| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Feb 2010 : Column 783W—continued
Legal Services Commission
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much the Legal Services Commission spent on acts of assistance relating to housing in each of the last five years; and how much has been spent in 2009-10 to date on applications for acts of assistance. [315652]
Bridget Prentice: For so called "Controlled Work" (which includes legal help and general advice and assistance), legal aid providers are paid a standard monthly payment in the first instance, which is not split by category of law. Once a case has been completed, the provider submits a claim to the LSC. Before the introduction of the Unified Contract in April 2007, solicitors were paid hourly rates and not-for-profit providers were paid in advance for hours agreed in their contract and the monthly data related to the number of cases started and finished as opposed to their cost. Since the introduction of a standard fixed fee payment regime in October 2007 it has been possible to provide figures for the cost of claims for all providers for 2008-09 to date.
| 1 April to 30 November 2009 | 2008-09 | |
The cost of civil representation for housing matters closed from 1 April 2009 to 30 November 2009 and each of the previous five years is shown in the following table.
| Cases completed( 1) | Expenditure (£ million)( 2) | |
| (1) The figures relate to cases closed during the period. (2) The figures show costs to the LSC and exclude certain cases including: cases that were settled and where the other party agreed to pay some or all of the costs; cases where the solicitor later reported that there was no longer a claim; cases where certificates were revoked due to an applicant failing to pay contributions or was found to be ineligible for legal aid following a reassessment of income and; cases where the total cost of the case equalled the same as the initial payment on account to the provider or the cost was less than £10. The figure represents gross spend excluding income. | ||
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what expenditure has been incurred on (a) remuneration and (b) expenses for each adjudicator appointed by the Brighton office of the Legal Services Commission in each of the last five years. [315709]
Bridget Prentice: The expenditure on Independent Funding Adjudicators, the former Funding Review Committee and the Multi-Party Action Committee for the Special Cases Unit, of which one part operates from Brighton, over the past five years was:
| (£) | |
The present remuneration rates for the members of LSC Committees are:
Chair half-day £180.85, full day £361-70; Member half-day £143.55, full day £287.10. Single adjudicators receive the payment rate for a chair of a Committee. SCU pay pro-rata rates for hours worked and this includes preparatory reading for meetings.
Specific information on the remuneration of all the individuals involved in this work is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many appeals to a Legal Services Commission adjudicator have been (a) upheld and (b) rejected in each of the last five years. [315710]
Bridget Prentice: Single independent funding adjudicators were introduced in October 2006. Prior to that the reviews were decided by funding review committees.
The information is not held centrally for the last five years and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
In the period January to December 2009 determinations by single independent adjudicators were: (a) 41 upheld the clients' review in part or full, (b) 194 dismissed. In the same period determinations by committees of independent funding adjudicators were: (a) five upheld the clients review in part or full, (b) 37 dismissed. These reviews covered applications, amendments and discharges of funding.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how long the adjudicator for the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has to give their decision in respect each matter referred to them; what steps the LSC takes to monitor the performance of adjudicators; who in the LSC monitors the performance of adjudicators; how many complaints about delay have been raised by the LSC with adjudicators in the last five years; and what the outcome was in each case. [315731]
Bridget Prentice: The LSC aims to complete reviews promptly from the date of receipt.
For the Special Cases Unit it is typical for the adjudicators to provide their decision within 14 days. SCU will chase a response if a decision has not been provided within four weeks.
Complaints records are not kept for five years. Between January and December 2009 the SCU has recorded three complaints about delays in determining reviews. These three complaints were found to be justified and were resolved by apologising to the complainant and actioning the review. The Commission has not raised complaints with adjudicators.
Organised Crime: Immigration
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been convicted of an offence relating to organised immigration crimes in each year since 1998. [314742]
Claire Ward: Organised immigration crimes do not exist as specific offences. Immigration and criminal offences are incorporated within Immigration Acts and other statutes. Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice does not record specific information on offences beyond descriptions provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought.
Prisoners Release
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 January 2010, Official Report, column 864W, on prisoners release, from which prisons were prisoners released in error in 2009. [315482]
Maria Eagle: The following tables show the breakdown of releases in error by prison and court areas in England and Wales. These figures cover the period between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009.
The majority of prisoners released in error are returned to custody quickly. They are usually unaware of the error and make no attempt to evade the police.
| Table 1: Releases in error from prisons in England and Wales for 2009 | |
| Establishment | Number |
| Table 2: Release in errors from court areas in England and Wales for 2009 | |
| Court area | Number |
| Note: These figures have been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. The number of releases in error reported for 2009 may change should further incidents be reported. | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |