Libel Law

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing today’s debate on such an important and contemporary issue. Let me start by confirming that the Government are firmly committed to reviewing the law on defamation in order to protect free speech, and that is reflected in our coalition agreement. My noble Friend Lord McNally confirmed that commitment in July by announcing on behalf of the Government that we will publish a draft defamation Bill for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the first Session of this Parliament, with a view to introducing a substantive Bill as soon thereafter as parliamentary time allows.

Our core aim in reviewing the law is to ensure that responsible journalism, academic and scientific debate and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations are properly protected, and that a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. We want to ensure that the right balance is achieved, so that people who have been defamed are able to take action to protect their reputation where appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably impeded.

Ensuring that the right balance is struck is a difficult and sensitive exercise. It raises complex issues on which a wide range of differing views are likely to be held. In recognition of that, I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that we believe that any reform proposals will need to be the subject of extensive consultation, and that publication of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, together with a full public consultation, represents the most effective approach to achieving substantive provisions that focus on core issues of concern where legislation can make a real difference.

Since Lord McNally’s announcement, the Ministry of Justice held informal discussions with a range of people and organisations with an interest in defamation law to ensure that their views are taken into account. These included: non-governmental organisations and libel reform campaigners; claimant representatives and members of the legal profession; representatives of the media and the publishing industry; internet service providers and other internet-based organisations; and representatives of the science community. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that they included, as he requested, Index on Censorship, PEN and Sense About Science.

My right hon. Friend featured the position of the science community very strongly in his remarks. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on many of the cases that he mentioned, given that proceedings are pending. I can confirm, however, that we are very much aware of the concerns about the harmful impact that the current law is having on scientific debate. The case of Simon Singh and his brave stand for his beliefs have been widely reported, and I was pleased to hear his position being clearly explained this evening by his MP, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). We want to ensure that any provisions that we introduce will help to address those concerns and enable robust scientific and academic debate to flourish without being hampered by the threat of libel proceedings.

The discussions that we held were extremely helpful in identifying areas in which concerns exist and the possible approaches to tackling the difficulties that arise with the current law. We have also had the benefit of being able to consider the range of issues raised in the private Member’s Bill on defamation that was introduced earlier in the year by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That Bill was also the subject of a debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) in Westminster Hall in July this year on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he chairs. It is good to see him here this evening.

It is not possible for me to indicate today precisely what provisions might be included in the Government’s draft Bill on defamation. However, a range of issues have been the subject of much discussion and debate over recent months, and I can confirm that we are giving careful consideration to them, to assess whether it is appropriate to include provisions in the draft Bill. They include the need for a statutory defence relating to the public interest and responsible journalism. Concerns have been expressed by non-governmental organisations, the scientific community and others that there is a lack of certainty over how the common law defence established in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers applies outside the context of mainstream journalism, and that this creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression and investigative reporting. This is a complex area of the law, and we are considering whether and how a statutory defence could be framed in a way that is beneficial and appropriate for a range of different contexts.

We are also considering libel tourism. My right hon. Friend gave various examples of that. There is a widespread perception that the English courts have become the forum of choice for those who wish to sue for libel, and that that is having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. I have to say to him, however, that there are mixed views over the extent to which libel tourism is a real problem. Research conducted in the context of the libel working group’s consideration of this issue did not show a significant number of actual cases involving foreign litigants in the High Court in 2009. However, non-governmental organisations have indicated that a major problem arises from the threat of libel proceedings by wealthy foreigners and public figures, which is used to stifle investigative journalism, regardless of whether actual cases are subsequently brought—hence the fact that the number of cases alone might not accurately reflect the extent of the problem.

We are considering possible options carefully in reaching a decision on the way forward, including the proposal of the Ministry of Justice libel working group for procedural steps to tighten the rules and practice in order to head off inappropriate claims at the earliest possible stage, in cases where court permission is required to serve a defamation claim outside England and Wales. In doing so, we are of course keeping in mind the fact that there is relevant European legislation—in particular the Brussels I regulation—on jurisdictional matters.

We are also considering the difficulties caused by the “multiple publication rule”—whereby each publication of defamatory material gives rise to a separate cause of action subject to its own limitation period—in relation to online material. The effect of the rule is that publishers are potentially liable for any defamatory material published by them and accessed online. That applies however long after the initial publication the material is accessed, and whether or not proceedings have already been brought in relation to the initial publication. We are considering how we could frame a single publication rule to remove the current threat of open-ended liability.

We are also considering a range of other aspects of the law. They include the possible need for provisions on renaming and codifying the existing defences of justification and fair comment; on the basis on which an action for defamation can be brought and whether it should be necessary for claimants to show that they have suffered substantial harm; on the ability of corporations to bring defamation actions; on trial by jury; on defamation in the context of internet publication; and on issues relating to absolute and qualified privilege. There is much ground to cover

My right hon. Friend asked about the use of super-injunctions. I can tell him that the Master of the Rolls has set up a committee to examine their use. We look forward to seeing the outcome of its work soon.

We are pressing ahead with our work to ensure that publication of the draft Bill and the accompanying consultation paper takes place on as timely a basis as possible in the new year. As well as considering the substantive law, we are determined to ensure that costs in all civil proceedings, including defamation, are proportionate. In that context, the Secretary of State for Justice announced to the House on 15 November that the Government were consulting on proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales. We are seeking views on the implementation of a package of recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson in his “Review of Civil Litigation Costs”. The Government are grateful for Sir Rupert Jackson’s report, in which he argues cogently that the costs of civil litigation are too high and are often disproportionate to the sums at issue. I also accept his fundamental argument that achieving proportionate costs and promoting access to justice go hand in hand.

The key proposal on which we are consulting is the one to abolish recoverability of success fees and “after the event” insurance premiums under conditional fee agreements. Defendants who lose their cases are currently liable for those additional costs, which are often substantial. Abolishing recoverability would mean that claimants had to pay their lawyers’ success fees, and would therefore take an interest in the costs being incurred on their behalf. It is clear that if the current situation continues, and claimants continue to have no interest in the legal costs of their own lawyer if they win or in those of the defendant’s lawyer if they lose, the “have a go” compensation culture can only grow.

As well as consulting on that key proposal for reform of CFAs, we are seeking views on implementing a package of Sir Rupert’s recommendations that balances measures for defendants with measures affecting claimants. They include introducing qualified one-way cost shifting, increasing general damages by 10%, strengthening part 36 arrangements, which encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers, and allowing damages-based agreements in civil litigation, otherwise known as contingency fees. It is hoped that the proposals will result overall in more proportionate costs in all civil proceedings including defamation, while enabling those who need access to justice to obtain it. The consultation on reform of civil litigation funding and costs closes on 14 February 2011, and in due course the Government will publish a response setting out the next steps.

I hope that I have reassured my right hon. Friend and other colleagues that we are taking focused and proportionate action that takes account of many of the issues involved. I believe that it is very important to ensure that the law achieves a fair balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, and that steps are taken to bring the cost of proceedings under control. I thank my right hon. Friend again for the valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on these issues that he has made today.

Question put and agreed to.

Cross-Undertaking in Damages (Environmental Judicial Review Cases)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am publishing the consultation paper “Consultation on Cross-Undertakings in Damages in Environmental Judicial Review Cases” on 24 November 2010.

This is a formal consultation exercise undertaken by the Ministry of Justice to seek views on whether:

the existing measure of judicial discretion on whether to require cross-undertakings in environmental judicial review cases strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the claimant and defendant and, where appropriate, the general public interest in the circumstances of each particular case; and

such undertakings should be required when interim relief is sought.

Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the document is also available online, at www.justice.gov.uk.

The consultation period will be from 24 November to 24 February 2011 and I will make a further statement regarding the response shortly after the consultation period ends.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

8. How much was spent on legal aid for cases in respect of immigration appeals in the last 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

In 2009-10, overall legal aid expenditure on advice and representation in immigration and asylum appeals was £85 million. I should, however, point out that it is not possible to identify expenditure for initial advice separately from expenditure before the immigration and asylum tribunal in cases in which both advice and representation are provided.

[Mr Evennett]

I thank the Minister for his response. Can he confirm that, under the coalition Government proposals, immigration cases will be taken out of the scope of legal aid?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are consulting on removing all immigration matters from the scope of legal aid, other than for those in immigration detention. That means removing matters such as varying leave to remain—for example, if a foreign student wants to change their visa to get permission to work instead, or, indeed, to stay here for longer. Such cases will no longer be at the taxpayer’s expense.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

One of the ways in which we can cut down on waste in the legal aid budget is to address no-shows by Home Office officials at immigration hearings. Can the Minister tell me the number of cases in which Home Office representatives do not turn up to these hearings and the cost of that to the legal aid bill, or will he write to me with that information?

[Mr Djanogly]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with that information, but I can tell him that it is an issue. Defendants’ representatives not turning up for hearings is also an issue.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Responding to Lord Carter’s 2006 review of legal aid, the Minister said it put very vulnerable individuals at risk, that people were not being represented and that the structure was “being destroyed”, and he concluded:

“I would say it’s a meltdown.”

Carter reduced the budget by about 5%, whereas the current Government’s Green Paper cuts civil legal aid income by 42%. How would the Minister describe that?

[Mr Djanogly]

The important point to make is that the last Government did, indeed, look at legal aid: they had more than 30 consultations over a five-year period, including Carter. The result of that was that providers and those in receipt of legal aid were lost within the system and did not know where cuts were coming from, and what we are doing now is putting forward a comprehensive review of legal aid, whereby providers and all stakeholders will be able to see their position within the system—and as a result the consultation will be accurate.

[Mr Slaughter]

Well, we can all make what we will of that, but the fact remains that more than half a million people who may have unfairly lost their job, their income, their right to decent housing or access to their children—or, indeed, who may have been deported from the country, as the Minister has just said—will now go without advice or representation, whereas criminal legal aid and some of the high-cost advocates earning more than £900,000 a year are largely untouched. The Secretary of State said in his statement on these measures that it was important to strike a balance. Does the Minister not think that the balance has been got wrong in this case?

[Mr Djanogly]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the consultation document, which has clearly got a section on very high-cost cases, and on which we have significant proposals. More particularly, the Labour manifesto said it wanted to cut legal aid, so if he is going to talk about our cuts, perhaps he might like to say where he would be making cuts in legal aid.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had on the provision of services to people who have experienced trauma as a result of a miscarriage of justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

12. What steps he plans to take to fulfil the aspiration in the coalition agreement to increase the efficiency of the legal aid system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The consultation document “Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales”, published on 15 November, sets out proposals to make the legal aid scheme more efficient. We looked from first principles at its scope, the eligibility rules, and the fees paid to lawyers and other providers of legal aid. We looked at alternative sources of funding, and we are also consulting on reducing administrative bureaucracy and making the system simpler to operate.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the issues raised by Des Hudson of the Law Society are unfounded, that access to justice will still be available for people who really need it and that worthy organisations such as Citizens Advice are valued by this Government?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we are certainly very keen to work with voluntary organisations such as Citizens Advice to ensure more efficient and focused provision of legal aid, and included in that will be our proposals for a civil law telephone gateway service. By refocusing legal aid we aim to ensure that taxpayers’ money will be prioritised to help the vulnerable receive the legal support that they need.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that proposals to close both the county court and magistrates court in my town of Whitehaven have been met with widespread anxiety and have been condemned by the local bench and local solicitors. Will he agree to meet us, so that he can learn at first hand just how ruinous the proposals would be if enacted?

[Mr Djanogly]

The courts consultation closed in mid-September. We have been examining the significant number of responses and will be reporting back to the House on them before the new year. I am sure that the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made on his local courts will be examined and, following our decision, I would be happy to meet him.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

13. What recent estimate he has made of the number of offenders with an alcohol dependency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of the effects on the NHS of removing clinical negligence from the scope of legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

Clinical negligence cases against the NHS are funded approximately 50:50 between legal aid and no win, no fee agreements with lawyers. We will be interested to understand through our consultation the specific impact on the NHS of the removal of clinical negligence cases from the scope of legal aid, which should save some £17 million to legal aid. However, we also estimate that our proposals to reform no win, no fee conditional fee agreements will save around £50 million each year to the NHS in reduced legal costs.

[Dr Wollaston]

Could reducing legal aid for clinical negligence lead to an upsurge in no win, no fee deals and an increase in the compensation culture?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that changes in one area can have knock-on implications in another area. It is important to point out that that is precisely why we put out the legal aid consultation document on the same day as Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals on no win, no fee agreements. The two can be weighed up together and the consultation will therefore take a holistic approach.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

On legal aid, the Minister has spoken today about working with voluntary sector organisations. Community Links’ welfare advice service in my area has seen 9,000 people so far this year. It is very cost-effective and has been paid for until now by legal aid. Under the Minister’s proposals, it will not be in the future. How will that work be supported by the Government in the period ahead?

[Mr Djanogly]

People have the option of getting conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements. They can go to a lawyer and that lawyer will take a view on the chances of success. The question that must be asked—we will be very interested to hear the responses to it during the consultation—is whether, if the private sector is not prepared to take on the risk, the public sector should be prepared to do so and what proportion of that risk it will be prepared to take on.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Following my question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice during his legal aid statement, is there not a danger that, given the complexity of clinical negligence cases, the most vulnerable will not have access to no win, no fee simply because such companies will not offer their services to them?

[Mr Djanogly]

There will still be power to grant legal aid in exceptional cases where a CFA will not be available, although that power will be restricted. The fact remains that CFAs will still be available for people with no ability to fund their cases so that they can take proceedings.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

16. What estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of family law cases that will be eligible for legal aid during the period of the comprehensive spending review.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We estimate that removing from the scope of legal aid most private family law cases, except for those involving domestic violence, forced marriage and international child abduction, would reduce the number of people receiving advice under the legal aid scheme by about 211,000 annually and of those represented in court by just under 54,000 annually. Together, those figures represent an estimated annual saving of £178 million. However, we have also decided to retain legal aid for mediation to help separating couples sort out their issues without the courts where possible.

[Tony Lloyd]

The Minister’s last point is very important. In many such private cases, child-protection issues arise. Can he give the House an absolute guarantee that private cases in which child protection becomes an issue will still receive legal aid? If not, these cost savings will be at the expense of our children’s future.

[Mr Djanogly]

Absolutely; where a public family law matter arises, that case will remain within scope. If a child is subject to being taken away from their parents, legal aid will be available.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T3. What assurance can Ministers give my constituents in west Cornwall that the legal aid reforms published last week will not adversely affect the coverage of, or reduce access to, legal aid, particularly in civil and family proceedings?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The hard facts are that the amount of legal aid being paid out in civil cases will be reduced. As part of the Government’s savings of £2 billion, £350 million is subject to be taken out of legal aid by 2014-15. That means that we will focus legal aid on the most vulnerable who need legal representation.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T4. A number of professionals have contacted me about their worries that, once the Youth Justice Board disappears, there will be a lack of co-ordination and an increase in reoffending by young people. Can the Secretary of State give any reassurance to those professionals that when their work disappears inside the Ministry of Justice, that co-ordination work will still be taken seriously?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

On a less controversial subject, what scope is there for mediation in family law cases, and will such cases continue to qualify for legal aid?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have taken the view that mediation should be retained within the scope of legal aid, and we think that it should be thoroughly encouraged. Too often, people take the course of court when they should look towards sorting out issues between themselves, and mediation will play a big part in enabling them to do that.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On prisoner voting, will the Secretary of State have the grace to accept that before the election, given the implacable opposition from the whole of the Conservative party from top to bottom, with the then shadow Justice Secretary describing the proposal as “ludicrous”, and deep and profound concern on our Back Benches, it was not that one did not want to do something, but that there was no way in the world that such a measure would have passed through this House?

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on 19 July 2010, Official Report, columns 45-46W. The correct answer is as follows:

The number of court proceedings processed in the magistrates courts in England and Wales, England, and the West Midlands Local Criminal Justice Board area, from 2007 to 2009, is given in the table. Statistics are not available prior to 2007 on a comparable basis.

Service Personnel Deaths (Overseas)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make our quarterly statement to the House with details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. We maintain the highest possible regard for all of our service personnel who are or have been involved in the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our deepest sympathies, of course, lie with the families of those personnel who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We record with great sadness that since our last statement, on 22 July, a further 19 servicemen and women have lost their lives.

Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon and other coroners. This statement gives the position at 21 October.

I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses which outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. These tables include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held. We are encouraged to see that the average period of time from the date of death to the inquest continues to reduce, which is of considerable benefit primarily to the bereaved families, but also to other parties to the inquests. The average age of inquests into operational deaths which are yet unlisted is eight months.

Current status of inquests

Since the last statement 36 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. This makes a total of 361 inquests held into deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since June 2006, when additional resources were first provided to the Oxfordshire coroner.

Since operations commenced in 2001 there have been a total of 415 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 11 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In two further cases, no formal inquest was held, but the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident.

We remain deeply grateful for the efforts of all of the coroners who are involved in conducting these inquests. We also wish to reiterate that our Departments are committed to working together, and to continuing the Government’s support for these coroners.

Open inquests

Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan

There are no outstanding inquests into deaths prior to 1 April 2007, since when fatalities have been repatriated via RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire. Since October 2007 additional resources have been provided to ensure that a backlog of inquests does not build up in the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner’s district. The coroner, David Ridley, transfers inquests for service personnel to a coroner closer to the bereaved family, wherever possible.

At present there are 102 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan (59 involving deaths in the last six months). Of these, Mr Ridley has retained 33 inquests, while 58 inquests are being conducted by coroners closer to the next of kin. At 21 October, one recent fatality awaited repatriation and inquest opening. Hearing dates have been set in 10 cases.

Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured

There remain 11 inquests to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. These will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.

We shall continue to keep the House informed about progress with the remaining inquests.

Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Fees)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

This Government believe strongly in the values of responsibility, freedom and fairness. It is these values which inform all our judgments as we face up to the exceptionally tough fiscal situation we have inherited, and it is with these values in mind that I am launching a consultation on the mechanisms for introducing fees to the immigration and asylum appeals system.

I believe that it is reasonable to ask non-UK citizens appealing against some categories of immigration and asylum decisions to contribute to the costs of the administration of that appeal, where they are able to. This is particularly the case given that some two thirds of appeal cases are declined each year.

The current situation is that the Tribunals Service Immigration and Asylum system (TSIA) demands no appeal fee. Costs are met by the Ministry of Justice through funds provided by the UK taxpayer and in part from fees levied on visa applicants by UKBA.

For this reason I am today launching a public consultation on the mechanisms for introducing fee charges as I have outlined here. The consultation will be available from today on the Ministry of Justice’s website and will run for 12 weeks, concluding on 21 January 2011.

I welcome feedback from all interested parties.

This Department is currently undertaking an internal review of legal aid and will be seeking views on reform shortly. If the proposals taken forward in the future, as a result of that consultation, affect the availability of legal aid in immigration appeals and consequently our assumptions about the impact of charging appeal fees to appellants of limited means, we will consult again as necessary on an alternative remissions and exemptions policy in respect of the fees to ensure that access to justice in immigration appeals is appropriately maintained.

Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Court Fees (Public Law Family Proceedings)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

Following the recommendation by Francis Plowden in his “Review of Court Fees in Child Care Proceedings” on 15 March 2010, Jack Straw, the former Secretary of State for Justice, announced that the court fees charged to local authorities for care and supervision proceedings would be abolished from April 2011. I have carefully considered the decision of the former Secretary of State and believe that there is no justification that these fees should be abolished and as such they will remain.

Protecting vulnerable children is paramount and I do not believe that continuing to charge these court fees will place vulnerable children at risk. Local authorities have a statutory duty to investigate instances when they suspect a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm and it would be unlawful for local authorities to consider financial considerations when deciding whether to do so. There is little, if any, empirical evidence to suggest that fees are a deterrent to local authorities commencing care and supervision proceedings. Indeed, since 2008 current figures show a general rise in applications being issued.

Francis Plowden’s review found that resource issues could play a part in determining whether proceedings were initiated, however, he only believed this occurred “at the margins”. He confirmed that this conclusion was based on anecdotal evidence alone and also stated that it was unlikely that children have been knowingly left at unavoidable risk by local authorities.

The fundamental principles in setting court fees at levels that reflect the cost of the service being provided are now more important than ever in the drive to ensure all Departments are transparent and accountable for the money spent on public services. Specifically, fee charging:

improves decision-making and accountability by providing greater transparency of the true cost and benefits of the services provided by both charging and paying authority.

promotes the efficient allocation of resources enabling authorities to identify particular pressures. Local authorities can then ensure sufficient funding is made available from their overall resources to pay court fees and other necessary expenditure in pursuant of their statutory obligations.

The cost of keeping these fees has been considered and built in as appropriate to the spending review settlements 2010 for those Departments affected—the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Assembly Government.

Furthermore, in light of the work currently being undertaken by the Family Justice Review Panel it would be premature to remove the fees for care and supervision proceedings. The review panel is looking at options for reform in both public law and private law cases. The review is due to publish its final report in autumn 2011 and I will review the fees for care and supervision proceedings following these findings and any proposals that seek to change the way in which these cases are dealt with by the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

On 23 June 2010 the Justice Secretary announced in a written ministerial statement that the Government were undertaking a policy assessment of legal aid in England and Wales. The Government intend to seek views on proposals later this autumn. In addition, on 26 July I announced the Government’s intention to consult on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on funding arrangements from his report later this autumn. Those proposals, if implemented, would help to maintain access to justice at proportionate costs for claimants and defendants.

[Mr Ward]

The only organisation in Bradford with qualified solicitors offering welfare advice ceases its service part-way through the year as it uses up its allocation of matter starts, while other solicitors still have unused but non-transferable allocations. Will the Justice Secretary please ensure that, as part of the review, the inefficiency of matter starts is given due consideration?

[Mr Djanogly]

That will form part of the review, which, as I said earlier, will be out later this autumn.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) has talked about the importance of legal aid. Like many other hon. Members, I believe that legal aid is critical for those who want to address an injustice. Can he assure us that it will continue, and there will still be an opportunity to access it, even after the comprehensive spending review?

[Mr Djanogly]

Absolutely. The Government support legal aid very much. As far as we are concerned, however, it is a question of directing that legal aid to those who need it most, and that will form the core component of the review whose findings will come out later this autumn.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

14. If he will establish how many foreign national prisoners held in UK prisons wish to serve out custodial sentences in their country of origin rather than in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T3. Are my right hon. and hon. Friends aware of the devastating consequences, particularly for victims of domestic violence, of the decision taken by the Legal Services Commission to halve the number of legal aid providers? In the whole of my constituency of South Northamptonshire we have only one small firm specialising in domestic violence legal aid cases, yet it has just been told that its licence will be revoked. Can Ministers do anything to help my constituents?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

It was a competitive contract, and the contracts have now been awarded. It is appropriate to note that the new legal aid contracts for family law were due to commence on 14 October, but that on 30 September the Legal Services Commission lost a judicial review brought about by the Law Society against its recent tender process. The tender was ruled unlawful and the awards quashed, meaning that the Legal Services Commission is unable to proceed with the new family contracts until a fresh process can be undertaken.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. What action will be taken to ensure that the arrest and prosecution of foreign nationals can be undertaken only by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police?

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

T5. Given the potential closure of Northwich court in my constituency, as a result of which people will have to travel a considerable distance to reach the nearest court in Chester, what plans have the Government to encourage the use of technology to minimise the necessity for members of the public physically to attend the court for routine purposes?

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to discuss the merits of technology in relation to the courts. As for the court in his constituency, access is important. The Government took the view that an average travelling time of an hour or less would be acceptable.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State think that there should be a public acceptability test relating to the time that prisoners spend in purposeful activity?

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. Many millions of pounds are spent on court cases involving divorcing couples. Yesterday David Norgrove was quoted as saying that the Department was looking to a Swedish model to help to resolve divorce cases— Name her! What changes does the Secretary of State propose to make, and how much would—[Interruption.] Order. I want to hear the rest of the question. It is becoming more fascinating by the word. What does the Secretary of State intend to learn from the Swedish model, and how much money would be saved?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have some good English models too. Family mediation can be quicker, cheaper and less stressful, and provide better outcomes, than contested court proceedings. We know that informing people about mediation helps them to understand how it can enable them to avoid long-drawn-out cases. I am pleased to report that the issue forms part of the Norgrove review, which we will follow with great interest.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Leslie. He is not here, so I call Mr David Winnick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to explain the fact that we aim to improve the coroner system in line with most of the policy in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. However, the purpose of abolishing the chief coroner post is, first, to save the £10 million start-up costs and then the £6.5 million running costs, but also so that some of the chief coroner’s leadership and operational functions can be transferred to an alternative body.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that prisoners held within the prison estate are still allowed to smoke tobacco. Does the Secretary of State agree that that presents a huge health risk to Prison Service employees, and are the Government considering the matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T9. When can those opposed to the closure of Skipton court expect to hear a decision about it, and can the Minister reassure me that its unique rural case will be listened to carefully?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend has made strong representations in support of the court, and they were well received. The decision will be taken shortly before the Christmas recess.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Lord Chancellor update the House on the Government’s thinking on prisoners having the right to vote?

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T10. The Ministry has a laudable and exemplary commitment to evidence-led policy. Given that, can the Minister assure me that when he reviews the magistrates courts, he will look critically at the information on the condition and use of Southport’s courts in the Ministry’s consultation document—which is, frankly, duff, inaccurate and misleading?

[Mr Djanogly]

I do not know how the consultation report was misleading, but if the hon. Gentleman contacts me later I shall be happy to look at it.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Ministry of Justice is aware of early-day motion 794 in my name, on the Court of Appeal ruling on mesothelioma liability. I received a letter this morning from the Association of British Insurers. I will deal with their very polite request that I withdraw my early-day motion after this, but first I want to focus briefly on its assertion that

“the industry and the ABI agrees…that the appropriate trigger point for employers’ liability policies is the point of exposure”

to asbestos,

“not the point at which the disease develops”—

the disease being mesothelioma. Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Djanogly]

This is not a matter on which we propose to legislate in the near future, but if the hon. Lady wishes to discuss the issue further with me, I shall be happy to meet her.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Her Majesty's Courts Service

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

In March 2010 a list of key performance indicators was published for Her Majesty’s Courts Service for 2010-11. One of these indicators was “to maintain the “very satisfied” element of the HMCS court user satisfaction survey at or above the 2007-08 baseline of 41%”. The data to measure this indicator are usually captured using an independent survey of court users.

In April 2011 HMCS and the Tribunals Service will come together to form a new integrated agency. Commissioning new surveys for 2010-11 would not represent good value for money as the results would be of limited value and would not be available until after the creation of the new agency. I have, therefore, decided that the survey used to report against this performance indicator should not go ahead.

HMCS remains committed to providing good customer service to all court users across England and Wales. User satisfaction remains strong with 82% of court users satisfied overall, with 40% of those being “very satisfied”. The new integrated courts and tribunals service will continue to deliver improvements in the services provided for courts and tribunal users.

Updating the Coroner System

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I wish to make a statement to announce plans for changes to the coroner system in England and Wales.

We believe the proposals I am putting forward today will bring improvements to the system, and address current inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the delivery of services to bereaved families.

We need to create minimum national standards and issue improved guidance on important procedures such as the commissioning of post-mortem examinations, while supporting the local management and delivery of the service.

To that end, we plan to bring forward some of the measures from part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Our aims are to:

Improve the coroner system so that inquests are timely and bereaved people are provided with sufficient information and support throughout the process.

Improve the effectiveness of inquests, so cases are conducted in the most appropriate district, information is better shared between coroners and other agencies and investigations are better informed by medical advice.

Support local service management and delivery to ensure coroners and their officers have the skills to carry out their jobs and best practice is shared between coroner districts and between the local authorities which fund them.

We will achieve this by:

Commencing provisions enabling operational problems facing coroners to be addressed.

Reviewing and updating the coroners rules.

Issuing and monitoring best practice guidance, including a national charter for bereaved families.

Maintaining and improving training for coroners and their officers.

Encouraging the further establishment of support services provided by the voluntary sector to those attending inquests.

We will make it simpler for coroners to transfer cases between each other, for the convenience of bereaved families and to reduce delays. We will also make it possible for post-mortem and related examinations to take place at the most appropriate specialist centre, by removing the geographical restrictions of the Coroners Act 1988.

We aim to commence these measures in line with the original deadline of April 2012. Some may be brought in earlier than that.

We will continue to work across Government to identify whether and how we can implement other measures in the 2009 Act. We will continue to work closely with Health Ministers to implement proposed new death certification measures so causes of death are recorded more accurately, public health measures are improved, and any improper practices by doctors are detected. In doing so, we will take account of the responses to the consultation paper “Reform of the Coroner System Next Stage: Preparing for Implementation”. I have today published the Government’s response to that paper, and have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

However, after careful consideration, we have decided that in the current economic climate we cannot go ahead with plans to implement national leadership from a Chief Coroner, an appeals system, or a medical adviser. We have proposed that the abolition of the office of the Chief Coroner should be included in the Public Bodies Bill, which was announced earlier today and we are further considering the transfer of some of the Chief Coroner’s functions to suitable alternative bodies.

His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, a Senior Circuit Judge at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), was appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, to the post of Chief Coroner under section 35 and schedule 8 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 after those provisions came into force on 1 February 2010 but had not yet taken up his duties. In the light of our intention to abolish the post he will now not do so but I wish to express my gratitude to Judge Thornton for his considerable patience, and advice to the Department, during the period of this policy review.

We will continue to work collaboratively with coroners, local government and police authorities to deliver service improvements. We will also explore with voluntary sector organisations how we can work together better, so as to provide further support for people when they suffer a sudden or unexpected bereavement.

We believe that our proposals will deliver an improved and more flexible service to bereaved families and also to coroners, their staff and others who work within or have an interest in the coronial system. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their dedication and hard work and to recognise the enormous value of the service they provide.