Judicial Diversity Taskforce

Helen Grant Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The judicial diversity taskforce has today published its third annual progress report, which details the progress the taskforce has made in addressing the 53 recommendations of the advisory panel on judicial diversity. The advisory panel had a vision that our judiciary would be more diverse by 2020 and I am confident that the work of the taskforce will go some way to achieving this vision.

Significant progress has been made by members of the taskforce over this past year. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced changes to the selection panels for senior appointments to ensure that they are more diverse, introduced an equal merit provision into the appointments process and allowed part-time working in the senior courts, including the UK Supreme Court.

This progress is certainly encouraging; however, we do still have a number of important recommendations to implement before we start to see any significant changes in diversity. It is very important that the outstanding recommendations are completed swiftly so we do not lose the momentum we have built, and that we carry out robust evaluation of our actions to make sure the steps we are taking are the right ones; steps that will deliver tangible benefits and meaningful change in the diversity of our judiciary.

Only with renewed energy and commitment from all will we see real, visible change in the diversity of our judiciary in the future.

Copies of the taskforce’s progress report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report is also available online at:

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-judicial-diversity-judicial-diversity-taskforce-annual-report-2013.

Defamation and Privacy Claims (Costs Protection)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I am today announcing the publication of “Costs Protection in defamation and privacy claims: the Government’s proposals”.

Following the publication of Lord Justice Leveson’s report in November 2012, the Government accepted his recommendation—endorsing that of Lord Justice Jackson—that costs protection should be extended to defamation and privacy claims. Costs protection protects parties from the costs that they might have to pay to the other side in civil litigation. Costs protection was introduced in April 2013 for personal injury cases when the Government reformed the way in which no win, no fee agreements operate. Those reforms, contained in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, were delayed for defamation and privacy cases as a result of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation until a costs protection regime has been introduced.

The proposals in the consultation are designed to help people and organisations of modest means to be able to bring and defend defamation and privacy claims without the fear of having to pay unaffordable legal costs to the other side if they lose. The consultation also proposes that those of substantial means (whether individuals or organisations, such as national newspapers) would be excluded from the costs protection regime, while those of less modest means might have to pay something towards the legal costs of the other side if they lose.

The consultation runs until 8 November. The Government hope to introduce the new costs protection regime in April 2014, at the same time as implementing the relevant provisions in part 2 of LASPO Act for defamation and privacy cases. Taken together, these changes will result in access to justice at more proportionate cost: meritorious claims will be able to proceed, while those without merit will be deterred.

Copies of this Government consultation have been placed in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk.

Justice

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Caroline Lucas]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made, in calculating the likely costs or savings arising from his Transforming Legal Aid proposals, of the possibility of (a) increased applications for permission for judicial review and (b) increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, if lawyers are not paid unless permission for judicial review is granted; what the evidential basis was for that assessment; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 10 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 689-92W.]

Letter of correction from Jeremy Wright:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 10 September 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Grant]

At around £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems of its type in the world. The consultation paper ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’, contained a range of measures aimed at reducing the cost of and promoting public confidence in the legal aid scheme, including a proposal that providers would only be paid for work on an application for permission to proceed with a judicial review if permission is granted by the court.

We are concerned that legal aid is currently being used to fund applications for permission for judicial review in weak cases which are unsuccessful and which have little effect other than to incur unnecessary costs for the public.

As part of our consultation we have published an impact assessment which is available at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

As noted in the impact assessment, under our proposal set out in the consultation paper the provider would need to make an assessment of whether the application is arguable and therefore permission should be applied for. There may therefore be a fall in permission applications made. This may reduce the number of cases the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) need to process and reduce the number of hours required in court for these cases with an associated saving for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We have also noted in our assessment that there is the potential for an increase in requests for reconsideration of the permission application at a hearing, or onward permission appeals to the Court of Appeal where permission has been refused, which may result in an impact on HMCTS from reconsidering the applications.

In both circumstances however this is unquantifiable as the behavioural response of providers and clients is unknown.

Regarding possibility of increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, it is already the case that providers should generally agree costs as part of a settlement or seek a costs order form the court, as they would if acting for a privately paying client. This is set out in paragraph 6.58 of the 2013 Standard Civil Contract General Specification.

The consultation closed on 4 June 2013 and we intend to publish a Government response shortly.

The correct answer should have been:

[Jeremy Wright]

At around £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems of its type in the world. The consultation paper ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’, contained a range of measures aimed at reducing the cost of and promoting public confidence in the legal aid scheme, including a proposal that providers would only be paid for work on an application for permission to proceed with a judicial review if permission is granted by the court.

We are concerned that legal aid is currently being used to fund applications for permission for judicial review in weak cases which are unsuccessful and which have little effect other than to incur unnecessary costs for the public.

As part of our consultation we have published an impact assessment which is available at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

As noted in the impact assessment, under our proposal set out in the consultation paper the provider would need to make an assessment of whether the application is arguable and therefore permission should be applied for. There may therefore be a fall in permission applications made. This may reduce the number of cases the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) need to process and reduce the number of hours required in court for these cases with an associated saving for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We have also noted in our assessment that there is the potential for an increase in requests for reconsideration of the permission application at a hearing, or onward permission appeals to the Court of Appeal where permission has been refused, which may result in an impact on HMCTS from reconsidering the applications.

In both circumstances however this is unquantifiable as the behavioural response of providers and clients is unknown.

Regarding possibility of increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, it is already the case that providers should generally agree costs as part of a settlement or seek a costs order form the court, as they would if acting for a privately paying client. This is set out in paragraph 6.58 of the 2013 Standard Civil Contract General Specification.

The consultation closed on 4 June 2013 and we intend to publish a Government response shortly.

Fee Remissions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I have today laid and published the Government’s response to the consultation “Fee remissions for the courts and tribunals”, which ran from 18 April to 16 May 2013.

The consultation sought views on reforms to the fee remission system to provide a better targeted, fairer and easier to use system which ensures access to justice for those unable to afford a fee.

A total of 64 responses were received to the consultation from a range of stakeholders including legal bodies, trade unions, business and voluntary bodies and members of the public.

Having carefully considered the views of stakeholders we have decided to take forward the proposals included in the consultation, with some amendments. The key features of the new system will be:

a single system of fee remission across all of the courts and tribunals subject to the consultation, which will be easier for users to understand and to access;

a new disposable capital test to assess eligibility for a remission, with some amendments to that consulted upon to reflect concerns about the impact of the test on those of retirement age and to make clearer the types of capital that will be considered or disregarded;

a new single income test which will be simpler to use and which will require a greater contribution from those who pay part of their fee.

Implementation of these reforms will mean that the taxpayer contribution towards fee remissions will be better targeted towards those who need it most. They will also ensure that the system of remissions is fair, easy to use and consistent across courts and tribunals.

The changes will be implemented by negative statutory instrument, to come into effect on Monday 7 October. Revised guidance on the new system will be also made available to the public.

At the same time, we will also introduce a new fee of £215 for an oral renewal application in judicial review proceedings. This implements changes announced on 23 April 2013, following the Government’s engagement exercise “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”.

The consultation response has been placed in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/fee-remissions-court-tribunals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

3. How much funding the Government provided for the Equality and Diversity Forum in 2012-13; and for what reasons this money was allocated.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Equality and Diversity Forum is an independent network of equality and human rights organisations. The Government did not fund any of its activities in 2012-13.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is the Minister aware that some of the forum’s political activities could breach the Charity Commission’s rules on campaigning and political activity?

[Mrs Grant]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It would be absolutely unacceptable for any charity to behave in a way that breached its regulatory requirements. The Government would not accept any behaviour of that sort or condone such activity. If he remains concerned, I advise him to take the issue up with the forum, the Charity Commission or both.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Government have cut by almost 70% the budget of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which funds the work of the EDF. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of those cuts on the EDF’s work and the work of the other bodies it supports?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes, there have been changes, but the EDF is still capable of doing all the activities it needs to do. The forum is a valuable component that does valuable work. I have, on occasion, been lucky enough to be invited to attend meetings and to speak at them.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

4. What activities have taken place to promote the launch of the report of the Women’s Business Council on maximising women’s contribution to future economic growth; and if she will make a statement.

Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, made the following written ministerial statement:

The Government are today—Tuesday 30 July 2013—publishing its response to the consultation on the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill.

The consultation paper sought the views of respondents on proposed reforms concerning intestacy and family provision. Respondents were asked for comments on the draft Bill and the explanatory notes, for views in relation to an additional ground of jurisdiction for family provision claims, and views on the impact assessment.

The overall response was supportive of the proposed reforms and did not raise any significant doubts about the accuracy of the impact assessment. Differing views were expressed over the proposed additional ground of jurisdiction and this issue is dealt with in detail in our response. Although the Government have not accepted the additional ground of jurisdiction that attracted the most support among consultees the Government have robust reasons for reaching the decision they have and these are detailed in the response.

The Bill itself was today introduced into the House of Lords under the special House of Lords procedure for non-controversial Law Commission Bills.

Reforming Mesothelioma Claims

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, made the following written ministerial statement:

I am today—Wednesday 24 July 2013—announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation “Reforming mesothelioma claims”.

It is a tragic fact that around 23,000 deaths from mesothelioma are predicted to occur between 2014 and 2024. Mesothelioma is an aggressive and terminal occupational disease caused by exposure to asbestos, with sufferers having a median life expectancy of seven to nine months from diagnosis. Despite this, there is evidence that around 50% of claims for compensation take over 12 months to settle, which means that victims may die before their claim is paid out.

The Government recognise that there is a special and urgent case for reforming the way mesothelioma claims are dealt with. The proposals in the consultation build upon the significant work taken forward by the Mesothelioma Bill, currently before Parliament, and seek to increase the pace and improve the efficiency of the claims process so that an early payment of compensation is made to sufferers and their dependants.

The consultation considers introducing a dedicated mesothelioma pre-action protocol (MPAP) supported by an industry funded secure claims gateway. It also seeks views on both the principle and structure of a fixed recoverable cost regime which aims to reflect the greater speed and efficiencies gained by the proposed MPAP.

As part of that consultation, we will carry out the review of the mesothelioma provisions required under section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

The Government accept that the handling of mesothelioma claims is a complex and sensitive issue, and are keen to hear views on our proposals and any further ideas from all interested parties.

Copies of this Government consultation have been placed in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk.

Magistrates' Courts: Salford

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Slaughter]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how the theft of a network server from Salford magistrates' court in January 2012 took place; who stole the server; what the value of the server was; how it was recovered; what action has been taken against the thief; what documents were on the server; whether such documents (a) related to court staff, defendants, victims or witnesses and (b) included personal or confidential matters or matters related to evidence; what steps have been taken to inform those affected; for what reasons he believes that the information has not been accessed; for what reasons the theft was not reported to the police and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) until June 2012; when he expects the ICO to report; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 18 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 829W.]

Letter of correction from Helen Grant:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on 18 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Grant]

The theft of a network server from Salford magistrates court occurred during the IT decommissioning process undertaken by contractors during the closure of the court. Following a police investigation, there was insufficient evidence to identify who stole the server and secure a conviction and no charges were brought. The estimated value of the server was £1,200.

The theft came to light on 3 May 2012 when the server was put up for sale on eBay still bearing the contractor's logo/asset tag. Arrangements were made by the contractor to recover the server on 9 May 2012. Once the facts were established, the incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on 14 June 2013.

Files recovered from non user-accessible areas of the server contained personal and sensitive data, including court documents and e mails, but a detailed forensic analysis and audit did not identify any access to the files during the time the server was not under the control of MOJ and therefore no action has been taken to inform those affected.

The matter is still under investigation by the ICO and we await their report.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mrs Grant]

The theft of a network server from Salford magistrates court occurred during the IT decommissioning process undertaken by contractors during the closure of the court. Following a police investigation, there was insufficient evidence to identify who stole the server and secure a conviction and no charges were brought. The estimated value of the server was £1,200.

The theft came to light on 3 May 2012 when the server was put up for sale on eBay still bearing the contractor's logo/asset tag. Arrangements were made by the contractor to recover the server on 9 May 2012. Once the facts were established, the incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on 14 June 2012.

Files recovered from non user-accessible areas of the server contained personal and sensitive data, including court documents and e mails, but a detailed forensic analysis and audit did not identify any access to the files during the time the server was not under the control of MOJ and therefore no action has been taken to inform those affected.

The matter is still under investigation by the ICO and we await their report.

Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (Triennial Review)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I am today announcing the triennial review of the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that NDPBs continue to have regular independent challenge on their remit and governance arrangements. The review will challenge the continuing need for the function of the council and its form. In conducting the review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office. If it is agreed that it should remain as an NDPB, the review will consider its control and governance arrangements to ensure that it is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I intend to announce the findings of the review early next year, and will place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

Freedom of Information Act (Code of Practice)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

My noble friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

The Government will today issue, under section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a new code of practice in relation to the release and reuse of datasets under FOIA. It supplements but does not replace the existing code of practice issued under section 45 for public authorities on the discharge of their current obligations under part 1 of FOIA.

This new code of practice will provide guidance for public authorities on best practice to follow in discharging their new responsibilities in relation to datasets provided for by section 102 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 102, which is not yet in force, amends section 11 (means by which communication to be made) and section 19 (publication schemes) of FOIA and inserts new sections 11A and 1B. Once commenced, these changes, which form an important part of our transparency agenda, will mean that where a person requests information under FOIA that is or forms part of a dataset, and expresses a preference to receive it in electronic form, the public authority must (if FOIA requires the dataset to be released) provide the dataset in an electronic form which allows its reuse. The result will be that the public authority must, first, provide the dataset in a reusable format, where reasonably practicable; and, secondly, grant a licence (in accordance with one of the specified licences referred to in this code) under which its datasets may be reused.

In particular, this code of practice provides further guidance on key definitions and the circumstances where it will be reasonably practicable for public authorities to provide datasets in a reusable format; the disclosure of datasets; their reuse, including licensing and charging arrangements; the circumstances where it may be appropriate to publish updated versions of datasets on an ongoing basis; and the provision of advice and assistance to applicants in relation to these provisions.

The code of practice will take effect when section 102 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is commenced on 1 September. To coincide with commencement. Regulations authorising the charging of fees for reuse of datasets will be made and laid before Parliament under section 11B of FOIA. These will also come into force on 1 September.

In line with my responsibilities under section 45 of FOIA, I will arrange for a copy of the code of practice to be laid before each House of Parliament.