Legal Services on the International Stage
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Ministry of Justice, in conjunction with UK Trade and Investment, later today launches “Legal Services on the international stage: underpinning growth and stability”, an action plan which outlines the next steps in the promotion of UK legal services abroad.
This follows the publication of the “Plan for Growth: Promoting the UK’s Legal Services Sector”, published in May 2011, which outlined 11 action points to promote the UK’s legal offer. It is now important that we maintain the momentum and explore new ways in which we can promote our legal services internationally.
The new action plan focuses upon three main themes: the inclusion of all UK jurisdictions when promoting our legal offer, the promotion of the UK legal education sector and promoting legal services alongside other sectors. In addition we will be continuing the work begun under the plan for growth, namely lobbying for market liberalisation of those states that have restricted legal markets.
Copies of “Legal Services on the international stage: underpinning growth and stability”, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 (c.1) received Royal Assent on 31 January. The Act provides that the provisions of sections 1 to 4 (inclusive) of the Act are to be brought into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint. The remaining provisions of the Act are already in force.
I am pleased to announce that a commencement order is to be made bringing sections 1 to 3 (inclusive), which deal with the apportionment and classification of capital and income in trusts, in to force on 1 October 2013.
In relation to the provisions of section 4 of the Act, the commencement order will bring the new section 104B of the Charities Act 2011 in to force on 6 April 2013. This section empowers the Charity Commission to make regulations relating to total return investment by charities.
The remaining provisions of section 4 relate to the new section 104A of the Charities Act 2011. Section 104A specifies when charities may adopt total return investment. I will make a further announcement about the commencement of these provisions in due course following the completion of the proposed consultation by the Charity Commission on the content of the regulations to be made under section 104B. The Charity Commission expects to issue a consultation paper in the relatively near future.
Caste
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)
This Government believe that no one should suffer prejudice because of caste. That is why we have been giving the issue careful consideration in order to identify the most appropriate and effective way of tackling the problem.
We are therefore pleased to announce that the Government Equalities Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government have appointed Talk for a Change to engage with the affected communities to run an educational programme to help tackle this complex and sensitive issue.
Talk for a Change will be working with interested organisations and individuals, particularly from within the Hindu and Sikh communities, to find practical solutions to the problems and harm that caste-based prejudice can cause. Talk for a Change has extensive experience of facilitating difficult conversations and working with local partners to address tough issues, helping to build positive relationships and resilient communities.
This educational programme will be used to raise awareness of those channels of help and redress that are already open to those who feel themselves to have been victims of caste discrimination or harassment. The programme will also be used to generate educational material that will subsequently be made available to local authorities, schools, colleges, employers, police and any others who may be likely to come into contact with caste-related issues.
Talk for a Change will be engaging with partners from local communities to deliver regional events in London, the midlands and the north. Participation in these events will be open to all individuals and organisations who wish to take part in this opportunity.
We believe that this programme will be an appropriate and targeted way of dealing with incidents relating to caste and which are not already susceptible to criminal law or other remedies. We have decided not to exercise the caste power contained in the Equality Act 2010 at the present time—though we have no plans to remove the power from the Act, in case the position should change.
In addition to the work being done by Talk for a Change, we have also been in discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission about caste discrimination. The Government Equalities Office and the commission have agreed that the latter can usefully contribute to this issue by examining over the next few months the nature of caste prejudice and harassment as evidenced by existing studies, and the extent to which this problem is likely to be addressed by either legislative or other solutions. The commission will publish its findings later in 2013.
Coroner Reforms
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Government have today published a consultation on our proposed coroner reforms to be made under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Our proposals are key to enabling us to meet our aims of putting the needs of bereaved people at the heart of the coroner system; retaining local coroner services but within a new national framework of standards and with new national leadership; and enabling a more efficient system of investigations and inquests.
We began the process of reform with the appointment of the first Chief Coroner of England and Wales, His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, in May 2012. The next step is to implement the Chief Coroner’s powers under the 2009 Act, along with a number of other important reforms to the coroner system.
Our consultation therefore seeks views on the following proposals:
New “Coroners (Investigations) Regulations”—setting out the investigation process (excluding the inquest part of proceedings) including new measures intended to tackle delays within the coroner system.
New “Coroners (Inquests) Rules”—governing the practice at inquests, including new provisions about disclosure of information to bereaved relatives and other interested persons, allowing them to play a more active role in the process.
New “Coroners Allowances, Fees and Expenses Regulations”—setting out the fees and allowances that coroners can pay or charge, largely replicating current provisions.
A new “Guide to Coroner Services”—updating and combining the current “Guide to Coroners and Inquests” and “Charter for Coroner Services”.
New coroner areas—mapping out the new coroner area framework and commencing the process of amalgamating areas to deliver a more consistent, efficient and professional coroner system.
In developing these proposals. Ministry of Justice officials have worked closely with colleagues in the Department of Health on the death certification reforms which also flow from part 1 of the 2009 Act and on which the Department of Health will be consulting separately.
The coroner reforms consultation will run until 12 April 2013. A response paper will be published online and the Government intend to implement the reforms in summer 2013.
Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online, at http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations.htm.
The Damages Act 1996: The Discount Rate
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Ministry of Justice, the Scottish Government and the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland have today jointly published a consultation paper “Damages Act 1996: The Discount Rate—Review of the Legal Framework” (CP 3/2013).
The paper seeks views on two issues: first, whether the legal parameters governing the way in which the discount rate prescribed under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 is currently calculated should be changed; and, secondly, whether there is a case for encouraging the use of periodical payments in cases where the discount rate would otherwise apply.
The consultation period is 12 weeks from 12 February. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the level of delay in criminal proceedings involving vulnerable witnesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
We want the criminal justice system to move faster, and deliver justice sooner for vulnerable witnesses and victims. We are looking at how to tackle delays across the criminal justice system to improve efficiency.
Ann Coffey
I thank the Minister for that reply. Victims of child sexual exploitation, already traumatised by their horrific experience, face gruelling cross-examination in court, often by multiple defence lawyers, in the process of justice. Does she agree that justice for those vulnerable witnesses is not served by lengthy adjournments—I am glad that she does—and that having specialist training in tackling child sexual exploitation would help judges better to balance the needs of victims and the accused in court proceedings?
Mrs Grant
I fully understand and sympathise greatly with what the hon. Lady has said, and I agree with her that concerns can affect a witness’s willingness to participate in the criminal justice system. That is why the Ministry of Justice is embarking on a strategy to improve efficiency and the effectiveness of the system. That work will look at the entire process, from offence to completion of the case. I have recently written to her about a case in her constituency. I hope she has received that letter and I am happy to meet her to provide further reassurance.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides the right special measures to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses so that they can give the best evidence possible?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would also add that the special procedure measures that are now available in the form of pre-trial familiarisation visits, support from the witness service, separate entrances, exits and waiting areas, and access to a live link can help to reduce the stress and anxiety of going to court. We are considering what more we can do to improve support, including using new technology to change how evidence is given.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Minister said in her recent interview with The Times that she believes that the new Victims Commissioner
“feels a wonderful opportunity…to see victims put at the heart of the justice system”.
Is that why the Victims Commissioner will do only 10 days a month and why, two months after the announcement, she still has not started? Is the Minister not guilty yet again of failing victims of crime?
Mrs Grant
The Victims Commissioner is a very able woman who is able to multitask, like many of us. We have had a number of meetings with her and she, like me, wants to put victims and vulnerable witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong. We are prioritising victims of serious crimes, victims who are persistently targeted and the most vulnerable victims so that they get the support and care they need.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of appeals related to the work capability assessment.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
10. What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of prisoners (a) entering and (b) leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
A survey of 1,435 prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in 2005 and 2006 showed that 45% of prisoners reported having taken a class A drug in the four weeks before custody. No recent estimate has been made of the proportion of prisoners leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug.
Duncan Hames
I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I gently suggest that it would be worth while to have more recent estimates and to address the situation of offenders as they leave prisons? Has she ruled out suspicions of collusion by any prison staff in explaining why access to drugs in prisons is so widespread?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
We cannot break the devastating cycle of drugs unless we deal with the issue of drugs in prisons. Why does not the Government adopt the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, which are simple: mandatory testing of prisoners when they enter the prisons, and mandatory testing when they come out of prisons? That will give her all the figures she needs in order to deal with this serious problem.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that at Ford prison in my constituency the independent monitoring board has reported that 85% of the prison population is involved in the use of spice, a synthetic cannabinoid. I am not convinced that current orthodoxies in the Prison Service to combat drugs in our prisons are working: is she?
Mrs Grant
Our plans to transform rehabilitation will radically change the way in which we manage offenders, and they will also provide much more effective support for offenders on release. Fewer prisoners are testing positive for drugs than at any time since 1996. However, there is still much more to do, and that will involve our working very closely with the Department of Health and others to provide the best possible recovery services.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
18. I am provoked by the very complacent answers that we have had. All the Government are offering is warm words on this. They say they have no recent evidence, but we all know from our own experience that not one single prison in the whole of Britain is free of illegal drugs. If the Government have no evidence of people going in as shoplifters and coming out as heroin addicts, the rest of society does have it. Should not the Government adopt a policy that is at least robust and realistic and look at the traffic between prison officers and prisoners on drugs?
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the legislation on squatting in residential premises introduced in 2012.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Ministry of Justice has published evaluations of the effectiveness of community orders and custodial sentences in reducing reoffending. Reoffending rates are still too high, and that is why we have set out plans to transform rehabilitation.
Andrew Stunell
While there has been a very welcome fall in crime and antisocial behaviour, many victims still feel alienated by the justice system and its impenetrable sentencing guidelines. Will the Minister speed up the move to restorative justice so that victims can feel much more engaged and the community will benefit from the justice system?
Tim Farron
Government pilots show that restorative justice programmes have caused a 14% reduction in offending. What steps are the Government taking to roll out schemes more widely throughout the country? Will the Minister give a specific pledge to protect funding for projects such as the Sycamore Tree foundation at Haverigg prison in Cumbria?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree, though, that we have far too many people in prison and that when they get to prison not enough is done to turn them into good citizens? Is there not plenty of evidence that effective treatment outside prison, in the community, works? Can we not improve those alternatives, because the probation service is crucial in helping to make them effective?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point. Obviously, who goes to prison is a matter for the independent judiciary. Prison is absolutely the right place for some offenders, but I agree that for other offenders credible punitive community sentences can be a more appropriate disposal.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Has the Minister considered the effectiveness of short-term prison sentences for women, not only in reducing reoffending but the disruption and damage caused to dependent children by custodial sentences of a few weeks in prison?
Mrs Grant
Yes, I have considered that very carefully. Indeed, I have visited a number of facilities. I visited a wonderful facility in Gloucester a couple of weeks ago and will visit Alana House in Reading on Thursday to look at the exact issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Community sentences must, however, be credible as sentences and with the public. They cannot be fluffy options. They should have a punitive element and they should absolutely challenge the woman, or the man, to change her life. That is why the Crime and Courts Bill will require every community order to have a punitive element.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
13. What plans he has for the provision of prison places.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
T3. An increasing number of international companies are looking to the UK for its legal services. That trade creates billions of pounds for our economy. Will the Minister tell the House what plans there are further to promote British legal services abroad?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
As my hon. Friend knows, our legal firms and educational establishments are great assets to this country. The Ministry of Justice continues to work very closely with UK Trade & Investment and the profession to promote those wonderful services overseas. I am sure that my hon. Friend would take great joy in looking at the Unlocking Disputes campaign, which is a good example of recent fruitful activity.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
T4. The Teesside coroner takes almost twice as long as the national average to conclude inquests, causing further anguish to grieving families. This matter has been raised many times with the Ministry. Why on earth, given his failing and unprofessional service, is the coroner still in post? What steps will the Secretary of State take to remove him?
Inquests (Service Personnel)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I now make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House in which we report progress with inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have died on active service overseas. As always, we wish to express the nation’s gratitude to all our service personnel who have served or are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are all deeply indebted to them for their steadfast courage and their total professionalism. We remember those who have given their lives for their country, and the families who have lost them. We particularly think of the families of the five service personnel who have fallen since our last statement in October 2012.
In this statement we provide details of inquests conducted by the Oxfordshire coroner, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 25 January 2013.
To supplement this statement we have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses containing further information. The tables indicate the status of all current cases and provide information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held or has been directed to be held.
Our Departments have worked together for several years to make our processes as effective and as timely as possible. As we informed the House in our last statement, the Chief Coroner for England and Wales took up post on 17 September 2012, and will have a number of specific powers and duties in relation to service personnel inquests. We have also commenced section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, enabling deaths of service personnel killed abroad on active duty to be investigated in Scotland, where appropriate.
We will continue to support the coroners who are conducting inquests into the deaths of service personnel. Once more we offer our sincere thanks to coroners, their staff and everyone who supports bereaved families and helps them throughout the inquest process.
Since October 2007 both Departments have provided funding for additional resources for the coroners for Wiltshire and Swindon and for Oxfordshire. This is to prevent a backlog of inquests and to help the coroners conduct the inquests of fallen service personnel who have been repatriated to airbases in their districts. RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire was the airbase for repatriations from 1 April 2007 to 31 August 2011, while from 1 September 2011 repatriations have taken place at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement there have been four inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. In total, 558 inquests have been held relating to service personnel who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan or have died in the UK from injuries they received in those operations. In three cases no formal inquest has been held. In one of these, the serviceman died in Scotland from his injuries. It was decided that a fatal accident inquiry would not be held. In the two other cases, the death was taken into consideration as part of the inquests into the deaths of other service personnel who died in the incidents.
Open inquests
Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
As at 25 January, there are 53 open inquests into the deaths of service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. A total of 16 of these inquests concern deaths in the last six months.
The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 10 of the open inquests and the Oxfordshire coroner has retained 23. Coroners closer to the next-of-kin are conducting the remaining 20 inquests. Seven hearing dates have been set at present.
Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
There are six open inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured but sadly died of their injuries. These inquests will be listed when the continuing investigations are completed.
We will continue to inform the House of progress.
Transforming Bailiff Action
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Government are today publishing their response to the “Transforming bailiff action” consultation paper. This is the next step in delivering the Government’s commitment to provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs in England and Wales.
Bailiffs are necessary for both the economy and the justice system, carrying out a difficult role in challenging circumstances. While the majority operate in a responsible and proportionate manner, a significant few use unsafe, unsound and unfair methods of collection, casting a shadow over the reputations of respectable bailiffs. The Government remain clear that subjecting debtors— who are already in distressing situations—to such intimidating behaviour is completely unacceptable. At the same time we are also clear that legitimate creditors should be able to collect the money that is owed to them in a fair and responsible manner. The measures set out in the Government’s consultation response strike this balance between the rights of debtors and the rights of creditors.
We will sweep away the antiquated and confusing laws which can thwart effective and proportionate enforcement, introducing in their place new laws which are fit for today’s society. We will provide clarity over the powers of bailiffs and introduce a clear, fair, charging regime which will tackle the root causes of aggressive bailiff action.
Bailiffs will be banned from entering debtor’s homes late at night without first seeking permission from the court or when only children are present, and new safeguards will prevent them from using force against people who owe money. The enforcement process and procedure will be defined clearly in legislation setting out how bailiffs can enter a property, what goods can and cannot be seized for sale, and crucially, what costs a bailiff can charge. These changes will be set against effective and targeted regulation which will ensure that bailiffs are fit to carry out this work by introducing a mandatory training scheme, competence requirements and certification for all bailiffs.
These much-needed reforms will ensure that individuals, businesses and bailiffs will all benefit from our changes and we will work to implement these swiftly.
Copies of “Transforming bailiff action: How we will provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs and encourage more flexibility in bailiff collections. The Government Response” have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
Freedom of Information
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. I am grateful to the Justice Committee for its thorough work on the post-legislative scrutiny and to all those who contributed to its inquiries. I re-endorse the sentiments that have been made this afternoon in relation to my right hon. Friend’s great aplomb and his ability to chair the Committee.
The Government remain committed to greater transparency—the Freedom of Information Act is a key part of that—and we have been successful in our key aims of increasing openness, transparency and accountability. I agree with hon. Members that it is perhaps less clear how much of our secondary objectives of increasing trust and public participation have been met and that, to some extent, those objectives may not have been realistic ambitions. I agree with the Justice Committee that the Act has been a
“significant enhancement to our democracy.”
It is not perfect, but it is generally working well. For that reason, the Government are not proposing a radical overhaul.
Before turning to the specific issues raised by post-legislative scrutiny, it is important to say that we need to put them in the context of the Government’s wider transparency agenda. Since we came to power, we have published almost 9,000 data sets, covering a wide range of subjects connected to health, education, transport, crime and justice. In June 2012, we published the open data White Paper, “Unleashing the Potential”, which sets out how the transparency agenda can help to provide greater access to and the re-use of raw data. We have set up the Open Data Institute to promote innovation, using the data that the Government publish, and pushed strongly for more transparency internationally, including through the international Open Government Partnership.
I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government’s transparency agenda is no substitute for, and will certainly not diminish, the important work that is being done in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. As we take the transparency agenda forward, we will push for greater openness and accountability, so that people know what is being done in their name and with their taxes.
Proactive publication needs to be complimented by an effective system that allows the public to seek information for themselves about how public authorities do their jobs. That is why the Freedom of Information Act is so important and why we are taking a number of steps, following scrutiny, to strengthen and extend it.
We are reducing from 30 to 20 years the lifespan of some of the exemptions to disclosure in the Act. That reflects and is simultaneous with the changes that we are making gradually to replace the 30-year rule under which public records are released by the National Archives with a 20-year rule. We have made secondary legislation to begin that transition over a 10-year period, and it came into effect on 1 January.
We are introducing enhanced rights to access and reuse data sets under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A public consultation on a draft code of practice to help public authorities to meet those new obligations concluded on 10 January, and the provisions will be commenced shortly.
We are taking steps to extend the Freedom of Information Act to more organisations that perform public functions and to companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities. We have already extended it to all academies, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.
In our response to post-legislative scrutiny, we made it clear that we intended to conclude consultations with a wide range of other bodies, including more than 200 harbour authorities, awarding bodies, approved regulators under the Legal Services Act 2007 and 2,000 housing associations. Therefore, unless there is good reason for not doing so, we can extend the Act to any public function that they carry out. Our aim will be, where possible, to introduce secondary legislation over the next two years to implement the changes that we decide are warranted.
I am aware of some Members’ concerns about the position under the Act of contractors and other companies that provide public services. The challenge that outsourcing public services poses to transparency is real, and it is one that we have sought to address proportionately. We do not currently propose the formal extension of the Act to providers of outsourced public services. We prefer the Justice Committee’s recommendation that contractual transparency clauses be used and enforced to ensure that freedom of information obligations are met.
We strongly encourage public authorities and contractors alike to go further than the minimum requirements in the Act and voluntarily to provide more information. To that end, we will issue guidance that sets out the circumstances in which we want to see further information released. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and the shadow Minister raised powerful concerns about this issue, but I reassure them that if our proposals do not have the desired effect, formal extension of the Act can be considered and is always possible.
We have sought to balance the need for transparency with the need to minimise burdens on business and to encourage active participation by bodies large and small in the provision of public services. Some people might not consider that enough, but it is a light-touch, good approach requiring the co-operation of public authorities and contractors alike. As I said, however, if that approach yields insufficient dividends, we will consider what other steps we need to take to ensure accountability, and that includes formal extension. I hope that provides reassurance.
Let me now turn to the Act’s cost. Despite the many benefits that the Act has brought, we cannot ignore concerns about the burdens that it imposes on public authorities. That is especially important in the current challenging financial climate and at a time when more freedom of information requests than ever are being received. Central Government received 47,000 initial applications in 2011, at a cost of £8.5 million in staff time alone. Local authorities and other public bodies are also affected. We aim to focus our efforts on the disproportionate burdens placed on public authorities by what we call industrial users of the Act.
Mrs Grant
Whether or not I am over-stressing them, these matters will be considered in great detail through consultation, and there will be ample opportunity for others to have an input and become involved.
Our research indicates that a very small number of requests contribute to a relatively large proportion of the cost of freedom of information: 8% of requests to central Government cost more than £500 to answer and make up 32% of total staff costs. The Justice Committee recognised that issue in recommending a small reduction in the cost limit beyond which requests need not be complied with. We believe that would result in only the most minimal reduction in costs, so we will consider whether to go further.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised consideration time, and the shadow Minister raised thinking time. We recognise, of course, the practical difficulties in including such tasks, but they are worth considering to find out what might be done.
The introduction of fees for tribunals has also been raised by Members today, and we will certainly consider what we can do to recover the costs associated with the running of tribunals, but we do not think anything that we do will impede access to justice. We will also consider other ways to reduce burdens fairly and proportionately, including addressing where one person or group of people use the Act to make unrelated requests to the same public authority so frequently that it becomes an inappropriate burden.
I assure Members that whatever measures we ultimately decide to take, we will have regard to the need to reduce burdens without an excessive impact on transparency. An example of that is our decision in the post-legislative scrutiny response not to introduce new fees for answering freedom of information requests. To do so would both deter the legitimate use of the Freedom of Information Act and prove expensive for public authorities to administer.
The third key area addressed by post-legislative scrutiny was the protection afforded to highly sensitive information. The Government welcome and share the Committee’s conclusion that it was Parliament’s clear intention that the Act should protect safe space for policy formulation and Cabinet discussion. That issue has rightly been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I note his and other hon. Members’ references to the allegation of a possible chilling effect.
We agree with the Committee that the current system of protection in the Freedom of Information Act, including exemptions for the disclosure of information and the availability of the veto, has generally worked well. We share the Committee’s view that new absolute exemptions are not necessary. Although we are committed to transparency, so that any freedom of information regime can operate effectively, it is right that we keep under review the protection given to genuinely sensitive information. Effective government depends on the protection of the principle of collective responsibility and the ability of both Ministers and officials to provide advice freely, frankly and with candour.
We have announced our intention to review and, as appropriate, revise the Government’s published policy on the use of the veto. The policy is designed to assist where use of the veto is considered in respect of information that relates to Cabinet collective responsibility. However, no limitation in the Freedom of Information Act prevents the veto being used for other information. Indeed, the Government have concluded that its use was justified in other contexts on more than one occasion last year. Accordingly, we propose to consider whether the veto policy can be adapted both in terms of the process for its use and to offer greater clarity and reassurance on its ability to be used in appropriate cases that do not involve Cabinet-related information.
Other changes that we will introduce to improve the operation of the Freedom of Information Act will require a combination of primary and secondary legislation.
Sir Richard Shepherd
The whole purpose of the construct of the Act was that the final referee should be the tribunal, and that is what I think the Minister is talking about. The tribunal is now being used in a way contrary to our original understanding, which was that it was to be similar to the Supreme Court or the highest courts of appeal and look at the Government’s case when they refused information. Yet they are refusing information contrary to the tribunal’s judgment, and that is what causes concern to many commentators. As was rightly pointed out, the veto was used in a controversial case last year.
Mrs Grant
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and to his points. The veto has only been used six times in eight years, so it is used sparingly and carefully. The veto is a proportionate measure, which is not being used except to protect sensitive information. We have said simply that we will review and revise it, but absolutely no decisions whatever have been made yet. We will publish any revision that we intend to make later this year.
We do not intend to introduce any new absolute exemptions, but we have listened to the concerns of the research sector and have agreed to introduce a new qualified exemption for pre-publication research information, to provide additional reassurance that such material is adequately protected from inappropriate premature disclosure. We have also listened to the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the time available to bring prosecutions under section 77 of the Act, where people destroy, alter or hide information to frustrate requests. We do not think that that is a widespread problem or practice, but it is unacceptable that anyone guilty of such an offence should be able to evade prosecution because the Information Commissioner has insufficient time to investigate the case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the Information Commissioner reporting to Parliament. At the moment, we do not feel that making the Information Commissioner a parliamentary body is appropriate, because its work does not relate primarily to that of Parliament. My right hon. Friend also expressed concerns that FOI requests and internal reviews perhaps take too long to answer. We will revise the code of practice issued under section 45 of the Act to provide guidance on the time that should be taken to answer requests when the normal 20-day deadline is extended to allow for consideration of the public interest test and internal reviews. We do not believe, however, that the problem is sufficient to justify primary legislation.
The shadow Minister mentioned Network Rail, which is a matter of interest to the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the Department for Transport. There is no plan to extend the Act to Network Rail, but the scope of the Act will be kept under review.
The Government published our response to the Committee on 30 November. There is a great deal of work to be done over the coming months to work through the detail of our proposals and to consult where necessary. As that work is in its early stages, it is too soon to provide the further details that the shadow Minister requested this afternoon of the exact changes that we want to make, such as cost-limit and veto policy. However, I reassure him and other right hon. and hon. Members that we do not intend to waste time in taking our plans forward; they will see evidence of that in the coming months.
Sir Alan Beith
One thing that does not need to be tied in heavily with all the other things that the Minister is considering is the provision on university research. How does she hope to take that forward?
Mrs Grant
I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend with the exact detail about how that will be taken forward; he will hear from me shortly.
To conclude, my right hon. Friend Lord McNally said in the other place on 17 January last year that the Freedom of Information Act is
“robust enough to survive rigorous post-legislative scrutiny.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 548.]
The Justice Committee’s measured report on its operation, together with our response, demonstrates the accuracy of his view. As I said at the outset, the Freedom of Information Act has been a success in the accountability that it has brought. It has generally worked well. I believe that it will be further improved and will continue to make a valuable contribution to transparency and accountability.
Transforming Services in the Office of the Public Guardian
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Government are today publishing their response to the consultation “Transforming the Services of the Office of the Public Guardian”, which ended on 19 October 2012. The consultation paper invited comments on a range of proposals to digitalise the services provided by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
Over a hundred responses to the consultation were received, with many proposals receiving broad support. It is our intention to implement those proposals which were received positively, and which can be carried out within the current legislative framework, as soon as possible. By April 2013, therefore, we intend to: introduce an online tool for making a lasting power of attorney (LPA) to make the process simpler, clearer and faster and reduce errors in the LPAs that reach the OPG requiring correction; reduce the statutory waiting period for registering an LPA from six to four weeks in order to make the process quicker, while still retaining adequate safeguards; and introduce a regulation allowing court appointed deputies to change security bond provider without the need to make an application to court.
Other changes require further development or are dependent on the new OPG replacement IT system being in place. I will make a further statement when these changes are due to come into effect.
Today, I have deposited copies of the response to the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Copies are available on the internet at: www.justice.gov.uk.