Previous Section Index Home Page

25 July 2006 : Column 1547W—continued

Freedom of Information Act

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment she has made of the reasons for the differing levels of compliance with the 20-day deadline under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by central Government Departments during the last three months of 2005. [88292]

Ms Harman: Divergence is due to the number of information requests that Departments receive particularly where they relate to complex policy issues. Departments are allowed to extend the deadline to consider the public interest and it is appropriate that they take the time necessary to reach the correct decision. That is to protect information that is legitimately exempt and to ensure the release of information where the balance of the public interest lies in its disclosure.

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 11 July 2006, Official Report, column 1732W, on Freedom of Information, how many complaints (a) are outstanding and (b) have been outstanding for more than (i) three months, (ii) six months and (iii) over six months. [88293]

Ms Harman: The information requested has been provided by the Information Commissioner.

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps she is taking to improve compliance with the 20-day response deadline under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [88295]

Ms Harman: The Department for Constitutional Affairs has established a regime to monitor central
25 July 2006 : Column 1548W
government performance under the legislation. Throughout the first year of implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, my Department refined this monitoring regime to ensure that a robust system was in place to collect data.

My Department continues to provide advice and assistance to help Departments improve their performance.

Central Government performance improved significantly during 2005. Across monitored bodies in the first quarter of this year 90 per cent. of requests were answered within the 20-day response deadline.

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average cost has been of answering (a) a Freedom of Information request and (b) a request under the Environmental Information Regulations. [88296]

Ms Harman: Over 100,000 public authorities are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). We do not have the average cost of answering FOI or EIR requests across all these authorities.

Immigration Solicitors

Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how many solicitors in the London borough of Southwark provide publicly-funded immigration work; and how many provided such work in (a) 1996, (b) 2001, (c) 2004 and (d) 2005; [88954]

(2) what assessment she had made of the impact of the change in the number of solicitors in the London Borough of Southwark who provide publicly-funded immigration work on those seeking specialist immigration advice; [88955]

(3) in which (a) (i) London and (ii) Metropolitan borough, (b) county and (c) unitary authority there has been a (A) reduction and (B) increase in the number of solicitors who provide publicly-funded immigration work since (1) 1997 and (2) 2001. [88956]

Vera Baird: The number of solicitors providing publicly-funded immigration work in Southwark for each year was as follows:

Solicitors

Total number of immigration service providers in Southwark including not-for-profit organisations

2000-01

18

21

2003-04

20

25

2004-05

20

25

2006-07

5

10


It is not possible to show earlier figures as before 2000 the Legal Services Commission (LSC) did not have contract arrangements with legal aid service providers.

There has been a significant reduction nationally, as well as in Southwark, in the number of firms of solicitors carrying out publicly funded immigration
25 July 2006 : Column 1549W
advice over the last two years. There are a number of reasons for this including firms withdrawing from the work as a result of a significant reduction in the number of people requiring advice and the LSC terminating contracts because of concerns about the quality and/or cost of the work being carried out. However the LSC remains convinced that there is sufficient provision to meet the demand for services and that the main reason that people are unable to access legal aid is because they do not satisfy the statutory means and merits criteria.

Changes in the number of solicitors providing publicly funded immigration work since 2001 by LSC bid zone is shown in the table below. It is not possible to show earlier figures as before 2000 the LSC did not have contract arrangements with legal aid service providers.


25 July 2006 : Column 1550W

25 July 2006 : Column 1551W

25 July 2006 : Column 1552W
Table 1
Bidzone 2001 2006 Change

Birmingham

21

12

reduction

Coventry

4

3

reduction

Dudley

1

1

no change

Newcastle-under-Lyme

1

0

reduction

Sandwell

2

1

reduction

Stoke Central

1

1

no change

Walsall

4

1

reduction

Wolverhampton

1

2

increase

Brighton and Hove

1

1

no change

Canterbury

1

0

reduction

Crawley

1

0

reduction

Dover

1

1

no change

Eastbourne

1

0

reduction

Gravesham

1

0

reduction

Hastings

1

0

reduction

Maidstone

0

1

increase

Medway Towns

1

0

reduction

Shepway

1

0

reduction

Thanet

1

0

reduction

Woking

1

0

reduction

Worthing

2

0

reduction

Bath

1

0

reduction

Bournemouth

1

0

reduction

Bristol Central

4

3

reduction

Exeter

4

1

reduction

Gloucester

0

0

no change

Kingswood

2

0

reduction

Plymouth

2

1

reduction

St Austell

1

0

reduction

Swindon

0

0

no change

Bedford

2

1

reduction

Cambridge

2

0

reduction

Colchester

1

0

reduction

Fenland

0

1

increase

Hertsmere

1

1

no change

Ipswich

2

0

reduction

Luton

3

2

reduction

North Hertfordshire

0

1

increase

Norwich

2

0

reduction

Peterborough

2

0

reduction

Southend-on-Sea

1

0

reduction

St. Edmundsbury

1

0

reduction

Uttlesford

1

0

reduction

Cardiff

5

4

reduction

Newport

2

2

no change

Swansea City

1

0

reduction

Wrexham

0

1

increase

Bradford

6

3

reduction

Calderdale

1

0

reduction

Doncaster

1

1

no change

Greater Hull

2

0

reduction

Huddersfield District

1

0

reduction

Leeds

5

4

reduction

North East Lincolnshire

2

0

reduction

North Kirklees

4

0

reduction

North Lincolnshire

1

0

reduction

Rotherham

1

1

no change

Sheffield

3

1

reduction

Wakefield District

2

1

reduction

Birkenhead

0

0

no change

City Centre

1

3

increase

Liverpool South Inner

1

0

reduction

Barking and Dagenham

2

3

increase

Barnet

4

2

reduction

Bexley

2

0

reduction

Brent

27

11

reduction

Bromley

2

0

reduction

Camden

21

15

reduction

Croydon

5

3

reduction

Ealing

21

11

reduction

Enfield

2

2

no change

Greenwich

2

0

reduction

Hackney

13

8

reduction

Hammersmith and Fulham

8

5

reduction

Haringey

27

12

reduction

Harrow

11

5

reduction

Havering

1

1

no change

Hillingdon

3

0

reduction

Hounslow

7

3

reduction

Islington

22

7

reduction

Kensington and Chelsea

5

1

reduction

Kingston upon Thames

0

0

no change

Lambeth

14

6

reduction

Lewisham

4

3

reduction

London City

4

1

reduction

Merton

4

1

reduction

Newham

25

11

reduction

Redbridge

7

5

reduction

Richmond upon Thames

2

1

reduction

Southwark

18

5

reduction

Tower Hamlets

13

5

reduction

Waltham Forest

12

2

reduction

Wandsworth

13

6

reduction

Westminster

16

9

reduction

Blackburn with Darwen

2

2

no change

Bolton

1

0

reduction

Burnley

1

1

no change

Bury

1

0

reduction

Manchester Central

3

1

reduction

Manchester North

3

1

reduction

Manchester South

2

2

no change

Oldham

2

0

reduction

Pendle

2

1

reduction

Preston

2

1

reduction

Rochdale

1

1

no change

Rossendale

1

0

reduction

Salford

1

0

reduction

Stockport

0

0

no change

Tameside

0

2

increase

Trafford North

0

0

no change

Gateshead

1

1

no change

Hartlepool

1

0

reduction

Middlesbrough

3

1

reduction

Newcastle

3

3

no change

Redcar and Cleveland

1

1

no change

Stockton

1

0

reduction

Sunderland

1

1

no change

Boston

1

0

reduction

Charnwood

2

0

reduction

Chesterfield

0

0

no change

Derby

3

0

reduction

Leicester

9

3

reduction

Lincoln

1

0

reduction

Northampton

1

0

reduction

Nottingham

4

3

reduction

South Derbyshire

0

0

no change

South Kesteven

1

0

reduction

Aylesbury Vale

1

1

no change

Chiltern

1

0

reduction

Eastleigh

0

1

increase

Greater Reading

3

1

reduction

Havant

1

0

reduction

Milton Keynes

0

0

no change

Oxford

3

1

reduction

Portsmouth

1

1

no change

Rushmoor

1

1

no change

Slough

3

0

reduction

Southampton

3

4

increase

Wycombe

0

1

increase


Next Section Index Home Page