However, the Crown court over the last year has cut the Ineffective Trial Performance from 23.5 per cent. to 17.3 per cent. and the magistrates court Ineffective Trial Performance has reduced from 29.5 per cent. to 26.9 per cent.

There are 15 different categories recorded for a case being ineffective in the Crown court and 13 in the magistrates court.

The most used categories have remained the same since 1997, although the order and number fluctuates. The reasons below were taken from the most recent data set (rolling quarter ending May 2004) and have been listed in numerical order (highest first).

Crown

Prosecution witness fails to attend

Defendant failed to attend—Bench Warrant Issued

Defendant not ready for trial—Further preparation needed

Prosecution not ready for trial

Defendant ill—trial stood out (did not proceed)

Floater/backer not reached (the trial fails to go ahead on the day, a substitute trial may be available replace it)

Magistrates

Prosecution witness absent

 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 533W
 

Defendant absent—Did not attend

Other

Lack of court/magistrate availability

Defence not ready

Prosecution witness absent (police officer)

Judicial Appointments Commission

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the qualifications for serving on the Judicial Appointments Commission will be. [185883]

Mr. Leslie: Schedule 12 of the Constitutional Reform Bill provides that the Commission will consist of a lay chairman, five further lay members, five judicial members, two professional members (a barrister and a solicitor), a tribunal member and a lay justice.

Of the Commissioners appointed as judicial members, one must be a Lord Justice of Appeal; one a High Court judge; one either a Lord Justice of Appeal or a High Court judge; one a circuit judge and one a district judge.

Of the others: the professional members must be a practising barrister and a practising solicitor; the lay members must never have held a listed judicial office or been a practising lawyer; the tribunal member must be the holder of an office listed in Part 3 of Schedule 14 of the Bill; and the lay justice must be a justice of the peace.

None of the members may be a member of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons, or a civil servant.

Legal Services Commission

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what money is owed to the Legal Services Commission; and what the reasons are for the Commission not having collected this debt. [185046]

Mr. Lammy: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) had debts due to it at the end of the financial year 2003–04 of £262 million. Much of this debt (around 72 per cent.) is secured by the registration of a statutory charge against property and is not, generally, immediately collectable. The LSC allows the funded client to postpone the operation of the charge, subject to certain conditions, and the debt is not repayable until the property is sold or upon the death of the client.

Cases relating to the statutory charge have since 1988 attached interest. The rate of interest is linked to the Bank of England base rate and currently stands at 5 per cent. simple interest. £50 million of the gross debt due to the Commission relates to interest.

Other debts due to the LSC are normally immediately repayable and are pursued by a dedicated debt recovery team. In 2003–04, the LSC successfully recovered £28 million worth of debt. Some of these debts may be owed by funded clients (e.g. unpaid contributions towards funding legal aid) and are difficult to recover given the limited financial circumstances of the clients.
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 534W
 

November 9th Society

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will raise with the Electoral Commission the plans of the November 9th Society to use the election freepost to distribute its material; and if he will make a statement. [186292]

Mr. Leslie: Any candidate at a parliamentary election, and any individual candidate or registered political party at a European parliamentary election has a statutory right to send election material to electors in the constituency or region in which they are standing. Any material must relate solely to that election and must also comply with the general law (for instance, the Malicious Communications Act, the Public Order Acts and Postal Services Act).

I understand that an organisation calling itself the November 9th Society has applied to the Electoral Commission for registration as a political party and that this is under consideration.

Partnership Initiative Budget

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the current projects that receives funding from the Partnership Initiative Budget. [185645]

Mr. Lammy: Since its implementation in 2001, there have been two rounds of the Partnership Initiative Budget (PIB), each with a different focus, funding a total of 143 projects. Currently there are 136 projects receiving funding, 66 from round one and 70 from round two. A list of current projects with references to their lead organisation and region has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what factors are taken into consideration when deciding how funding is allocated to projects from the Partnership Initiative Fund. [185646]

Mr. Lammy: The Partnership Initiative Budget aims to provide flexible funding within the Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP) framework to support initiatives which will have a direct impact on individuals' access to advice and information in priority categories of law, as identified locally.

In order to receive funding project bids had to meet certain criteria. They had to: further a local/regional strategy for provision of legal advice services; be either local (involving a single CLSP, or part thereof) or regional (involving more than one CLSP); relate to priority need identified in a specific CLSP needs assessment or strategic plan; relate to priority areas identified by either (i) all CLSPs covered or (ii) if covering a Legal Services Commission (LSC region, the relevant Regional Legal Services Committee; encourage partnership working particularly between previously distinct advice providers or organisations; link with other public initiatives or add value to existing schemes or provision; either hold the LSC Quality Mark (QM) or be capable of gaining the QM within a year of the project being awarded funding; have a minimum of 25 per cent. match funding (cash and in kind—excluding
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 535W
 
unpaid staff time); ensure that a significant number of those who will ultimately benefit from a project should be financially eligible; provide value for money; be for a maximum of three years worth of funding; normally be for running costs; have an exit strategy; and demonstrate a commitment to Equal Opportunities.

---