Civil Litigation Funding and Costs
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In the context of his “An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press”, Lord Justice Leveson recommended that costs protection should be extended to defamation and privacy claims. This would mean that individuals of modest means should not be in the position of bringing or defending actions without some form of protection against having to pay the other side’s costs if the case is lost. The Government have accepted this recommendation and I am therefore today announcing that provisions relating to sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, which would remove the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums, will not come into force for defamation and privacy claims until costs protection has been introduced for these proceedings.
The Government have already asked the Civil Justice Council (CJC) for advice by the end of March 2013 on this issue. Given that the reforms in part 2 of the LASPO Act generally come into effect on 1 April 2013, this short delay in implementation will mean the protection which currently exists through recoverable insurance premiums will continue until a new regime of costs protection can be implemented through changes to the civil procedure rules.
Whiplash Claims
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation “Reducing the Number and Costs of Whiplash Claims”.
Between 2006-07 and 2011-12 claims for personal injury caused by road traffic accidents increased by around 60%. Over the same period the number of reported road traffic accidents fell by around 20%.
The Government share the widespread concerns about such a disproportionate growth in whiplash claims and its cost to motor insurance policy holders, and is already taking forward work to tackle the issue.
The consultation considers two particular areas. The first is whether independent medical panels should be created and, if so, what model should be adopted.
The second is whether in respect of road traffic accident personal injury claims, the current small claims threshold for pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be increased from £1,000 to £5,000, either for all personal injuries or for whiplash injuries only.
The Government accept that the growth in claims for whiplash injuries is complex, and the consultation considers what more can and should be done by all with an interest in the personal injury sector.
Copies of this Government consultation are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk.
Prisons (Property) Bill
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Amendment 2 proposes an addition to proposed new section 42A(1) of the Prison Act 1952, as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill, which would extend the power of a governor or director to places outside a prison or prison escort vehicle, such as a hospital, court cells or a police station where a prisoner might be detained in custody. In some circumstances, the prisoner, although they are in custody, will not be in the custody of the governor. It would therefore not be appropriate to extend the powers in such a way. I think that deals with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about extending the power beyond the prisoner escort vehicle.
It is already possible to remove any unauthorised items found on a prisoner while they are in custody outside the prison. Such items would be returned to the prison with the prisoner and dealt with as the prisoner re-entered the prison. The prison governor or directors could authorise the prisoner to keep the item with him or her in prison or disposal could be required. If appropriate, the governor could confiscate it and use the general power of destruction already provided in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will therefore withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 3 is not necessary. Prison officers will have the power to act in the way envisaged by the amendment through the delegated authority of the prison governor. It is therefore not necessary specifically to include them in that power. In addition, “prison officer” is the term used to describe officers in a public sector prison and would not cover prison custody officers, who carry out the same function in private sector prisons. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press that amendment.
The purpose of amendment 4 would appear to be to create a catch-all power to cover all property used for any unauthorised or unlawful purpose. Although I can understand my hon. Friend’s reasons for tabling the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Any unauthorised item could be confiscated and destroyed under the power created in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of proposed new section 42A. Furthermore, an item used for unlawful or unauthorised purposes that would clearly prejudice the security or operation of the prison or cause harm to prisoners or others would be dealt with by proposed new subsection 3(c) or (b). I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the amendment is not necessary.
On amendment 5, I applaud my hon. Friend’s desire to see that confiscated property is put to good use and to ensure that charities might benefit wherever possible. The Bill already enables that. Proposed new section 42A enables a governor or director to
“destroy or otherwise dispose of”
confiscated property. My hon. Friend’s amendment is not necessary, because the phrase “otherwise dispose of” would allow the item to be recycled or donated to charity. I can assure him that the guidance given to governors and directors in the relevant Prison Service instruction will make it clear that those options are available.
The sale of property, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, would involve a financial gain for the Prison Service and has therefore been specified in the Bill. Other methods of disposal, such as recycling, do not need express provision as they are covered, as I have explained, by the expression “otherwise dispose of”.
Amendments 6,7 and 8 are the most significant and have the potential to undermine the progress of the Bill. The Bill as drafted contains a limited retrospective power and although retrospective legislation is generally not a good idea, that limited power has a specific purpose with which I am sure the House will agree. It is intended to enable the Prison Service to deal with the large number of mobile telephones held in storage. The House will be aware from previous debates on the Bill that more than 40,000 telephones are held at a cost of £20,000 a year and it is appropriate that we should take a power to deal with them. It is, after all, a criminal offence both to possess a mobile telephone in prison and to bring one into a prison. Governors and directors have options for other property that is not illegal per se. They can authorise the item, place it in central storage, require a prisoner to send it out of the prison or otherwise dispose of it. There is therefore no need for a general retrospective power to deal with such property and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press those amendments.
Amendment 9 is intended to address the ability of the Prison Service to destroy or dispose of mobile phones found in prisons. It is unlawful to possess or use a mobile phone in prison. The amendment would therefore prevent the Prison Service from disposing of them, as it is likely that every unauthorised mobile phone found in prison would contain or constitute evidence of a criminal offence. My hon. Friend asked about the checking of mobile phones and I understand that they are interrogated for evidence of criminality on confiscation. I hope that in the circumstances he will therefore agree not to press the amendment.
Mr Nuttall
The Minister has told the House that the mobile phones are interrogated. Will she briefly expand on what happens to any information that is found after they have been interrogated?
Mrs Grant
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot in the summer and on introducing this worthwhile measure. In promoting the Bill, he has given the House the opportunity to debate the security and good order of our prisons, which is important. The Bill was fully debated on Second Reading, and Members made some helpful contributions. It also passed successfully through Committee. Clearly, there is considerable support for it in the House.
My hon. Friend explained that his Bill will enable prison governors and directors to confiscate, destroy, dispose of or sell property that prisoners should not have in their possession, including items that it would be illegal to possess in the community, such as illicit drugs; items that can threaten prison security and good order, such as mobile phones; authorised items that have been adapted to conceal illicit items; and items that have been smuggled into the prison or coerced from another prisoner. In principle, the Government believe that the objective being pursued is justified and we welcome the Bill.
Although the Bill has been debated previously, it might be helpful if I again explain the process by which prisoners’ property is managed. Prisoners’ property needs to be managed efficiently, effectively and with care. Maintaining the security and good order of the prison is paramount. Therefore, within the constraints of the prison environment, prisoners can have sufficient property in their possession as is considered necessary for their day-to-day life, and which will help them to achieve the aims of their sentence. Prisoners must also comply with the rules on what property they can have in their possession.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said he found his visit to Leeds prison extremely interesting. Leeds is a busy local prison. Prisoners have lots of property that they want to keep with them, including property that they brought with them at reception from court and items they have received during their period in custody. Prisoners arriving at Leeds prison—this is the case for prisoners arriving at all other prison establishments—are provided with detailed information on the items of property they can retain in their possession. That information is also displayed throughout the prison, including in residential units and the library. Prisoners should therefore be in no doubt about what they can and cannot possess while in prison. All property accompanying prisoners on entering any prison, whether they are new to custody or being transferred from another prison or other criminal justice agency, will be searched and recorded on a property record card, which is an inventory of a prisoner’s property. Depending on the item of property, prisoners will be able to keep it with them in their cell, or it will be confiscated or stored and given to them on their release.
Stored property will be kept in local storage or at the prison, or it will be sent to the Prison Service’s central storage facility. The prisoner’s property card will record where the property is held, and will be updated during the course of their imprisonment to reflect changes in its location. The property will be returned to them on their release from custody. As the House will by now appreciate, some prisoners’ property will be stored for many years. Alternatively, prisoners may send their property to a relative or a friend instead of keeping it in storage. At present, property that is left behind by a prisoner after release can be disposed of only after a year has elapsed.
Property that a prisoner can keep in their cell is known as in-possession property—property they have been authorised to have in their cell by the governor or director. What they can keep in their cell will depend on many variables, such as whether the prisoner is on remand or has been convicted and sentenced, what level of privileges they have, and, sometimes, the nature of their offence. Most prisoners will be allowed to have in their possession such items as photographs of relatives, basic toiletries and some books.
That said, the amount and type of property a prisoner can have in their possession is restricted. This is important as it aids effective searching and assists governors and directors in applying a prison’s privilege regime. Prisoners should be clear about the type of property they are allowed to retain in their possession, as lists of types of items that can be held in their cells are normally displayed in a prison’s reception areas and on wings. Prisoners are not allowed to transfer in-possession property to the ownership of other prisoners unless the governor or director is satisfied that such transfers are voluntary and for acceptable reasons. Property must not be transferred as a result of bullying or in exchange for illicit items, and transfers must not undermine good order or discipline, or, indeed, the system of granting privileges to prisoners for good behaviour. For example, prisoners who have earned the privilege of having a radio in their cell should not be allowed to transfer the radio to a prisoner who has not earned that right. If a transfer of property is authorised by the governor, it must be recorded on the appropriate property card of the prisoners concerned.
Unauthorised property is property that a prisoner has in their possession that is not recorded on their property card. It will include: items that are unlawful to possess in the community generally, such as controlled drugs and offensive weapons; items that are illegal to possess inside a prison, such as mobile phones; items that may threaten good order and discipline, such as alcohol; items that may threaten the security of the prison, such as property that has been adapted to hide illicit items; and items that may have been smuggled in to the prison by visitors, or even by throwing them over a wall.
As I have explained, prisoners may also have obtained property from another prisoner by bullying or coercion. However, there will also be situations where prisoners have transferred what I might refer to as innocuous property between themselves, but for which they have not sought prior approval of the governor or director. Such property is unauthorised, and so will not have been included on the prisoner’s property card. The current arrangement for dealing with unauthorised property is that, when discovered, the item will be confiscated unless it is noxious, in which case it will be destroyed, or unless it is, for example, an offensive weapon or controlled drug, which will be passed to the police.
Other items may be confiscated only temporarily. The consequence of this limitation is that the property has to be stored either locally or at the Prison Service’s central facility until the prisoner is released from custody. If the prisoner asks for the item to be returned to them on release, the prison must do so. This cannot be right. The historical context to the existing position is that in 2009 the administrative court decided that there was no lawful basis for prisons permanently to confiscate and destroy unauthorised property. The case before the court related to a mobile telephone. As a result, prisons are currently storing unauthorised property, as I outlined earlier. That is perverse, particularly in relation to mobile phones seized from prisoners or found within a prison and which are not items that can be lawfully possessed in prison.
I will give hon. Members an example of the lengths to which prisoners will go to smuggle in illicit items, including mobile phones, and often conceal them in authorised items of property. In January 2012, the National Offender Management Service north-west team reported a seizure by team members of three weapons at HMP Wymott. During the course of a search of prisoner accommodation, staff found three adapted slashing weapons, wrapped together in a strip of bed sheeting, wedged behind copper piping in a wing toilet. The weapons had been adapted from authorised items, namely disposable razors and toothbrush handles, a strip of bed sheeting and disposable razor blades. I hope that gives a sense of the task that prison staff face daily.
The intention behind the Bill is to provide a lawful basis for the disposal of all unauthorised property found in prisons. For the power to be effective, it needs to be retrospective in respect of certain categories of property seized prior to the Bill becoming law. The Bill is a common-sense measure. It strikes a fair balance between prisoners’ property interests and the public interest, in removing from prison and destroying property that might prejudice good order and discipline or prison security. I am sure that many ordinary people will be startled to learn that, as the law stands, jails can find items that should not be on the premises but have no power to destroy them. The Bill is an important step forward and rectifies an unacceptable anomaly. It should help build trust in the system and allow governors to run safe and secure regimes, with rules that are meaningful and enforceable. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey for taking up this issue, and I commend the Bill to the House and support its continuing good passage through the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Presumption of Death Bill
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
As hon. Members know, the Government support the Bill. We believe that it will simplify and streamline the procedures that people encounter when dealing with the property and affairs of a loved one who has disappeared and is thought to be dead. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on his success in piloting the Bill through the House to its Third Reading. I hope that the House will join me in supporting the Bill’s Third Reading and wishing it a speedy and successful passage through the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In March 2011 the Government responded to the Public Accounts Select Committee report “Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State” setting out the coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodies sector. It includes the requirement to undertake triennial reviews of Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is the Government body responsible for administering the compensation schemes for criminal injuries and victims of overseas terrorism in England, Scotland and Wales. Its aim is to compensate the blameless victims of violent crime or acts of terrorism overseas. Part of the Ministry of Justice, it was established in 1994 under prerogative powers.
To deliver the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be subject to a triennial review. The Ministry of Justice, as the sponsoring Department, has today launched a consultation, which will last until 8 February 2013, inviting views. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the review will consider the following:
the continuing need for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—both its functions and its form; and
where it is agreed that it should remain, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies”. The final report and findings will be laid in this House.
Hardship Fund (Low-Paid Victims of Crime)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today announcing the implementation of a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.
Victims of violent crime endure both physical and emotional suffering and, in some cases, financial hardship due to being unable to work as a result of their injuries. The Government believe it is right to focus criminal injuries compensation on victims of more serious crime and that for victims with less serious injuries, prompt practical and emotional support is a more suitable response than relatively small amounts of compensation.
That is why the revised criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012, which also comes into force today along with the victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme 2012, focuses on those most seriously affected by crime. For those with minor injuries, we believe that prompt good-quality services are a better response than small compensation payments.
However in some cases, even the less serious injuries result in the victim being unable to work for a temporary period and therefore require financial support. Some victims receive financial support from employers through statutory sick pay (SSP) or an equivalent employer-provided scheme. In other cases, particularly where the victim is in low-paid employment, no financial support may be available for this temporary period.
The Government believe that this latter group of victims should be given some financial support, at the same rate as SSP, over a short period to relieve them of the immediate hardship that arises from their being temporarily unable to work and that is why we have set up a hardship fund for these victims.
The eligibility criteria for the hardship fund are as follows:
That the applicant is a victim of a crime of violence, but the applicant’s injury is not one which is eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012;
That the applicant is in very low-paid employment and is temporarily unable to work;
That the applicant is not eligible for SSP or an equivalent employer-provided scheme;
That the crime has been reported to the police as soon as is reasonably practicable and the application has been received within four weeks of the date of the incident;
That the applicant does not have an unspent criminal conviction which under the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 would bar them from an award.
The fund will be administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority following referral based on an initial assessment of eligibility by Victim Support. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will request confirmation from the police to ensure that the applicant does not have any criminal convictions that would bar them from an award. Once the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has received all the relevant documentation they will aim to process applications within six working days.
Copies of the hardship fund policy paper, impact assessment and equality impact assessment have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Further guidance on the operation of the hardship fund is available on the Ministry of Justice website.
The revised “Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012” is also available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/victims-and-witnesses/cica.
“The Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme 2012” is available online at: http://www. justice.gov.uk/victims-and-witnesses/cica/victims-of-overseas-terrorism.
Data Protection
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Today, I will publish the Government’s impact assessment of the European Commission’s proposals for data protection.
In January this year, the European Commission published a draft data protection regulation which will impact on business, the public sector and charities and a draft data protection directive, covering the police and judicial sector. Coupled with the publication, the European Commission published its impact assessment of the proposals.
The Commission’s impact assessment estimates that the new regime would bring an administrative saving to the EU, totalling €2.3 billion each year. As the analysis published today shows, the Government disagree with this assessment and believe that the burdens the proposed regulation would impose far outweigh the net benefit estimated by the Commission. For the UK alone the annual net cost of the proposal (in 2012-13 earnings terms) is estimated to be between £100 million and £360 million a year.
The Government’s view is that the Commission both overestimates the benefits achieved through harmonised EU data protection law and fails to address the full costs and unintended consequences of its own proposals, by only considering administrative costs. Our analysis addresses some of these failings by considering in full the impact of the proposed regime, including the additional costs for businesses, including small and medium enterprises, the additional costs to supervisory authorities, conducting data protection impact assessments and complying with other new obligations.
This impact assessment focuses on the proposed regulation. Under article 6a of the UK’s Title V opt-in protocol we believe that the proposed directive will have a limited effect on the United Kingdom, in that it will only apply to data being processed under an EU instrument that binds the UK. Therefore, criminal justice system agencies within the UK will avoid being bound by the directive when processing personal data outside of such provisions.
It is worth noting that organisations which process criminal justice data will also process personal data covered under the regulation and so some of the monetised costs and benefits stemming from the regulation could be shared (for example, the cost of designating a data protection officer). The directive would require transposition into UK law, at which point domestic legislation would also be needed to cover that processing purely internal to the UK. There is therefore a degree of flexibility for member states in determining how the EU-level rules in the proposed directive would be transposed and a fuller assessment of the costs and benefits specific to the proposed directive will be produced nearer the point of transposition.
The UK Government are seriously concerned about the potential economic impact of the proposed data protection regulation. At a time when the eurozone appears to be slipping back into recession, reducing the regulatory burden to secure growth must be the priority for all member states. It is difficult therefore to justify the extra red tape and tick-box compliance that the proposal represents. For example, we estimate the costs for UK small businesses of simply demonstrating compliance with the new rules to be around £10 million (in 2012-13 earnings terms) every year. A further serious issue is the possibility of stifling innovation through prescriptive and inflexible rules on gaining individuals’ consent and informing them about the processing of their personal data, while offering people an unworkable “right to be forgotten”. Instead the focus must be on achieving the right ends: meeting people’s rightful expectation that their personal information is used lawfully, proportionately and securely, while being able to offer them the goods and services they want and need.
Negotiations on the proposals are ongoing in Brussels. With the evidence set out in the impact assessment published today, the UK Government will continue to push for a lasting data protection framework that is proportionate, and that minimises the burdens on businesses and other organisations, while giving individuals real protection in how their personal data is processed.
Copies of the impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website at, www.justice.gov.uk.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
2. If he will bring forward proposals to ensure that victims of crime receive compensation from those who committed the crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Courts have the power to require offenders to pay compensation to their victims for any injury, loss or damage caused by the offence. Courts also have robust powers to recover unpaid compensation orders and other financial penalties.
Priti Patel
Does the Minister agree that there should be a presumption in favour of the victims of crime receiving compensation from offenders? Will she be issuing any guidance to the courts to ensure that that happens?
Mrs Grant
The Government are committed to ensuring that as many victims as possible receive compensation from offenders. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 places a new duty on courts to consider imposing compensation in any case where the victim has suffered injury, loss or damage. Issuing guidance to courts is a matter for the independent Sentencing Council, not for the Government, but the council’s guidelines already draw the courts’ attention to their powers to impose compensation.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
To what extent is this form of compensation a substitute for the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which has been cut to ribbons by the order laid in July this year?
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Would the Minister be open to fresh thinking on this? If, for example, prisoners were given the opportunity to work, earn and keep money for themselves and their families, perhaps they could pay back some of that money to the victims of their crime and also pay tax on it, which would be of benefit to the public, as well as having a rehabilitative effect.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On 11 October 2011, when Louise Casey, the first victims commissioner, resigned, the former Lord Chancellor said that he was urgently considering the future of the role. Thirteen months on—yesterday, in fact—was the closing date for applications to be Ms Casey’s 10-day-a-month replacement. What signal does it send to victims that this Government first doubt the need for a commissioner, then delay appointing one for more than a year, and finally make it a half-hearted, part-time job?
Mrs Grant
For a long time, victims have felt completely unsupported by the criminal justice system, and it is my job, as victims Minister, to try and put that right. I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We are raising money for victims through the victims surcharge and the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, and we are giving victims a louder voice through the appointment of a victims’ commissioner. I look forward to making that appointment, and meeting and working with the commissioner.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
3. What plans he has to increase public confidence in community sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 was approved by the House yesterday. Having already been approved by the other place, it now has the approval of Parliament and will be implemented by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on 27 November this year.
Julie Hilling
Given that the scheme will no longer pay out for criminal injuries such as a broken jaw, and that the awards for more serious injuries are not being increased, will the Minister confirm that the spin is just not true and that the changes represent a cut of £50 million for innocent victims?
Mrs Grant
Absolutely not. The aim is to provide proper compensation for those who have suffered serious criminal injuries. When the injuries are less serious, prompt, practical victim service provision will be provided, which is what victims say that they need. In addition to that, up to £50 million will be provided for victims from the victim surcharge.
Rosie Cooper
In the consultation on the cuts to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the Ministry of Justice promised to protect payments to the most vulnerable and seriously injured victims of crime. Why, then, will the most severe cuts affecting compensation for loss of earnings fall on more than 1,000 of the most seriously injured victims of crime and on the dependants of murder victims? Have not the innocent victims of crime suffered enough?
Mrs Grant
We are of course concerned about all victims. The scheme provides some payment in recognition of loss of earnings, but it was never designed to compensate for a full lifetime’s loss of earnings. Eligible applicants will receive a clear, predictable sum that will supplement other amounts that they may receive from other sources, such as state benefits. Our changes to the scheme should also allow victims to receive payments in a much speedier manner.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Do not the changes confirm the important principle that, although the state is not liable for compensating for the criminal actions of others, it has a particular responsibility for the victims of serious crime, to ensure that they do not have to wait months or even years for compensation from an unsustainable scheme?
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister tell the House what consultations on the matter of the reform of the criminal injuries compensation scheme were held with the devolved Administrations?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Having butchered the criminal injuries compensation scheme by £50 million, starving blameless victims of financial redress, will the Minister tell us when we will see the details of the hastily cobbled-together hardship fund? Will she also tell us whether the fund will be topped up when those in hardship exceed the mere 700 or so whom the scheme is likely to cover, instead of the 30,000 who will lose out as a result of these changes?
Mrs Grant
I am not going to take any lessons from a party that put this country in the most awful financial difficulties—[Interruption.] Absolutely not. The current system is not sustainable or sensible, and it needs to be simplified. As I have already said, the new victim surcharge will raise up to £50 million for victims services.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
7. What plans he has to review prisoners’ entitlement to privileges.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
10. What progress he has made in encouraging tribunal judges to supply feedback to Department for Work and Pensions decision-makers on the reasons for successful employment and support allowance appeals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The provision of feedback on tribunals’ decisions is a matter for the judiciary, but new arrangements were introduced in July. They were agreed by the chamber president and the Department for Work and Pensions, and allow judges to select reasons for their decisions from an agreed list.
Sheila Gilmore
At the weekend, I spoke to a constituent who was making her second appeal in a year. She was told that there would not be a decision for four months, although the number of tribunal members appointed in Scotland has doubled in the last year. Does her experience not illustrate the huge importance of ensuring that proper reasons for decisions are given to DWP decision-makers, so that the decisions are right in the first place? That would be better than the provision of a drop-down menu or a very limited selection of reasons.
Mrs Grant
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working closely with the DWP to improve the quality of the original decisions and also the reconsideration process, so that only appropriate appeals reach the tribunal. As for waiting times, dealing with matters in a timely fashion is of course very important. I am pleased to announce that the waiting time between the receipt of an appeal to disposal has fallen from 22 weeks to 19.3 weeks, and that in Scotland it is down to 12.6 weeks.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
11. How many foreign national prisoners were repatriated to their home country to serve their custodial sentence in 2011.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
17. Whether he has made a comparative assessment of the number of claims for compensation for whiplash injuries in courts in (a) the UK, (b) France and (c) Germany.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
We have not conducted comparative assessments, but we know that whiplash claims are higher in England and Wales than elsewhere. The increase in whiplash claims at a time when there are fewer reported road traffic accidents is unacceptable. The Government will consult shortly on measures to tackle the cost of whiplash claims.
David Mowat
The very high level of claims in the UK pushes up insurance premiums for ordinary people by hundreds of pounds a year. In Germany, two medical opinions are required before claims go forward. Are we considering introducing that here, and what other measures are we considering to sort out this industry?
Mrs Grant
The Government are committed to finding ways of tackling fraudulent whiplash claims. We are about to consult on increasing the small claims threshold for personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents from £1,000 to £5,000. We are also about to consult on the creation of independent medical panels, which could improve diagnosis, transparency, consistency and identification in respect of exaggerated injuries.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
18. What plans he has to reduce the number of young people within the criminal justice system.
Grahame M. Morris
May I refer the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) back to the answer she gave a few moments ago in response to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)? Given the importance of this to victims of workplace accidents and industrial diseases, will the Minister meet a small delegation of Labour MPs to receive representations on the implications of the proposal to amend the ceiling on small claims compensation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Yes, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the delegation.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
T3. Is it not rather counter-intuitive, given the Secretary of State’s excellent views, to be closing rather than opening prisons? Why then are the Government consulting on closing Lincoln prison, which, as far as I know, has caused no trouble to the community since Eamon de Valera escaped from it during the first world war, and which provides 400 jobs, and humanely and safely locks our local villains away?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Has the Secretary of State any concerns that the provisions in the criminal injuries compensation scheme voted on by the House last night in terms of sex abuse victims aged between 13 and 15 are a dangerous and dubious legislative signal to be sent by this Parliament as its first legislative signal in the wake of the scandal concerning Jimmy Savile?
Mrs Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but would point out that our reforms have led to no changes to the 2008 scheme in respect of certain sexual abuse issues. Further guidance has been given on other particular matters. Victims coming forward in the Jimmy Savile case should certainly be able to make applications for compensation.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
When innocent people can be framed on social media sites will the Government consider, with some urgency, looking at a certain part of the libel laws? Innocent people do not deserve to be named; they certainly do not deserve to be put through the grilling that certain people have faced. Would the Secretary of State and the Government look at that as a matter of urgency?
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give an indication of the cut-off date for claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Victims of crime and their representatives need to know that date. Will it be Friday 23 November? Will it be Monday 26 November?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the Minister have an assessment of how curfew orders have been working since their hours and length were increased last year?
Claims Management Companies
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 8 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 Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate on the regulation of claims management companies, or CMCs.
I acknowledge at the outset that some CMCs can provide a useful service for some consumers, by alerting them to circumstances in which there might be a justified complaint, and by supporting them in obtaining redress. Nevertheless, a notable minority fail to comply with many of the simple requirements placed on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and my hon. Friends the Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and for Warrington South (David Mowat) have made clear today, malpractice continues, including in such areas as lack of transparency about fees; unfair contract terms; encouraging frivolous claims; insurance fraud; using aggressive marketing techniques; accepting leads or claims from unsolicited text messages; and malpractice in the handling of PPI claims. That is the type of behaviour that we are committed to eradicating. We all want a stable and robust regulatory system on which the public can depend, and we also want consumers to get claims services that meet their needs, from CMCs they really can trust.
Although substantial progress has been made since regulation began, there is clearly more to be done. I have listened carefully to the various thoughts and ideas that have been raised today in an informed and considered manner, and I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), that I will listen carefully to everything and everyone I need to, including claimants and all other stakeholders. I am glad he has indicated that there is consensus on many of the issues that we need to address.
Providing consumer protection by driving out malpractice remains the primary objective of the Ministry of Justice’s claims management regulation unit, and we support that approach. Most CMCs want to comply, which is why the CMR unit uses a range of measures to help them to do so. For example, about a year ago the unit formed a specialist compliance team to focus on tackling the mishandling of PPI claims. The team has conducted a comprehensive programme of audits, and has issued warnings and taken other forms of enforcement action where problems have been found. That work continues, and includes targeting CMCs that submit claims where no PPI sale exists, those that charge up-front fees—we have heard a lot about that today—and those that operate call centres, to ensure that sales calls are compliant.
Within the personal injury sector, most of the issues relate to businesses or organised groups attempting to defraud the insurance industry. The CMR unit contributes valuable information and expertise, and has worked with a range of organisations and agencies to tackle fraud. Its operations have resulted in arrests, charges and convictions.
On unsolicited text messages, notably raised by Lord McNally of Blackpool on Monday in the House of Lords, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other Members today, I recognise that the growth in the practice has caused a nuisance to the general public, particularly as the content of the messages is often misleading. The problem presents big challenges, and we fully support the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office, or ICO, in enforcing the legislation that protects individuals from unsolicited text messages and other forms of direct marketing. It is important to point out that such messages are generally sent not by CMCs but by others, to generate leads for others businesses including CMCs. The CMR unit is actively working with the ICO to investigate and take enforcement action against CMCs that accept leads or claims from that type of marketing.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The Information Commissioner has said that unsolicited texts are a breach of the EU regulations on electronic communication. Will my hon. Friend investigate, with the Information Commissioner, whether there is a resource issue regarding his tackling this activity, which is such a nuisance to consumers?
Mrs Grant
We are working hard with the Information Commissioner, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on that point.
At a time when resources are scarce, much has been achieved. Regulatory enforcement action has increased year on year, with 150 audits of CMCs carried out, and 409 CMCs warned, suspended or cancelled over the past year. The CMR unit has also removed the licences of more than 800 CMCs, across sectors, since the start of regulation in 2007, and many others have left the market after the commencement of investigations and enforcement action.
That is where we are at, but where do we go from here? There have been calls over the years to consider transferring the claims management regulation regime to another regulator, but now is not the time for such a fundamental change. We have a big programme of reforms under way, and its central objective is to address CMC bad practices and strengthen the regulatory and complaints regimes to provide better protection for consumers and the public. Our reform agenda includes four main measures.
Following a review of the CMC conduct rules and an informal consultation with key stakeholders, we recently ran a public consultation on proposals to tighten those rules. We intend to issue a response by the end of this year. Most critically, we propose that, first, contract agreements between CMCs and consumers will have to be made in writing before any up-front fees may be taken. That concern was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others.
Secondly, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, CMCs will have to refer to being regulated by the claims management regulator rather than the Ministry of Justice. The shadow Minister welcomed that proposal.
Thirdly, CMCs will have to inform their contracted client of any variation in or suspension of their authorisation; and, finally, CMCs that operate websites will be required to publish their terms and conditions online as standard, including examples of how their various costs are calculated in a specific format.
On the delay to the rules review consultation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I can confirm that the consultation was launched as soon as possible after internal clearance of the intention to consult and the release of the initial impact assessment.
Last year, we also ran a public consultation on imposing a ban on CMCs offering financial rewards or similar benefits as an inducement to make a claim. That proposal was made in response to the recommendation contained in Lord Young’s report “Common Sense, Common Safety”. The ban will come into effect along with other amendments to the conduct rules from April 2013.
From next year, we intend to commence powers under the Legal Services Act 2007 to extend the legal ombudsman’s jurisdiction to provide an independent complaints and redress scheme for clients who are dissatisfied with the service provided by CMCs that they have contacted. Consumers will benefit because the legal ombudsman has wider powers of redress, including the ability to award compensation.
Lastly, we are implementing the primary recommendations contained in Lord Justice Jackson’s “Review of Civil Litigation Costs,” including in particular a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional-fee agreements and a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases.
Mr Slaughter
How will restricting the ability of claimants to obtain proper legal representation restrict the operation of CMCs that either make unmeritorious claims or make meritorious claims incompetently?
Mrs Grant
We are not restricting access to justice in any way. That is another argument I have had with the hon. Gentleman in other debates over the past year and a half. Access to justice will still be possible and meritorious claims will continue to be made.
I have sought to cover a lot of ground in a relatively short space of time, and I have talked through improvements in the way the CMR unit does its day-to-day job and its work in preparation for next year’s reforms. We remain focused on delivering a successful and strong regulatory regime. To give consumers and defendants more confidence in the system, it is important that CMCs ensure that they comply with the rules.
I reassure all hon. Members here today that there will be no let up in the CMR unit’s compliance and enforcement work, and it will do what is essential to strengthen the regulatory and complaints regimes to provide better protection for consumers and the public.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I have listened with great care to the points made by hon. Members in today’s debate and I shall respond in a moment to some of them. In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice set out the principal reasons for reforming the scheme. He made it clear that proper support for victims and witnesses is a very high priority for this Government.
The public expect the criminal justice system to have at its heart the interests of those who have suffered. That includes paying compensation in certain circumstances, but the question for any responsible Government is what those circumstances should be. My right hon. Friend sought to set our changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the context of all the changes we are making to the support that we provide for victims and witnesses. It would be foolish to consider them in isolation. The key point that the Government want to make is that we seek broadly to maintain overall spending on victims, not to cut it, but to change its composition so that money is used more effectively.
As to the criminal injuries compensation scheme itself, there are two main problems, which were highlighted so eloquently and clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr Blunt), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). The first is that it is in financial difficulties. I know that Opposition Members have made much of their disagreement with us over this, swallowing whole the briefings provided by trade unions, but the fact is that the scheme does need to be put on a sustainable footing.
Mrs Grant
The second point is that the design of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is inadequate and the policy rationale flawed. Compensation is in many cases poorly targeted, with millions of pounds spent on relatively minor claims such as sprained ankles. Worse than that, over the past decade, nearly £60 million has been paid to 19,000 claimants who were convicted criminals. So, instead of taking money from an unaffordable scheme and using it to give cash for minor injuries months or even years after the event, our plans seek to make a structural change in the nature of the help that we give to our victims.
Mrs Grant
The scheme will be focused on the most serious cases involving innocent victims, reducing the burden on the taxpayer by £50 million. Linked to this, spending on victims services will be increased by a similar amount, but with the money—crucially— coming from the pockets of the criminals themselves. A major step in that direction was the implementation on 1 October of the statutory instrument giving effect to changes to the victim surcharge. The money raised from offenders will pay for more and better services for victims, providing the practical and emotional support they need. We believe as a matter of principle that that is a better response than compensation for lower-end injuries.
Reform is necessary and it will protect the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the future. I explained last week why we are making changes to the tariff of injuries. Tariff payments will, in future, be available to those most seriously affected by their injuries and those who have been victims of the most distressing crimes. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) all raised concerns about the tariff. I know they will not be persuaded by our removal of bands 1 to 5 or the graduated reduction we have made to bands 6 to 12, but the rationale does, notwithstanding their assertions, stack up. It is wholly consistent with our policy of focusing on those most seriously affected by their injuries—
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that engages the Chair. The point has been put on the record, but the Minister will wish to continue her speech.
Mrs Grant
In the Delegated Legislation Committee last week, I said that, although we saw no merit in making further changes to the scheme, we were nevertheless persuaded that something ought to be done for certain low earners who were temporarily unable to work due to their injuries and who would no longer fall within the scheme. I announced a hardship fund that aims to meet a pressing need for people who might well find themselves in real financial difficulty.
Opposition members of the Committee were critical of the lack of detail I provided on that occasion. However, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice provided details today in his opening speech, and it is a great shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) seem unable to acknowledge the fairness and decency of the fund and recognise that it will help some of the very poorest people in our country.
Mrs Grant
No. I have been very generous in taking interventions in three debates so far, so I will make my points and will not waste any more time.
Moving on, we have defined eligibility for the scheme more tightly so that only the direct and blameless victims of crime who fully co-operate with the criminal justice process obtain compensation under the scheme. That is surely right. Those with unspent convictions will not be able to claim if they have been sentenced to a community order or been imprisoned, and those with other unspent convictions will be able to receive an award of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. Not only that, but applicants will need to be able to demonstrate a connection to the UK through residency or other connections.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and many others have been critical of our approach to dangerous dogs, because in future the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will pay only where the dog was set upon the victim by its owner. A similar approach already applies to injuries caused by motor vehicles; in order for the applicant to be eligible, a car has to have been deliberately driven at him or her. Contrary to our critics’ assertions, that will not have much of an impact on claimants because awards for dog attacks are few. That said, aggressive dogs of course present a serious and growing problem, which is why the Government are active in that area, with work going on at the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and elsewhere.
The last major element of the scheme is special expenses. As is consistent with our policy of focusing payments on the most seriously affected, we have retained the vast majority of those payments in their entirety. However, we have made it clear that the scheme should be one of last resort in relation to special expenses and that payments will be made only if the claim is reasonable.
Finally, we have made some changes to the process of applying for compensation in order to make the scheme easier for applicants to understand. For the first time, for example, the evidence required to make a claim is being included in the scheme, which is a simple but plainly very helpful change. The Government believe that the draft criminal injuries compensation scheme provides a coherent and fair way of focusing payments towards those seriously—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.