Search Results

1-20 of 22 results for subject:Reviews

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he will make a statement on progress with the review of the Queen's Counsel system.

Asked by

Andrew Dismore (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Constitutional Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 February 2004

Reference

417 c1674W;417 c1672W; 154498

House

House of Commons

Dept for Constitutional Affairs

Statement on 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.

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Constitutional Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

8 July 2003

For answer on

16 July 2003

Answered on

16 July 2003

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: Application 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. Consultation 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. Sift 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 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. Appointment 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. Feedback Unsuccessful applicants were encouraged to discuss the outcome of their application with a senior member of Legal and Judicial Services Group. Feedback was 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. Complaints 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.

Date

16 July 2003

Reference

409 c439-41W;409 c440-2W; 125200

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he expects the boundary commission to complete its review of constituency boundaries; and when the review will be implemented. - Inc ref to Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.

Asked by

Tony Clarke (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

4 March 2003

Reference

100808; 400 c927W;400 c918-9W

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on progress with the review of policies and processes to be adopted during the fifth general review of parliamentary constituencies and the review of Assembly electoral regions by the Boundary Commission for Wales. - Including ref...

Asked by

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 December 2002

Reference

85619; 396 c645W;396 c661W

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on his proposed direction to the Boundary Committee on the timetable of reviews of local government structure in areas which give a positive reaction to holding a referendum on regional assemblies. - Includes ref to Regional Assemblies (Preparations)...

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 December 2002

Reference

396 c489-90W; 86711

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on progress with reviewing (a) the boundaries of local authorities in England and (b) the boundary between Wychavon and the City of Worcester.

Asked by

Peter Luff (Conservative)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

4 December 2002

Reference

84169; 395 c890W;395 c888W

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the recent discussions with the Fire Brigades Union; and what conclusions have been reached. (Printed on 15.10.2002 Bound Volume 390 c830-1W)

Asked by

Jimmy Wray (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

22 October 2002

Reference

391 c274W; 73393

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the recent discussions with the Fire Brigades Union; and what conclusions have been reached. (Printed on 22.10.2002 in 391 c275W)

Asked by

Jimmy Wray (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 October 2002

Reference

73393; 390 (Not in Daily Part);390 c830-1W

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Statement on when he proposes to announce the outcome of stage 2 of the review of English Partnerships; and if he will make a statement. - Inc list.

Asked by

Chris Pond (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

23 July 2002

For answer on

24 July 2002

Answered on

24 July 2002

Mr. Pond: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he proposes to announce the outcome of stage 2 of the review of English Partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [73451] Mr. Leslie: I am today announcing the conclusion of stage two of the Review of English Partnerships. English Partnerships will be a key player in the delivery of my new "living communities" agenda. As I announced in my Statement to the House on 18 July, I am instructing English Partnerships to use its new role to search out and deliver even more land for housing and sustainable urban development. I also want English Partnerships to help in regenerating those places most badly affected by abandonment and decay. Stage one of the Review confirmed English Partnerships as having an important role as an agency for best practice regeneration and development of brownfield land. I am keen that it develops that role, and in particular, I am asking the organisation to draw up plans to meet the following objectives: To bring about speedy development of new schemes that can help meet the objectives set out in my policy statement of 18 July. In particular, I am determined to see a step change in both the quantity and the quality of new development in those areas that are facing acute demand pressures. I am therefore today announcing an initial list of their sites on which I wish EP to concentrate, as shown in the table, and we will be consulting on the way forward for those sites. A further list of sites will be announced in the autumn. 2. To work closely with the Housing Corporation, and with other key agencies including the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), to ensure effective co-ordination in the delivery of plans for key worker and affordable housing within the wider context of "living communities". 3. To advise on the efficient and effective development of surplus Government land and buildings that may help deliver new communities where most needed. 4. To help with the assembly of sites for regeneration and sustainable development purposes. 5. To produce and maintain a national brownfield strategy, to include best practice guidance in the assembly, remediation and development of land and buildings, to help drive forward the Urban Renaissance. 6. To continue to operate its innovative programmes, including the Coalfields Programme, Millennium Communities, support for Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs), the English Cities Fund, the National Land Use Database (NLUD), Priority Sites Ltd, Land Stabilisation Programme, and Englishsites.com, and to develop new ideas for extending good practice. 7. To operate a regime that enables developers to use approved `gap' funding for the delivery of housing projects that would otherwise be commercially unviable. Initial list of sites _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Location Site Eastern 1) Basildon Gardiners Lane 2) Basildon Dry Street 3) Basildon Five Links (Phase 2) 4) Harlow Sports Centre 5) Hatfield Town Centre 6) Hemel Hempstead Spencers Park 7) Hemel Hempstead Paradise Fields 8) Hemel Hempstead Breakspear 9) Stevenage Town Centre 10) Stevenage West Stevenage 11) Peterborough Various sites North East 12) Middlesbrough Middlehaven 13) Stockton North Bank 14) Stockton Haverton Hill North West 15) Liverpool Kings Waterfront 16) Liverpool Liverpool Land Development Co. sites 17) Preston Preston East 18) Preston Cuerdon Regional Business Park 19) Runcorn Castlefields 20) Skelmersdale Town Centre 21) Warrington Omega Yorkshire and the Humber 22) Sheffield Various sites in the URC East Midlands 23) Corby Various sites in the URC 24) Northampton SW District Phase 1 25) Northampton SW District Phases 2 and 3 West Midlands 26) Telford Town Centre 27) Telford South Telford (Woodside) 28) Telford Lightmoor 29) Telford East Ketley Millennium Community 30) Telford Lawley South West 31) Weston-super-Mare RAF Locking South East 32) Crawley Expansion sites 33) Crawley Town Centre 34) Milton Keynes Central MK / Campbell Park 35) Milton Keynes Oak Grove Millennium Community 36) Milton Keynes Bletchley / MK Stadium 37) Milton Keynes Broughton Atterbury 38) Milton Keynes East Flank 39) Milton Keynes West Flank 40) Milton Keynes National Bowl / East Ashland London 41) Greenwich Greenwich Peninsula including the Millennium Community Cross-regional 42) Various Key Worker Housing Initiative sites _________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Date

24 July 2002

Reference

389 c1213-5W;389 c1211-3W; 73451

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will list those unitary authorities that made representations regarding the review of the SSA formula. - Includes ref to Green Paper 'Modernising Local Government Finance' in September 2000.

Asked by

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 July 2002

Reference

70951; 389 c1002-3W;389 c1000-1W

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, When he expects the Government to report on the findings of the Emergency Planning Review and seek to implement its recommendations. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 8 February 2002 379 c1230W and fact that the results of the emergency planning review consultation have...

Asked by

Desmond Swayne (Conservative)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

24 April 2002

Reference

384 c267W; 49353

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

Answered by

Chris Leslie (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

381 c874

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

Answered by

Chris Leslie (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

381 c874

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, When he expects to introduce legislation to implement the conclusions of the Ombudsman Review.

Asked by

Tony Wright (Labour)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

381 c874; 40120

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, on what basis it was decided that the Chief Executive of the Central Office of Information should report directly to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications; and whether the Central Office of Information will continue to report to Cabinet Office Ministers. - Includes ref...

Asked by

Tim Collins (Conservative)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 February 2002

Reference

37965; 380 c1362-3W;380 c1364W

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what responses he has received to the recent discussion document on the future of emergency planning in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. - Inc figure and refs to information in Library.

Asked by

Charlotte Atkins (Labour)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

8 February 2002

Reference

35593; 379 c1230W;379 c1224W

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will publish the results of the reviews of the mandatory age of retirement undertaken by each department. - Each Dept has conducted its own review. The overall picture is being collated for Ministers. We have no plans to publish a separate document.

Asked by

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 February 2002

Reference

32667; 379 c944-5W;379 c940-1W

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will report on the outcome of the Quinquennial Review into the Central Office of Information.

Asked by

Andrew Love (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

1 February 2002

For answer on

5 February 2002

Answered on

5 February 2002

Mr. Love: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will report on the outcome of the quinquennial review into the Central Office of Information. [33837] Mr. Leslie: The quinquennial review of the Central Office of Information has shown that the COI has performed very well over the past five years. It has provided good value for money in its procurement, project management and strategic consultancy services. The COI will continue in its present status as a Department, an executive agency and a trading fund for a further five years. The review recommended two significant changes which will now be implemented to create two centres of excellence. The Chief Executive of COI will have an additional role as the Government's chief adviser on marketing communications and information campaigns reporting to the Director of Communications and Strategy at No 10. This will strengthen the co-ordination and planning of departmental publicity strategies across Whitehall and changes should be in place by 1 April 2002. COI's Regional News Network and its News Distribution Service will be transferred to the Government Information and Communication Service in the Cabinet Office. This will ensure more effective presentation of cross-departmental and regional issues while maintaining links with Government publicity and communications generally. It will also have stronger links with the Government offices in the regions to give a better service to both the regional media and the general public. The review also recognised the importance of the need for major research studies which tackle cross-cutting issues. COI communications is in the ideal position to undertake this role. I intend that these changes should be in place by 1 April 2002, supported by a revised Framework Document, which will be placed in the Library of the House.

Date

5 February 2002

Reference

33837; 379 c862-3W;379 c858-9W

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the (a) timescale and (b) terms of reference for the review of the mandatory retirement age for senior civil servants in his Department.

Asked by

Candy Atherton (Labour)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

24 January 2002

Reference

29760; 378 c1004W

House

House of Commons

Cabinet Office

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews established since 2nd May 1997 were in existence between 1st April 2000 and 31st March 2001 (also in Daily Part on 16.11.2001 at 374 c895-6W). - Includes ref to information in the form of an...

Asked by

Chris Bryant (Labour)

Answering body

Cabinet Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 November 2001

Reference

374 c959W; 15832

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher