AUTHORISED PRACTITIONER SCHEME (Hansard, 11 March 1992)

§ The Lord Chancellor

The consultation document on the draft authorised practitioner regulations which

Public Record Office key performance targets—1992–93
Indicator	Target
1. Efficiency
Cost of selecting and accessioning records per unit quantity (foot-run).	To establish a baseline cost for the year 1992–93 with a view to setting a target for 1993–94
Unit costs of providing record storage space, document productions and reader services.	To increase the cost of providing records storage space per linear foot by no more that 5.5 per cent. from £0.90 to £0.95¹.
	To decrease the cost per cost per document produced to readers by 18 per cent, from £1.71 to £1.40
	To decrease the total reader service costs per reader visit (Census microforms) by 10 per cent, from £2.18 to £1.96.
	To decrease the total reader service cost per reader visit (other records) by 8 per cent, from £6.85 to £6.28.
Backlog of records awaiting review.	To reduce the backlog of records over 30 years old which have not been reviewed, by 500 ft.
Provision of acceptable storage conditions.	The store 81 per cent, of records to an acceptable standard.
Management efficiency in running services and projects.	To establish systems to permit specific targets to be set for 1993–94.
2. Quality of Service
Hours during which the Office is open to the Public.	To run a pilot scheme from 4th July 1992 to 31st December 1992 of opening the census reading rooms on a Saturday and to continue the service if customer demand is great enough

72WA

was published last April produced a large number of responses representing a wide variety of views. Last December a further consultation was undertaken involving those bodies with a principal interest in the conveyancing market. Responses to the further consultation have confirmed that there is insufficient demand for authorisation to justify the implementation of the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act at the present time. In addition, the Law Commissions and the Securities and Investments Board are presently reviewing aspects of the regulation of commissions in the financial services market, the outcome of which may affect the approach taken towards the regulation of authorised practitioners in this respect. I intend therefore to postpone implementation for the present. I shall of course keep the position under review and will reassess the situation should there be a future increase in the demand for authorisation.