Interpreting and Translation Services

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to have the opportunity to debate our report on the Applied Language Solutions contract, supplemented by the National Audit Office report. I am glad to see Members from all parties and different parts of the country here, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which also considered the matter in the context of the NAO report.

Although that gives me pleasure, it gives me none to report that the subject of this debate is the procurement and management process undertaken by the Ministry of Justice. Serious flaws have been exposed in the Ministry’s procedures and policies; the process was a shambles. The contractual system for court interpreting, which came into operation at the end of last January, proved unsatisfactory from the outset and was subject to a boycott by many professional interpreters whose terms and conditions of employment were adversely affected. As we say in our report, that caused the adjournment or severe delay of numerous hearings and, in criminal cases, unnecessary remands into custody, with potential implications for the interests of justice.

One need not be an expert on court processes to understand the dangers to justice that can arise from inadequate interpretation. We acknowledged in our report that performance had improved markedly since the earliest days of the contract, but our verdict was not dissimilar to the Ministry’s admission in response to our report that

“performance…under the contract has not been of a satisfactory level”.

As I shall make clear a little later, on the available measures, performance has still not reached required standards; if anything, it has slipped back.

It is good practice, and my Committee’s practice, to look again and follow up the recommendations made in reports. I advise the Minister—a former Justice Committee member—that this debate is not the end of my Committee’s interest in the subject, and it will not be possible for the Ministry to escape parliamentary scrutiny after this debate.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent report produced by his Committee. The summary says:

“There was significant concern revealed in the consultation process that quality standards could be diminished by the imposition of a tiered system to enable a wider pool of interpreters, and by the introduction of lower levels of pay.”

Does he share my concern that that is evidence of trying to deliver an important service at the potential expense of quality? Does he think that his hon. Friend and mine, the Minister, should review and be prepared to revoke the system if it continues to be proven not to work?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I will return to how we proceed from here. I am tempted to comment that people always say that when it is proved that standards fell after big changes and that some of the predictions were fully justified. That should be a warning to the Government, as they engage in a number of other contracts. I will come back to that as well.

It is worth pointing out that the problems encountered by the Ministry in contracting for the work, while serious in themselves, also have implications for wide swathes of its other activities. The Ministry is putting out to contract 70% of rehabilitative services under the transforming rehabilitation proposals, £450 million in custodial services over the next six years and a large part of criminal legal aid, all of which will be the subject of contracts. I do not need to spell out that if things go wrong in those areas as they have in court interpreting, we face a multiple-train crash. Does the Ministry really have the capacity to do the kind of contracting on which many of its policy proposals are based? I am not arguing about whether it is a good or bad idea to contract out those things, but the Ministry must have the capacity to do so well and properly.

Before I turn to the substance of the report, I will mention another point of considerable concern to my Committee: the Government’s insistence that they acted reasonably in discouraging court staff from taking part in the online forum that we set up as part of our inquiry to seek personal experiences of interpretation standards in court. That was a retrograde step. We did something similar with prison officers. Many contributed to our online forum, and as a result, we produced a much better-informed report than we could otherwise have done. We did the same thing with court staff, but they were strongly pressed by the Government not to co-operate. That is deplorable. We shall continue to use such mechanisms where appropriate in our inquiries, not with any intention of getting civil servants to question policy, but to get a proper understanding of how it is working on the ground. If Departments repeatedly give that kind of non-co-operation injunction to their staff, they may find themselves in contempt of the House, and the whole House may seek to do something about it.

On the substance of our report, we recommended that the Ministry of Justice audit the amounts being expended on interpreter pay and travel and said that it might be necessary for the rate of pay for tier 1 interpreters —the most highly qualified—to be increased. We also said that the MOJ and Capita should prove that the framework agreement could attract, retain and deploy an adequate number of interpreters to meet the requirements of the courts and other agencies. We called on the professional interpreter community to work flexibly with the Ministry to find an acceptable way to restore their services to the justice sector.

In response, the Ministry introduced, with effect from May, a number of changes to the system of remuneration for interpreters, which it says amount to an average 22% increase in rates. Those changes involve mileage payments, cancellation fees, payment in 15-minute blocks rather than by the minute, payment in accordance with the qualification tier of the interpreter and a daily fee for incidental costs. We welcome those changes, but it is not yet clear that they will be enough to encourage many more interpreters to undertake work under Capita’s auspices, given the breakdown in relations between the Ministry and interpreters and the fact that many interpreters cleave to the view that the framework agreement is fundamentally flawed and cannot be salvaged.

The Ministry says in its response that it has met Professional Interpreters for Justice since late 2012, but goes on rather ruefully to say that it

“accepts that it will not always be possible to agree with the Professional Interpreters for Justice Group but seeks to maintain ongoing dialogue.”

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Minister should try to establish better relations—I would expect no less of her in going about things—but a lot more work clearly needs to be done if the professional interpreter community is to be won back.

The group has a different slant on the dialogue. It says that it was invited to a meeting with the Ministry’s interpretation project in March, at which it was presented with a package of proposed changes. It says that changes proposed at separate meetings by interpreters registered with Capita were rejected, and it does not accept that the Government’s changes will attract and retain interpreters.

The dialogue has been inauspicious from the outset. We commented that the Ministry

“did not have a sufficient understanding of the complexities of court interpreting work prior to initiating the procurement of a new service.”

We endorsed the NAO’s conclusion that the MOJ did not give sufficient weight to the concerns and dissatisfaction expressed by many interpreters, even though having sufficient numbers of skilled interpreters was essential to the new arrangements’ success, to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt).

A constructive dialogue requires both sides to participate with good will. When we published our report, we were encouraged by the Minister’s commitment to repairing relations, but can she explain why she thinks relations between her Ministry and the main organisations do not appear to have improved? On what evidence or other basis did the Ministry choose to make the changes on which it lighted? How does the Ministry plan to monitor those changes to ensure that they bring about the desired improvements in the service?

On the quality of interpretation, we agreed with the NAO that the tiered system should be independently evaluated and that interpretation quality standards should be independently reviewed. The MOJ said that it would take that forward and report back to us on progress. The Minister gave us some more information in a letter dated 18 June. I am grateful to her for that. In the letter, she says that steps have been taken to “scope and initiate” the quality assessment and, following discussion with interpreter groups, Capita and others, will commission the advice and report back to my Committee in the autumn. Perhaps that should have been got on with a bit quicker, because it is a pretty fundamental prerequisite for improving the service. I urge swifter progress.

The Ministry has claimed that the changes to terms and conditions that it has made

“will increase the number and availability of Tier 1 and Tier 2 interpreters and therefore reduce the need to use Tier 3 interpreters”.

In her letter of 18 June, the Minister says that it is too early to say whether this is happening, although she notes that Capita says that there is an increased interest in accepting bookings from their existing pool of interpreters. I should like the Minister to report back to my Committee in the autumn on the extent to which the expectations have been satisfied.

We noted in our report problems with performance data being compiled to demonstrate the effectiveness of Capita in fulfilling courts’ requests. This is fundamental to a contract: there must be adequate performance data. Again, this reads across to some other contracts that the Ministry will have.

There were ambiguities about, for example, what constituted a customer cancellation, which is an ambiguous category. Professional Interpreters for Justice subtracts cancellations from the total number of requests, as well as failures by the contractor to deliver, to arrive at a figure of 80% of requests having been fulfilled by Capita, which is way below the contract requirement.

Even on the Ministry’s figures, performance is falling well short of the 98% target, and it tailed off markedly in January. That cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It is clear that, despite the substantial extra investment that the company has made since taking over from ALS, Capita continues to perform below the required standard under the contract.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Has the Committee had an estimate of the impact of the cost of delays, extended custody and the performance off-contract on the expected savings that this outsourcing was meant to deliver?

[Sir Alan Beith]

No, but we think that the Ministry of Justice should have some reasonable estimates of those costs. Such estimates are quite hard to put together, but we have talked to people in the courts—judges, counsel, solicitors and court staff—and they all point to incidents, each of which involves significant additional costs, which clearly have to be offset against the savings.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that we are hearing from people, such as the chairman of the Bar Council, about the significant costs and money wasted when trials collapse because of failures under the terms of the contract? Does he share my view that perhaps we would be better served if we considered saving those costs, rather than embarking on a revolution in legal aid provision and putting all that at risk again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous and welcome member of my Committee, but I would not make the rather rash claim that we could meet the savings that the Government want to make in the costs of legal aid out of getting this contract right. However, we should be getting it right and so far that has not been achieved.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am also a member of the Committee, so I am pleased that we are debating this report. When the Ministry comes back to our Committee, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be helpful if it came with an analysis of the amount of money lost by the non-attendance of interpreters, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned, and the collapse of trials and all the costs that are loaded on to all three parties: the court, the prosecution and the defence?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I would welcome a reasonable estimate from the Ministry, but I should like it to devote most of its effort to moving from the bad situation that we have now to a better one. I would not want all its management to be occupied with collecting the figures, but if it starts to claim significant savings, I am afraid that we will all want to insist that some of those costs are set against those claims.

Quite a lot of off-contract booking is going on—courts have to do it to meet the need to go ahead with a trial —but we need more information because we do not know how extensive it is. Of course, that too is an extra cost item.

Interpreters’ organisations have been compiling dossiers of instances where court proceedings have been disrupted by failings in the interpretation service. Such information should be systematically captured by the Ministry. We recommended that there should be a user satisfaction measure, and the Ministry replied that it would discuss this with Capita and other partners. I should be grateful for an update on these discussions.

A lack of basic management information has contributed to the Ministry’s apparent inability to monitor and drive better performance. For example, there are costs of defendants being remanded in custody, additional legal aid costs and all the rest of it. We thought that the Ministry

“must get a better grasp of the costs of underperformance”.

I shall not quote the savings figures that the Ministry quotes, which are seriously at risk because of the additional costs involved.

The Minister could provide further clarification on how much of the expenditure of £13.3 million in the first year is accounted for by off-contract bookings. Perhaps she could let us have that information later, if not today.

We noted in our report that the problems arising in relation to the contract must have meant the Ministry’s incurring additional administrative costs as a result of the higher than expected level of oversight that has become necessary. The Ministry in its response gave a figure for staffing costs of the core project of £315,000 between January 2012 and March 2013, but it did not give an estimate of additional costs that it might have incurred.

We should not assume that there was some golden age under the previous arrangements for court interpreting. We concluded in our report that, despite clear administrative inefficiencies, there does not appear to have been any fundamental problem with the quality of services when sourced under the terms of the then national agreement. It is understandable that any Government would consider whether there were more efficient, cost-effective ways to provide the same service, but the principle must be to provide the same level of service. The Government signally failed to achieve that objective.

We said that there

“was clear potential for problems with ALS’ capacity to deliver on its promises which were not adequately anticipated or dealt with either by the Department or by the contractor itself”.

ALS was a small undertaking, visibly lacking the capacity to undertake anything as major as the entire national court interpreting provision.

The Ministry’s naivety at the start of the process appears to have been matched by its indulgence towards underperformance against the contract once the new arrangements came into operation. In introducing the new framework agreement, the Ministry has alienated many experienced court interpreters. The contract may have achieved a net book saving in its first year of operation, but it has not, on the available evidence, achieved any improvement in service to the courts. Indeed, on the information available to judge performance, which continues to be rather defective and limited, there has been a deterioration in performance and a negative impact on the ability of the courts to do their job properly.

The whole saga has been an inglorious one. It might almost have been constructed as a cautionary tale of what a Department should avoid in undertaking a procurement and contract management process. And this is a Department that intends to undertake several such processes, some of them much larger even than this one, so some lessons have to be learned pretty quickly. The standard of court interpretation needs to be restored, preferably by bringing back those whose experience can return the service to the standards that the courts used to expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) not only on his diligent chairmanship of his Committee but on his comprehensive introduction to the subject today. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which considered the matter on 6 December 2012 and drew some shocking conclusions.

Life on the Public Accounts Committee involves meeting twice a week and each time hearing about very different situations, usually a litany of failure or ineffectiveness. As a result, we become a little cynical or even punch drunk. However, even by those standards, the hearing on 6 December 2012 was appalling. I am reminded by the large number of people in the Public Gallery today—no doubt some of them are personally interested in the matter—that we had a large attendance in the Public Gallery on that day. It was one of the few hearings I remember when there was shaking of heads in the Public Gallery as Ministry officials responded to the Committee. That is rare, but it happened repeatedly on that day, which says something about the officials’ complacency,

Our Committee found, not surprisingly given what we have heard, that the outsourcing of interpreter services was terribly mismanaged. We concluded that the Ministry lacked management information on the previous use of interpreters and therefore did not have a clear understanding of the requirements when contracting out the service. It did not know how much it was already spending on interpreters, or even how many interpreters were required or in what languages. As a result, the system it selected was driven by bidders’ proposals rather than the actual requirements.

Applied Language Solutions, the company that was awarded the contract, was clearly incapable of delivering on such a large contract, yet it was handed £42 million a year to cover the whole country, despite a credit rating report to the Ministry recommending that ALS should not have been awarded a contract of more than £l million. Departmental officials could not adequately explain to the Committee why it had ignored that advice. It is one thing to make such a striking error in the first place, but the Committee also found that the Ministry failed to penalise ALS effectively under the contract. Its penalty was only £2,200, and there was no penalty for the first four months when its performance was at its worst. Risible levels of penalties and low expectations of performance obviously allow private companies to get away with over-promising and under-delivering.

The Ministry should draft and implement future contracts to minimise transitional problems by piloting and rolling out new systems gradually, and incentivising contractors to meet contractual requirements from the outset—for example, through the robust use of penalties. Will the Minister tell us what penalties have been levied on Capita for failure to deliver since it took over the contract? ALS, of course, was handsomely rewarded for its failure. It sold the business on to Capita for £7.5 million only 10 months after winning the contract. As we often find on our Committee, the public sector had no say in that reassignment and certainly got no financial benefit from the on-selling. That is something we see constantly in the public sector: it is now a business to win a public sector bid or a PFI contract and then trade it on. That is how companies really make money, and ALS is a good example of it.

The Ministry estimated that it would need access to 1,200 interpreters to meet its requirements. However, it allowed the contract to go live when the supplier had only 280 interpreters ready to work under the terms of the contract. The Ministry believed that many more interpreters were available to work, in line with contractual obligations, than was actually the case, because it received over-optimistic assurances from ALS and there was confusion over definitions of what important terms such as “registered” actually meant. The Ministry was also unable to confirm that all interpreters working under the contract had the required qualifications, experience and enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks.

The company was only able to meet 58% of its bookings, initially, against a target of 98%, which is entirely unacceptable. As previous speakers have said, it is not only about the mechanics of the contract; we are talking about people’s lives and life-changing decisions that may be made on their behalf. People who needed the services have paid a heavy price for the Ministry’s incompetence. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of ineffective trials, as others have said. A trial was recently cancelled in my area because, unbelievably, the chosen interpreter was on trial in a neighbouring court at the same time. Extra costs for the Ministry are then incurred by unnecessary trial postponements and delays. Those costs have not been revealed but they will almost certainly be far more than the money saved on the contract, and I urge the Ministry to measure the waste in the courts system caused by the problem.

Whatever value-for-money considerations drove the original decision will now bear little relation to what has actually happened. It seems certain that there has been a net cost rather than a net benefit to the justice system. In short, the Public Accounts Committee found that the process descended into total chaos, and that almost everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. I hope that the Ministry will follow up the recommendations of the PAC, the Justice Committee and the National Audit Office in order to clean up the mess. Given the large potential contracts that the Ministry is looking to award, it has a lot to do to convince the public that it has learnt the lessons, and that contracts such as those involving legal aid and rehabilitation—

[Sir Alan Beith]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, I wanted to put this point to him, which is not always recognised or understood by people. What has happened in this case, as is proposed in the case of legal aid, is that instead of outsourcing to a very large number of small, usually one-person businesses and making an assessment as to whether they are capable of doing it, the whole process of obtaining interpreters has been outsourced. It has been done on such a large scale that few organisations in the country would be able to do it.

[Ian Swales]

My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which is of great concern to the Public Accounts Committee. We seem to have a number of Government Departments that—I suppose it is belt and braces—are making the outsourcing, or contracting-out process, so complicated that now only four or five companies can win the bid. The whole job is how a bid is won and not what the service is, because frequently the people who win the bids do not do the work. Eddie Stobart will not be providing legal aid; its expertise is winning a Government bid. That is the almost farcical situation that we have now got into. The Ministry needs to learn the lessons from that process, particularly as it seems to be about to do some very similar things on a much bigger scale.

One of the other issues that we have—we use the expression on our Committee “following the public pound” —is that the more this type of thing happens, the less access the National Audit Office has to the people who are doing the work. If the services are run by the Department, the NAO can be all over them, but typically, the contracts do not provide transparency or access, so our auditors are unable to get into the key providers.

In summary, the Minister needs to convince us about the lessons learnt, and about what improvement actions will be taken. I feel—not my Committee but I, personally—that a lot of scrutiny by a lot of people should take place before we walk into the same trap again, and I fear that the Public Accounts Committee may have a lot more work coming down the road towards it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

Conscientious though my hon. Friend the Minister is, she will not have convinced any of us that the situation is acceptable and sustainable.

The Minister referred to court staff being told not to respond to the Committee’s survey. At no time did the Committee seek to pit the opinions of staff against those of Ministers; that would be wrong, and we would not seek to do it. Committees will continue to collect information about how contracts are operating, and if Departments maintain their current line—the Ministry of Justice has not done so on other occasions—they will be on a collision course with the House.

The Minister referred to teething problems, which is an extraordinary way to describe the total failure to meet contract requirements in the early part of the contract. That should have attracted penalty or break clauses in the contract. We questioned the head of the Courts Service, who said that there were break clauses that he could activate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said, the current situation—90% achievement against a 98% target—represents a failure to meet the contract requirements, which should probably attract a penalty.

The Minister will never convince us that the savings figures take adequate account of the additional cost to the system. I am afraid this issue will continue to be controversial.

backbench business

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That information is already available to a degree. It is available to hon. Members and has been published under the Freedom of Information Act. It is very important that at the same time as ensuring we have a proper legal aid system that provides access to justice to all, we ensure that the payments we make are payments we can afford.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

How can Ministers be confident that under their proposals there will be a genuine market and not just a few very large businesses that would have no great incentive to maintain quality once they got a fixed proportion of the business?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a very important point. First, I have absolutely no intention of ending up with a legal aid market dominated by a small number of very large firms. A central part of the tendering process will involve a quality threshold that ensures that we have the quality of advocacy and litigation support in this country that we need and expect.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland]

Technically, in terms of the law, absolutely. As I said yesterday, the new clause cannot be seen in isolation; it has to be seen with amendment 10, which sought the repeal of the Marriage Act 1949. It must also be linked with the amendment that I tabled to remove clauses in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The point is that there would be one single definition of a legal recognition for relationships.

I am not necessarily dictating whether this should be called a union, a marriage, or, as Peter Tatchell suggests, a civil commitment pact. I am not particularly interested in the language. Some people feel very strongly that we should call it marriage; others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), do not like the word “marriage”. That is a debate to be had. The point is that what we need to do, and what the Bill should have sought to do, is give all citizens of this country the right to one single recognition by the state of their union. Of course, that would apply to everyone in an existing marriage or an existing civil partnership. Everyone would have the one single recognition through the state, and the legislation would have been drafted to achieve that. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question very simply, but we are now moving into technical legal questions. In reality, this change would require a separate Bill, but it is currently proposed as a new clause.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Would my hon. Friend’s proposals mean that Methodists, Catholics and others who fought for many years for the right to conduct a marriage ceremony that was valid in law would lose that right and have to go along to the town hall to get validation for the marriage that they had conducted?

[Greg Mulholland]

I believe that Methodists and Catholics should have exactly the same rights as humanists, Baptists, Jews and Quakers. That is my whole point. I do not accept that some religions should have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony but not others; as a liberal, I find that indefensible. My right hon. Friend has to accept, as do I and all right hon. and hon. Members, that marriage is being redefined; the state has chosen, through its Parliament, to do that. Therefore, now is the time to deal with the complex, multi-faceted and, indeed, confusing and discriminatory current marriage laws and to carry out the reform properly, which is not happening.

I suspect that there is also a practical dimension to my right hon. Friend’s question, and I am happy to address that. In order to have the necessary separation between civil and religious ceremonies, we would need to ensure that no religious minister was able to convey the rights of legal marriage. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, either through the presence of a registrar at a belief-based or religious marriage ceremony, or by another process, to have that conveyed at the same time. If my right hon. Friend is arguing against that separation, he is defending the situation that the Government are proposing, which will mean having to legislate on what certain Churches may or may not do and needing a complex system of law to ensure that other Churches, including the one he belongs to, are not then forced to do things they do not want to do. If we have a proper separation, none of those things is necessary, and surely that is the sensible way to proceed.

I have had support from all sorts of different sources, including ministers from Churches of various denominations and other religions who are saying that this is indeed a sensible way to proceed. On the Gay Leeds website there is an article by Colin Ross in which he says:

“This seems a very sensible approach to me, I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that—without any religion having their opinion on it—but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality—as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well.”

Similarly, in the release that he put out today under the headline, “Gay marriage bill is not full equality”, Peter Tatchell says:

“Instead of bringing same-sex couples fully within the ambit of existing marriage law, the bill leaves some aspects of marriage law different for gay and straight married couples. Although these are relatively minor, they violate the fundamental principle of marriage equality for all.”

He goes on to say:

“While this may be a progressive reform of marriage legislation, it makes the law unequal. If we want marriage equality, that’s what the bill should give.”

We should also have equality of religions and belief systems, and the Bill does not achieve that either.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I plead guilty to having done a couple of media interviews this morning, but I am at least in the House right now. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), also gave some media interviews this morning but has not made it to the House, which is rather a surprise to me.

We learned an important lesson in opposition, which is that sometimes when one aspires to be a Government it is necessary to accept that something is the right thing to do. That is a lesson that today’s Opposition have not learned. I do not understand why they are coming out with this faux anger about what we are doing when the legislative foundations that enable us to push through these reforms were passed by the previous Labour Government. If they supported the concept then, why do they not support it now?

The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. That highlights an important difference between us and the previous Government. They believed that a problem would be solved by throwing money at it, and they ended up with an over-bureaucratic, over-complex system which simply did not deliver. Thanks to the work done by the Select Committee, we know that probation officers spend only about a quarter of their time at work on supervising offenders, while about 40% of their time is spent on providing support services. Are the Opposition really saying that it is not possible to run that system more efficiently and deliver support where it is needed to the offenders who are most likely to reoffend when they leave prison? Again, there is a divide between us and them. They think it is a question of spending more taxpayers’ money and having higher taxes; we want to get better value from the taxes that we already raise.

On resettlement prisons, again, it is about making our system work more effectively. At the moment, we move far too many prisoners all over the country in a fairly haphazard way. Over the past few months we have worked with prison governors and prison officer teams to work out a better way so that short-sentence offenders will almost always stay in one place and longer-sentence offenders will go to a prison close to where they will be released to ensure that when they are released we can deliver continuity of support through the prison gate. The Opposition should welcome that. It is the right thing to do and it should have been done years ago.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the past three years. It is only a few months since the Opposition were attacking me for not undertaking pilots on this issue. In fact, for the past few years we have been looking at how such a system would work, in Peterborough prison and in Doncaster prison. The work that has been done there is first-rate. It has also shown how effective older prisoners who are turning their lives around can be in supporting and mentoring younger offenders who have yet to do so. The hon. Gentleman needs to go out and look at what is happening, not in the world of big businesses, which his party’s Government contracted with regularly, but in the voluntary sector with some of our first-rate charities, where there are living examples of former offenders who have gone straight and who are now helping to turn around the lives of the next generation of offenders. I want to capture those skills in helping to bring down reoffending.



The hon. Gentleman questioned payment by results, but why is it such a bad thing in the eyes of the Opposition? They want to pay a whole-contract fee, but I believe that we should pay part of a fee based on whether the taxpayer gets a good deal or not. We should pay not unconditionally, but conditionally, and that is what we will do under these contracts. I want to pay for real results that bring down reoffending and crime.

Under the previous Government, reoffending barely changed. We ended up with a situation in which people were going round and round the system. We finally have a set of proposals that will start to change that. It is shame that this did not happen, not three years ago, but 13 years ago, when the Labour party was in power.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

If this reform can be carried through in such difficult financial circumstances, it will be one of the most valuable and important things this Government do. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the system must be tailored so that charities and voluntary organisations can viably play their full part, and that the creation of a national probation service must not be allowed to undermine the local co-operation between agencies, which is vital to reducing reoffending?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give assurance on both those points. The national probation service will continue to have local delivery units operating at a local authority level with local agencies, which is essential, and multi-agency supervision will and should continue for the most serious offenders.

On charitable groups, I am clear that quality and the likelihood of delivering success in reducing reoffending will be crucial in the contracting process. This is not simply a money-saving exercise; it is about easing pressure on the system by reducing reoffending. That is what it is all about and the bidding process will ensure that quality rises to the top.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. I very much recognise the issue that she mentions, which was discussed at my meeting with David Ford. I can reassure her that we are mindful of the situation in Northern Ireland and giving it due consideration as we reach our decision.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Why are Ministers not engaging properly with the House on those opt-in decisions, given that the five memorandums promised for mid-February have not yet been produced and the Government appear to be discussing with the Commission important opt-ins without having discussed them with important Committees of the House?

Budget and Structure of the Ministry of Justice

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Today is an estimates day and the presence of pound signs and a lot of noughts on the Order Paper tends to frighten Members away, when really it ought to draw them in to see what on earth the Government are doing with very large amounts of taxpayers’ money. Repeated attempts by zealous reformers to make Parliament pay more attention to expenditure have still not, I think, achieved the degree of success that many of us would like. I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate on the Ministry of Justice’s supplementary estimate for 2012-13, with particular reference to the report published by the Justice Committee on the budget and structure of the Ministry of Justice.

This is the first debate on the Ministry’s estimates since it was established in 2007, and I gather that the Minister who will respond is one of two in the Department who were formerly members of the Justice Committee—well, three if we count the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). We are infiltrating our Committee members into relevant positions, which I hope will lead to almost all our recommendations being carried out.

The Ministry’s resource departmental expenditure limit for this financial year amounted to £8.2 billion. The supplementary estimate that provides the occasion for this debate adds a net £379 million in programme expenditure to that total, but MOJ spending, if not huge, relates to crucial areas of great public concern and interest: prisons, probation and legal aid. Most of the expenditure that the Ministry is responsible for is incurred in programmes administered by agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The broad figures of the budget show that the National Offender Management Service—prisons and probation—receives £3.4 billion, that the Legal Services Commission, which deals with legal aid, receives just under £2 billion, that the Courts Service receives £1.3 billion, that the Youth Justice Board receives £300 million and that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority receives £282 million. Between them, they account for the lion’s share of the Ministry’s budget.

I said that the supplementary estimate added a net £379 million to the main estimate resource expenditure limit. I will write on behalf of the Justice Committee to seek some further information on the components of the increase, as well as on increases in resource annually managed expenditure; but, in the meantime, it would be helpful if the Minister responded with some of the reasons for the £159 million increase for NOMS in the resource departmental expenditure limit, which is mysteriously described in the Ministry’s memorandum as due to “emergency cost pressures”. Last year, £51 million was included in the supplementary estimate under exactly the same heading. What are those pressures? Is that money part of the £1.2 billion funding agreed in 2007 for prison capacity, following the Carter review, and, if so, when was it carried over into the current comprehensive spending review period and what will the money be spent on?

The supplementary estimate includes provision for a net extra £750 million in round terms in resource annually managed expenditure, the largest elements of which are impairments on the court estate, £326 million, and impairments on the prison estate, £252 million. I hope that the Minister can explain why those elements are there.

I shall turn to the main conclusions of my Committee’s wide-ranging report. We took evidence in the first half of last year and reported in August 2012, and the Government responded in October. We visited the Department during our inquiry, and we did so in an innovative way that I commend to other Committees. We simply said, “We don’t want a formalised tour. We wish to enter every part of the Department and, on a second day, NOMS, and all we want is someone who has got the keys to every door in the building.” That is what we did, and we just wandered about every part of the Department, talked to staff and got a clear picture from them—interestingly, it was to the Department’s credit—of their commitment to the transforming justice programme. We just landed on anyone and asked, “What are you doing? What is your role in all this?” That gave us a much better feel than formal presentations sometimes do for how the Department was functioning, and it was to the Department’s benefit.

We have regularly taken evidence and reported on the annual reports produced by the Ministry. On the broader relationship between expenditure and policy, our predecessor Committee in early 2010 produced a seminal report on the case for justice reinvestment—a strategy for the transfer of resources away from custody to the prevention of crime and the reduction of reoffending. It remains my firm belief that the blueprint set out in that report is the only sensible way forward for a long-term criminal justice policy. Some elements of that philosophy are present in Government policy today, but quite a lot more could be included.

Our report focused on managerial and operational matters, but it also covered some important questions of policy, particularly on the commissioning of prison and probation services and payment by results. Our inquiry was the first major examination of the activities of the Ministry and its associated public bodies. We looked at the background to the setting up of the Ministry, its internal governance, budgetary provision, financial management, commissioning and procurement, the relationship with other public bodies, Departments and the judiciary and the prospects for achieving the Ministry’s radical long-term policies of transforming justice at a time of severe public expenditure retrenchment.

Some of the subjects that we covered, such as the Ministry’s financial management and procurement capacity, may seem technical, but when things go wrong with those functions, as happened recently in the shambolic outsourcing of court interpreting services, excoriated by the Public Accounts Committee and by us, the political fallout and the effect on public confidence in the judicial system can be deeply harmful.

We concluded in our report that the Ministry’s structure and performance had improved since its creation and that progress had been made in integrating the Department, but many of the improvements had been from a low starting point and there had been criticisms and failures. The culture in which the focus was on policy creation previously had changed to an increasing recognition of the importance of programme management. The Department had developed a greater understanding of its cost drivers, although it still did not have sufficient management control of its finances.

We noted that the Ministry had sought to bring its sponsored bodies under closer central control and make them more accountable to Ministers and had streamlined senior management structures and reduced the duplication of functions. We called for further structural change to create an integrated system of offender management, involving the commissioning of both prison and probation services in defined geographical areas. In fact, we look like ending up with roughly the opposite: national commissioning of prisons, which is what we already have, and now of probation, as part of the Government’s probation proposals. The Lord Chancellor defended that on the grounds that, at this stage at any rate, the limited available experience needs to be concentrated to carry out that commissioning function, but that seems to us to be entirely the wrong strategy. The commissioning of ways to deal with offenders really needs to be associated with all the other agencies that are situated in an area. The prisons, police and crime commissioners, local authority social services departments and housing authorities need to work together, as they have done in youth offender teams, for example, to achieve the best results locally.

We expressed doubt about whether the Ministry had sufficient skills capacity to implement the radical change of approach, with the greater outsourcing of the delivery of services, and we pointed to a danger that the way payment by results would be commissioned might undermine the work of voluntary sector organisations, which play, and need to play, a vital role in the justice sector. I think that Ministers have got that message. I am less sure whether they can implement it properly. There is certainly considerable anxiety across the voluntary sector, where so much of the skill and commitment that is required to change offenders’ lives is available. We drew attention to the wide range of public, private and voluntary organisations that need to work together if the wider justice system is to operate more effectively and efficiently when resources are so constrained.

It is difficult to think of any part of the Department’s activities that are not affected by the process of transformation, which has been under way and has gathered pace. In particular, the proposals in transforming rehabilitation document will entirely re-fashion the terrain of probation services. There are welcome plans to extend rehabilitation to prisoners serving sentences of under 12 months who currently receive no such provision. We pitch them back into society with no realistic expectation that they will turn away from a life of crime merely because they have spent a limited time in prison.

More controversially, the plans include contracting out to the private and voluntary sectors of the majority of work with offenders in the community currently overseen by probation trusts. This rehabilitation revolution agenda is in addition to a huge amount of change occurring across other parts of the Ministry’s core business: changes in legal aid entitlement and in the status of the Legal Services Commission, which has moved physically into the headquarters building in Petty France and is becoming an executive agency under closer central control. The Ministry is closing a number of magistrates courts. It has announced plans to transform youth custody by introducing secure colleges. In family justice, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will transfer back to MOJ control effectively from the Department for Education.

On prisons and probation policy, I think we all share the same goal of reducing offending and reoffending, which in turn will free resources currently spent on keeping people in prison, to maintain progress and to have a virtuous circle, rather than the vicious cycle that the system now has. But we remain to be persuaded that the Ministry has at its centre the right people to steer through this monumental transformation process. Most importantly, does it have people with the commercial, technical and legal skills necessary to embark upon a huge range of highly complex and sometimes novel commercial projects?

The transformation agenda coincides with a period when the Ministry, like most Departments, is being tasked with making very large savings. By the end of the spending review period—by the end of the 2014-15 financial year—it needs to make annual real-terms savings of more than £2 billion against its spending review baseline. According to the National Audit Office’s departmental overview, the Ministry still has some way to go to meet its cost reduction target. It aims to make front-line savings of around 10% over the spending review period—it has already saved £244 million—and to reduce back-office costs by around a third, which will contribute about £1 billion towards its target.

The Ministry has projected legal aid savings of about £320 million annually by 2014-15 and sentencing savings of £51 million by the same year, from the changes introduced under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. A further statement from the Minister today gives an accelerated timetable for proposals yet to be spelled out in relation to criminal legal add. Obviously, we will be closely interested in what comes out. We have some indications that things such as cost recovery from offenders will form part of that. Of course, there has been more coverage today in reference to the President of the Supreme Court and anxieties in the judiciary—of course, such anxieties are widespread among lawyers and voluntary organisations—about the effect of the legal changes.

I will make a personal comment, which I think is broadly shared by the Committee. It is widely recognised that we cannot go one having the most expensive legal aid system in the common law world with no real prospect of restraining its potential increase. The Government had to do something, and any Government would have had to do something.

Secondly, and this is a view that the Committee expressed strongly in a previous report, the welfare and tribunal systems are part of the problem. The extent of legal advice necessary in much of the tribunal system indicates a weakness in the way services are delivered in the first place, and in the tribunal system. We ought to have a system under which people receive the right benefit to start with, and, if they do not, the tribunal system should obtain directly the information required to judge the matter correctly. Where Departments in particular fail to achieve that objective and generate a lot of failed appeals—failed on the Department’s side—they should contribute to the cost. It should not be the MOJ budget that bears the cost, but the Department that is not doing its job properly. Change is required in this area.

Savings of approximately £50 million per year are expected from changes to criminal injuries compensation criteria, and there will be other, lesser savings from the closure of courts and prisons, and from rationalising the administration of the Ministry itself and its sponsored bodies. Restructuring the NOMS headquarters is expected to save £91 million. At the same time, there are cost implications to changes that the Ministry is making. Is there any costing for the plan to extend rehabilitation to short-sentenced prisoners? That is welcome, but we have not seen any plans for how it will be paid for. How feasible will it be to fund it by introducing competition into probation?

The Ministry has little control of many things that determine its cost, such as the demand for prison places. One has to ask: how would its transformation and cost-cutting agendas be affected by an unforeseen event. Into that category fell the national riots—they are described as national riots, but it may be fairer to describe them as riots in a number of cities—that occurred in 2011 and generated significant expenditure in the court service and in the prison system.

The Ministry is moving forward with its radical plans for transforming rehabilitation. Payment by results, for example, has not yet been tested in the field of criminal justice. There are a number of pilots up and running, but we do not know what their outcome will be. The Secretary of State clearly feels that to wait, probably for many years, for the outcome of the pilots is to wait too long—he is impatient to get on with developing payment by results. One has to ask, however, how can the Ministry know that it is rolling out programmes that will work and not waste money? How can it learn from the programmes that are up and running, even though we are not at the stage to receive final conclusions?

My Committee took evidence from the Secretary of State last week on the transforming rehabilitation proposals, and put some of those questions to him, including the concern that he makes full use of the voluntary sector that has so much to contribute. Since then, there have been some reports in the press of doubts in the Treasury on whether the payments by results programme can achieve its predicted financial outcomes. I think that those reports came out accidentally in a conference or a seminar on related issues, but they indicate that not everybody is confident that the Ministry can achieve that kind of saving from the programme.

Much depends on getting the basics of financial management right, and our report devoted considerable attention to the effectiveness of financial management in the Ministry and its sponsored bodies. The Ministry did not produce its resource accounts for 2009-10 and 2010-11 before the summer recess, and blamed the accounting arrangements of probation trusts. Last year the Department’s accounts were submitted before the recess, but still after the deadline set by the Treasury. The Committee considered that to be unacceptable.

The Committee was also critical of the regular qualification of the Legal Services Commission’s accounts because of error rates in overpayments—£35.7 million in 2011-12—and called for it to establish a clear plan to reduce those rates significantly.

Our final main concern related to the accounts contained in the Her Majesty’s Courts Service trust’s statement. The Comptroller and Auditor General issued a disclaimer of opinion on those accounts, meaning that he could not say whether they gave a true and fair view. Its chief executive explained that the Courts Service’s accounting system was not able to handle the requirement placed on it by the Treasury to produce an auditable report. The Secretary of State said that the £3 million it would cost to put that right would not represent good value for money.

The Committee was highly critical of the lack of financial management competence in the Ministry and its sponsored bodies. We said that there was “unacceptable complacency” and a “defeatist mindset”. That is strong language, but the Committee think it is justified. The Committee thinks that the Ministry is now taking financial management more seriously, including centralisation and standardisation of processes and standardised forms. The LSC is implementing a new IT system. Frankly, we were horrified when the LSC told us that it could not possibly ask all solicitors to submit claims online, in a world where you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, and most other people have to use online procedures. This is having to change, thank goodness. The Ministry, however, still faces an uphill struggle with IT legacy systems and its estates. In particular, in the courts many IT systems are old and require a great deal of effort and input to work at all. There is a question regarding whether any useful analysis has taken place to determine whether investing in capital projects now would save money in the longer term.

On European-related issues, the Committee said that the maintenance of separate teams in the MOJ and the Home Office to deal with European, international justice and home affairs issues was a duplication of effort, and that they should be merged. The Ministry has not accepted this recommendation, which seems so obvious to us.

The Government, with some fanfare, announced that they would exercise their right, under protocol 36 of the Lisbon treaty, to opt-out en bloc from justice and home affairs measures, and would consult parliamentary Committees, my Committee included, on their proposals regarding which ones they would opt back into. Up until now, negligible information has been forthcoming from the Government on their plans. The Committee, and other Committees, have had nothing on which to carry out any work. I emphasise strongly that my Committee expects to be provided with the time it requires to scrutinise the Government’s opt-out proposals. The same applies to the other affected Committees too, and we have written jointly on that.

The Ministry of Justice has not yet shown itself able to achieve the full savings to which it has committed, despite some tough decisions and some welcome improvements. The Department is trying to achieve major change, a process that always involves front-end costs with the hope of later savings. We should not be wasting taxpayers’ money on ineffective use of the prison system, where half of those released from prison reoffend within a year—for those on short sentences the figure is 60%. We should not lose sight of the long-term objective, which is to cut crime and reduce reoffending to such an extent that much less money has to be spent on the consequences of crime, whether in the criminal justice system or beyond. For that to happen, we need to spend money to ensure that people are not drawn into crime in the first place. The troubled families programme and early-years education are examples of what the Government are doing and need to build on if we are to cut not only the costs of crime, but the misery it brings to those of our constituents who are victims of crime. We are spending their taxes on trying to keep them safe from crime. That money needs to be spent wisely and that is why it is important that we debate it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady knows that we are carefully considering the design of the system, so we will need to determine the appropriate percentage. She will also recognise that it is not going to be 100%, because anyone taking on this work will need to implement the orders of the court and to fulfil licence requirements. The fact that it will not be 100% may have some bearing on the discussion we have been having about the accessibility of this new landscape to smaller organisations, particularly those in the voluntary sector. We will settle on the precise figure having listened to those who may be involved in this landscape, and others, to make sure that we get it right.

Let me deal with some of the points made by the Chairman of the Select Committee. He raised the concern that he and his Committee have about having national as opposed to local commissioning, and I appreciate that that represents a change. It is explained simply by the need to ensure that the necessary expertise and abilities to commission on a payment-by-results basis are held by those doing the commissioning. We think it is difficult to see how that can be done on a local basis, but we think it is important, just as he does, that there are local elements in the commissioning process and that local intelligence is included in deciding what needs to be commissioned. We want to design a system—I hope he will see this coming through the process—that enables us to include that local understanding as well as greater expertise on payment by results. He is also right to say that we must design a system that allows voluntary sector organisations to participate actively.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify this point. Let us analyse it a bit further. If the local partnerships that know the local situation best can design what the contract should be about, it is perfectly proper that they should turn to a national body that has expertise in how to include the measurements of results and so on. I would be worried, however, if the national commissioning body was also the body that said, “What you need in Blackburn is this.” That decision should be taken locally, even if the expertise must be drawn on from a central body.

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I understand that entirely. I am saying that it will be important under the system that we are trying to design for local requirements to find their way through the system so that they can be clearly understood. We will try very hard to ensure that that can be done.

Let me return to the voluntary sector organisations, on which we have rightly spent a bit of time in the debate. There are probably two areas in which we need to be careful to ensure that the design of the system is right. The first is in the assessment of the bids that are made for the rehabilitative work that we are discussing. When we consider the bids, we will want to be satisfied not just about their quality and price but about the sustainability of the relationships brought forward as part of the bids. We anticipate that a large number of bids will include more than one organisation and will often include smaller voluntary and community sector organisations. We will want to be persuaded when assessing those bids that the smaller voluntary and community sector organisations will have a sustainable future in the course of the contract. We will want to ensure that the design is right and that we keep our eyes on what is happening in contract management. It is partly about assessing the bids when they come in and partly about assessing how they are implemented over the lifetime of the contract.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear about why we are doing this: reoffending rates in this country have barely changed in 10 years, and it is not true to say that we are getting the kind of performance across the probation service that the hon. Lady suggests. There is good work being done in the probation service, in the voluntary sector and in the private sector, and my aim is to have a package of proposals that brings to bear the strengths of all three in reducing reoffending rates.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Why have the Government come up with the idea that the commissioning of probation services should be done by a national body, rather than a local or regional one, given that that undermines the way in which local bodies concerned with preventing crime can work together and the ability of local and regional voluntary sector organisations to take part?

[Chris Grayling]

There are two reasons. First, we do not believe that the expertise exists on a localised basis to procure payment by results in an ambitious way—the kind we are proposing. Secondly, many probation trust management teams are enthusiastic about being part of the contracted-out world themselves, so I hope and expect that we will see some of them forming partnerships and creating new bodies that will take the service forward.

Freedom of Information

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. We may be suffering today from the fact that two progressive causes are being debated at the same time, in a rather curious upstairs- downstairs situation. Upstairs, in the main Chamber, the franchise and the voting age is being debated, and here in Westminster Hall we are considering an important constitutional issue: freedom of information. I am glad that the Minister is here to reply to the debate, as she used to serve on my Committee, and we look forward to hearing from her shortly.

Many of us campaigned for years for freedom of information and against excessive Government secrecy, believing that openness is an aid to better Government, as well as an enhancement of the rights of the citizen. It was a long and hard battle. In John Major’s time, we achieved a code of practice on access to Government information, but the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was the most important step forward and its introduction is very much to the credit of the then Labour Government. So it was rather surprising that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in his memoirs that he had been a “nincompoop” to introduce it and that it was

“antithetical to sensible Government.”

The Justice Committee repeatedly asked Mr Blair to appear before us to give oral evidence about his dramatic change of view, and we deplored his failure to do so. We did not think that it was entirely justified to use the House’s powers to compel his presence, although that was a possibility, but it seemed very strange that someone with such strong views and who played such a major role in this matter should not be willing to appear before us to explain his views.

However, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is always extremely co-operative in giving evidence to the Committee, told us that the Freedom of Information Act was Mr Blair’s idea and not his. We are all used to politicians, including Ministers and former Ministers, wanting to claim credit for things, but denying the credit for something as significant as the Freedom of Information Act seems a very strange thing to do.

To complete the chronology, I should mention the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which was passed under the present Government, because it extended the effect of the Freedom of Information Act to academies, to the Association of Chief Police Officers and all its public functions, to the universities admission body, UCAS, and potentially to a whole range of other bodies, too. So the extension of the role of freedom of information continues.

The Justice Committee and its predecessor Committees have been closely involved from the start of this process. We reported in 2004-05 on progress towards the then imminent implementation of the Freedom of Information Act; in 2005-06, we reported on the first year’s progress; and in 2006-07, we reported on the Labour Government’s plans to change the legislation in a restrictive way, mainly by the use of charges, which we opposed. The fact that the planned changes did not go ahead might have owed something to the transition from the Blair era to that of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).

In this Session, we carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the 2000 Act, after the Government had made their own post-legislative assessment in 2011. That is a model of its kind; it is the sort of work that needs to be done in post-legislative assessments. It was thorough, well supported by research and a great help to us in the work that we did. I am happy to say that the Government and the Committee have reached a common view on most of the main issues, although there are some significant points of difference.

Our report on freedom of information was issued in July 2012, after seven evidence sessions, and the Government responded to it in November 2012. In their memorandum, the Government reiterated the well known four main objectives of the Freedom of Information Act:

“Openness and transparency: to help open up public authorities which carry out public functions, both proactively…and reactively… Accountability: to make Government more accountable to politicians, journalists and the public; Better decision-making: an improvement in the quality of decision-making…because those drafting policy advice would be aware that they would have to be able to defend their reasoning… Public involvement in decision-making…public participation…and…greater public trust in that process.”

The first two of those things—openness and accountability—have been achieved, to significant extent. The third thing—better decision making—is quite difficult to decide on, not least because many other factors determine the quality of decision making. The fourth thing—public trust—was a pretty unrealistic aim from the start, and I will refer back to it later because it would be hard to say that it has been one of the consequences of the Freedom of Information Act.

I will start with openness and transparency. We drew a distinction between reactive openness in response to requests made under the Act and proactive transparency in the publication of information by public authorities. On openness, we concluded in our report:

“We agree with the Ministry of Justice that the Act has contributed to a culture of greater openness across public authorities, particularly at central Government level which was previously highly secretive… Our evidence shows that the strength of the new culture of openness is, however, variable and depends on both the type of organisation and the approach to freedom of information of the individual public authority.”

On transparency, we made the point that

“proactive publication…cannot substitute for a right to access data because it is impossible for public bodies to anticipate the information that will be required.”

The beauty of the Freedom of Information Act is that, ultimately, the public, not the public authority, decide what information is needed. However, that is not an argument against proactive publication.

The Act encourages proactive publication, and the Government have a transparency agenda driven by the Cabinet Office, which seems to take the transparency demanded by freedom of information provisions a stage further, by encouraging raw data to be released in an open and reusable format. I welcome and encourage that, but we concluded that the relationship between the two initiatives was a bit unclear. We called on the Government to take steps to ensure that the freedom of information regime and the transparency agenda worked together, including by examining initiatives in different Departments before implementation to ensure that they are effective, as well as by assessing the existing initiatives to ensure that they

“offer value for money and do not have unintended consequences.”

On accountability, the consensus of evidence to us was that accountability had certainly been enhanced. Many examples can be produced of ways in which, for instance, spending can be challenged effectively because the information can be obtained. That has not always been a comfortable process, not least for Members of this House and the other place—I will refer to some aspects of that later—but it is a necessary feature of the control of expenditure that it should not be concealed and that the public should be able to find out what taxpayers’ money is being spent on.

One important issue raised with us by the Information Commissioner was the potential for accountability

“to be undermined if the freedom of information regime did not apply to private providers of public services.”

I will come back to that point and how we intend to deal with it later in my remarks.

Then we come to improving the quality of decision making, which can be achieved not least by creating an awareness that there will be subsequent scrutiny of the decision-making process. We enter an interesting area, because part of the background to the publication of our report was a great deal of noise being made by former senior civil servants and Cabinet Secretaries about the threat to the safe space within which policy discussions take place and the possibility that the Act had a chilling effect, both on the decision-making process and on the extent to which that process was properly recorded. These were serious people making quite serious comments, and it created a fear that the Freedom of Information Act might be threatened by a revolt by top civil servants or former top civil servants against the scrutiny under which they had been placed.

We received a lot of interesting evidence on the subject. We took evidence from former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell and from Ministers and former Ministers. A lot of it was anecdotal, and views differed among witnesses about the Act’s impact on high-level decision making. The Constitution Unit, which did research on the issue, thought that the chilling effect was negligible or marginal, and it was difficult to find any real evidence for what was sometimes claimed. The Committee recognised the problem. At paragraph 154 of our report, we said:

“Freedom of Information brings many benefits, but it also entails risks. The ability for officials to provide frank advice to Ministers, the opportunity for Ministers and officials to discuss policy honestly and comprehensively, the requirement for full and accurate records to be kept and the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility, at the heart of our system of Government, might all be threatened if an FOI regime allowed premature or inappropriate disclosure of information. One of the difficulties we have faced in this inquiry is assessing how real those threats are given the safeguards provided under the current FOI legislation and what, if any, amendments are required to ensure the existence of a ‘safe space’ for policy making.”

We accepted that some decisions by the commissioner and the tribunal that information should be disclosed have challenged the extent of the safe space for policy making. We also accepted that case law was perhaps not sufficiently developed for policy makers to be clear enough about what space is safe. We called for clarification of the statement of policy on the use of the ministerial veto under section 53 of the Act. The Government refer to the veto being used in exceptional circumstances, but it seemed that it was being used in some cases not because the circumstances were exceptional, but because it was the only way to protect the safe space. We called for senior officials, if they are concerned about the Act’s effect, to state explicitly that the Act already provides for a safe space and for high-level policy discussion. There are provisions in the Act that do that, and there is the backstop of the Government’s willingness to use the ministerial veto if necessary.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for fairly encapsulating the arguments that we set out in our report. Does he agree that one problem that case law and the tribunals have set for those who want to guard the safe space is determining where that space exists in the process? From a reading of at least some of the judgments, it seems that the public interest test changes according to where a decision or document comes in the policy-making process. That is a problem for civil servants and Minsters alike.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a valued member of the Committee. It is true that the agreed extent of the safe space varies according to the stage in the process, but that is right and not unreasonable; some parts of the process require confidentiality more than others, at least for a period. One reason why I and the Committee were reluctant to use any other tool to deal with the problem was that we would be in danger of creating whole areas of restriction where they need not exist. The application of common sense and, as I say, the backstop use of the veto provide for a mechanism to deal with the issue that could be more widely understood. We certainly called on the Government, and we are calling on them now, to ensure that the position is fully understood in government and by officials.

The Government said in their response that they

“were minded to review and, as appropriate, revise the policy on the use of the veto…we propose to consider how the veto policy can be adapted both in terms of the process involved in its use and to offer greater clarity and reassurance on its ability to offer appropriate protection in addition to that which it provides in the context of information relating to collective Cabinet responsibility.”

There is always a political price to pay for using the veto. Any Minister who invokes it will be criticised, challenged and questioned, and rightly so. We have seen a number of instances recently, ranging from the devolution discussions to the Prince of Wales’s letters. No Minister can undertake such a course without facing pretty severe challenge—the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) knows about that from his own experience —and that is right, because such things act as a hurdle: politicians will say, “Do I have to do this? I’m going to get a lot of stick for it in the House.” That hurdle is one means by which we ensure that the veto is not lightly used, although it does have a purpose and a potential benefit.

In our report, we made an important point that tends to get overlooked. Frankly, there is much more likelihood of the most confidential and sensitive discussions, and the papers relating to them, being released in major public inquiries, such as the Leveson inquiry or the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, than through the freedom of information process. The ministerial veto does not work for Leveson or Chilcot, and thank goodness, because they dealt with very serious issues, and it is right that an exceptional process was used to probe them. People sometimes attributed to the Act the fact that some things were eventually, and rightly, found out, but in some of the most sensitive cases, that was down to the different processes, against which neither the Act nor ministerial vetoes provide any protection, and nor should they.

[Mr Buckland]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Committee found, using the Australian approach of a block exemption for Cabinet papers might be superficially attractive, but it could, and probably would, as in Australia, give rise to litigation over what is meant by Cabinet papers? Even worse, it could be used as a device to avoid the freedom of information regime by wrongly classifying papers in that category.

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend’s point conjures up the picture of a civil servant armed with a rubber stamp saying “Cabinet Paper”, which can be applied wherever there is a fear that something that they do not want to disclose will be disclosed early. The Committee concluded that a common-sense approach was the way to deal with the issue. All it requires is to be reinforced through clear advice and guidance to civil servants on how the veto backstop and the other provisions of the Act afford them some protection.

In our inquiry, we heard from the Constitution Unit that the Act had not had a significant effect in increasing public participation in decision making, and we saw no great reason to disagree with that finding because other processes that increase participation, such as consultations, fall outside the Act. As I indicated, however, there is little evidence that freedom of information has had a noticeable positive effect on public trust in the Government and other public bodies, and it was always unrealistic to expect anything different. In paragraphs 37 and 38 of the report, we say:

“Evidence of irregularities, deficiencies and errors is always likely to prove more newsworthy than evidence that everything is being done by the book and the public authority is operating well. In these circumstances, the expectation of a substantial increase in public trust…was always going to prove unrealistic… Greater release of data is invariably going to lead to greater criticism of public bodies and individuals, which may sometimes be unfair or partial”,

and I am sure that some hon. Members agree with that. We continue:

“In our view, however this, while regrettable, is a price well worth paying for the benefits greater openness brings to our democracy.”

I speak as someone who, among other things, was criticised in a newspaper article for having a toilet in his constituency office repaired at public expense, so that the staff could use it. I felt like asking the journalist whether he had been asked to contribute to the cost of maintaining the toilets in his newspaper’s offices at his own expense. However, we have to live with these things, and the benefits of expenditure not being concealed outweigh any personal cost that we pay.

Complying with freedom of information requests involves costs, but it can also create savings, which accrue from the disclosure of the inappropriate use of public funds or the fear of such disclosure. Section 12 of the Act provides that public authorities are not required to comply with the duty to publish information if the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit—£600 for central Government and £450 for other public bodies, which translates as 24 and 18 person-hours of work respectively.

We rejected proposals that what we regarded as more subjectively measured activities, such as reading and consideration time, should be included in the time to calculate costs, but we recommended a small reduction in that period. The Government took a different view in their response and said they would make “efforts to reduce burdens” arising from what they call the

“‘industrial’ use of the Act”.

They say that time taken to consider whether information should be released or to redact it before release should count towards the time limit. They say that they will consult on the change and will seek to develop a method of calculation that will be consistent across public authorities.

The Government say that the change will affect a low proportion of requests: 4% of those to central Government and 10% of those to other public authorities, but that is still quite a lot, perhaps more than 1,000 requests. We are concerned about that and particularly about the potential effect on local newspapers. My area has a unitary authority, and if a local newspaper wanted to follow up stories about several different local services—education, highways and social services—it could quickly fall foul of that aggregation. I should be grateful to the Minister if she thought carefully about that.

We examined charging, and we considered that it was not appropriate to go down that road. Any charge designed genuinely to recoup costs would deter genuine requests, and few kinds of charging would deter frivolous requests or, for that matter, what the Government call industrial requests. There are such things—industrial requests from large commercial companies who want to collect a lot of information and could afford to do so if there were charges; or requests from less well funded organisations, including small local newspapers, which are not going through a very profitable period at the moment. Those requests could be made in other ways. If a charging system were introduced, requests from private individuals might well be handed over to media organisations, in pursuit of a legitimate campaign, for example, to find out what was going on in government.

The Government agreed with us about charging, but they have said that they are considering charging people to go to the Information Tribunal. That would be a matter of some concern. I hope that the Minister can say more about it today. It has arisen since we published our report.

We said something about frivolous and vexatious requests. The folklore about the Freedom of Information Act tends to imply that all public authorities are completely weighed down by trivial, frivolous and vexatious requests. In practice, that is not so. A limited number of requests appear frivolous, and vexatious requests can of course be rejected, by following procedures that experienced public authorities use. We were told stories about applications for information about ghost sightings in the town hall and things of that kind, but it is not too difficult for the public authority simply to reply that it has no information at all on the subject. That is not a lengthy process.

Our view, again, was that it would be unwise to transform any aspect of the Act to deal with a problem that is not all that significant or serious:

“It is apparent from witnesses that frivolous requests are a very small problem, but can be frustrating. There is a case for adding frivolous requests to the existing category of vexatious requests which can be refused, but such requests can usually be dealt with relatively easily, making it hard to justify a change in the law.”

We gave considerable consideration to time limits and saw no need for any change to the 20-day response time within which public authorities must respond to freedom of information requests. However, we thought that time limits should be introduced for the public interest extension allowed under section 10 of the Act and that a further 20-day limit should be set in statute, which could be further extended in complex cases. The Government disagreed with us, preferring to rely on the Information Commissioner’s guidance and the code of practice under section 45, to ensure the timely completion of extensions and internal reviews.

We took evidence and made a recommendation on university research. We did not go along with the view of some people in the university world that universities should be exempted from freedom of information legislation. Universities spend a great deal of public money and carry out public functions. All those that are not wholly private in their funding are subject to freedom of information provisions. We think that should remain the case, but we recognise that there is a problem with the premature disclosure of continuing research projects. That has been dealt with in Scotland by different legislation, and we believe that there should be better protection, or pre-publication exemption, under section 22 of the Act, for research carried out by higher education institutions. There should be a dedicated exemption on the lines of the Scottish provisions. We are pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation, and I should just like clarification of how that will be achieved.

I said that I would mention a significant problem, and it becomes more significant with each new announcement that the Government want to use the private sector as a major provider of public services. The problem is how freedom of information is applied to private organisations, commercial companies or, indeed, voluntary sector bodies that carry out public functions. There was some uncertainty about the interpretation of section 3(2)(b) of the Act, which provides that information held by a private company on behalf of a public authority with which it has a contract is subject to the Act, but other information held by such a company is not. It is quite reasonable that other information should not be covered—the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the commercial activities in the private sector of a commercial company—but there is a genuine and appropriate concern about what happens when such a company does what would otherwise be done by a public authority.

We favoured the use of contractual terms to deal with the issue, as currently happens in many cases. The body that commissions the services, whether a probation or health trust or a Department such as the Ministry of Justice, should ensure that the contracts that it writes will protect the access that it requires to all material relevant to potential freedom of information requests, so that it can respond to any freedom of information bid.

The Government have broadly agreed with that conclusion and have helpfully gone further by suggesting that they will amend the section 45 code of practice to encourage public authorities and contractors to provide information on a voluntary basis, going beyond the minimum covered by a request to an authority. It seems to us that that openness follows the public money, in just the same way as the Public Accounts Committee wants accountability for spending to follow the public pound, and that the best way to achieve that is not to put a commercial organisation in the rather confused position of being partially subject to FOI, but to put it under contractual obligations that, if it carries out a service on behalf of the taxpayer, it is obliged to the body that commissions it to provide the information.

The Committee will take further evidence in a couple of weeks from the Information Commissioner on the work of his office. We may then follow up some of the issues that I have outlined. We welcome his work and have a good relationship with him. It has long been the Committee’s view that the Information Commissioner should be an Officer of Parliament, like the ombudsman, the health ombudsman or the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is the situation in Scotland, with the Scottish Information Commissioner. That would underline the commissioner’s independence. I was struck by the fact that in yesterday’s debate about blacklisting, which relates to another side of the commissioner’s responsibilities—data protection—my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary stressed the fact that the Information Commissioner is an independent regulatory official, running an independent regulatory body, and not a creature of the Government. That, indeed, is how things work in practice. However, it would be much better to underwrite that position, by making the commissioner fully a creature of Parliament rather than, technically, as he is now, part of the governmental system.

When considering the overall impact of the Freedom of Information Act, we need to bear in mind something that kept coming up in different ways during the Committee’s proceedings. Since the Act was conceived and then passed, a significant change has affected the whole freedom of information issue: the explosion of internet use and the new opportunities created by it. That has made access to published information easier; it has allowed published data to be searched in ways that were virtually impossible with manual searching; and it has posed a challenge to the quality and effectiveness of some public sector databases. Kent county council has explained to us that getting its database to the point at which it could effectively be interrogated by the techniques that are now available would be a major and costly task. The internet explosion has also created internet- based mechanisms for making freedom of information applications, along with organisations devoted to assisting people to make such applications. We must keep the matter under constant review.

The Freedom of Information Act set out principles that we believe should apply to Government for all time, but precisely how we apply them and the context in which we do so are things that change, and the Information Commissioner’s Office has a significant role in assisting us with that. Because of its data protection responsibilities, the office happens to have a great deal of knowledge within it about mechanisms that are relevant to data protection and to freedom of information and how information is accessed.

More generally, our view is that the Freedom of Information Act has significantly enhanced our democracy. It is working well and achieving most of its main purposes. Rewriting or restricting it and reducing its scope, effectiveness and accessibility would be far too high a price to pay for the convenience of government.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Alan Beith]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone, you will have noticed that the Division bell did not ring audibly in this Chamber, and I wondered if you could look into whether that can be put right. As it happened, it did not matter, because the motion in favour of extending the franchise to vote to age 16 won by about two to one, but I would not have liked to miss the vote.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Sir Alan, for that point of order. The Clerk made us aware of the Division, but I will ensure that your comments are relayed to the appropriate authorities.

[Mr Llwyd]

As I mentioned, the Freedom of Information Act has developed—some might say radically—the extent to which the public are able to engage with the decisions made by public bodies. First, however, they must choose to engage.

Perhaps inevitably, the tendency of the media is to focus on the negative stories coming out of FOI requests; some say, which I believe could be true, that this may have led to a perverse incentive to hide information. The former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Gus O’Donnell, said in his evidence that he had experienced that at first hand:

“I decided to release, since I am not paid by anybody at the minute but I am a Member of the Lords, some hospitality information. I do not think anybody else does that. Surprise, surprise, you get a snidey press story in Private Eye as a result of this.”

The Select Committee, however, was very much of the opinion that the increased and, yes, sometimes unfair criticism of those in public life was a price well worth paying for greater openness.

To what extent has the Act facilitated decision making by public authorities and central Government? Regrettably, many witnesses thought that in trying to avoid the possible embarrassment of disclosure, fewer bodies were inclined to keep detailed records of meetings or to keep a log of policy information. Martin Rosenbaum, representing BBC News, argued that any change in culture brought about by the Freedom of Information Act had been inconsistent, and that the Act has done relatively little to advance transparency on account of the cumbersome nature of the FOI process. He said that

“the Act now enables us to obtain on a very crude level…facts and figures—how much was spent on this, statistics about the performance of public services and so on. The sorts of things that were harder to get previously now tend to be very easy to get, but what it has not produced, and the civil service is certainly very resistant to this, is internal discussion documents, policy discussion, minutes of meetings and so on.”

Witnesses spoke about the “chilling effect”, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred, that has led to civil servants being less candid in their advice to Ministers, fewer external organisations being willing to submit information to the Government and fewer meetings being held with formal minutes taken—greatly damaging the official record. As Lord O’Donnell pointed out, that “chilling effect” not only impacts on the engagement of our own generation with decision making, but will make it increasingly difficult for future historians, too, to get an accurate picture of how decisions were made, as so little evidence will remain.

Other witnesses pointed out that that unintended consequence of the Act has the potential to weaken Cabinet collective responsibility, since many key decisions will not be made in Cabinet, where formal minutes are taken, but in safe places, be it on mobile phones or behind closed doors. On the other hand, it is imperative to draw attention to the fact that the Act contains safeguards against that problem—namely, exemptions to the right of access to information in exceptional circumstances, as well as other ministerial vetoes for when information is deemed too sensitive to release.

[Sir Alan Beith]

It is worth noting that there is, or should be, a countervailing pressure in the mind of any civil servant who might be tempted not to record a reservation that he or she had about a decision or counter-argument. Frankly, if I were a civil servant and thought that the record would not reveal that I had warned the Minister that a policy was fraught with danger, my response would be that that must be minuted so that it could be seen that I had warned that that could happen.

[Mr Llwyd]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Not only is that based on sound common sense, I am sure that it often happens in practice. There is a counter-argument, as he rightly says.

The Committee did not conclude that such a chilling effect had come about as a result of the Act. The constitution unit has published research on the subject and suggested that its impact was insignificant, thus agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. Although the Committee decided against recommending any major change to the Act, we were mindful that Parliament is expected to pass legislation recognising the need for a safe place for high-level policy formation. It is difficult to determine when that space will be needed because, by its very nature, the evidence for when private discussions are used is patchy. Certainly, this right must not be exploited needlessly.

It has become increasingly common for minutes of private meetings and even text messages between Ministers and representatives of external organisations to be seized and published by inquiries into Government decision making. Both the Chilcot and Leveson inquiries were examples of that, and it would be highly regrettable if it led to fewer records being kept. Yet however private or embarrassing evidence may be, it is inexcusable for people to attempt to destroy or alter data to prevent their disclosure. That is why the Committee recommended extending the time limit on charging someone with this offence under section 77 of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office has seen evidence of such offences, but because of the inherent difficulties of charging someone within six months of the offence being committed, no one has yet been prosecuted. The Committee has further recommended that a higher fine should be available to the Crown court to reflect the gravity of the crime.

Of equal cause for concern, however, is the inadvertent destruction of records as a result of new methods of storing information. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) acknowledged that when the FOI Act was drafted, the Government

“had no serious conception about the internet, which was in its infancy.”

Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield also commented on the associated changes to archive-keeping. He said:

“If you look at the archives that were created before there was even a 50-year rule, in 1958, they are very full. The 30-year rule is still very full indeed. I do fear that historians”

in future

“are going to have a much tougher time for two reasons. One is”

freedom of information,

“but there is also the digital revolution. It ceases to be a paper culture.”

One is put in mind of the BBC domesday project in the 1980s, when children conducted a survey of the UK to mark the 900th anniversary of the Domesday Book. The findings were stored on laserdiscs, which became obsolete within a few years. Although the material was saved after a laborious and costly process, the UK Data Archive faced heavy criticism for failing to preserve the material in an enduring format ab initio. The irony, of course, is that the original Domesday Book is still readable.

The Freedom of Information regime must be viewed in the wider context of information storage and retention. The internet is an exciting place in many respects. It is a vital educational tool, but it is also fast evolving. According to the National Archives, digital records deteriorate faster than paper records. The preservation of records is important for the accountability of officials, not just today, but for posterity. Indeed, many people—I am one —believe that one can educate oneself about the future from an understanding of the past. That is important.

On the whole, the evidence gleaned by the Committee was that the Act is operating fairly well. The costs associated with its administration are greatly outweighed, although not always, by the transparency and better accountability of those who make decisions that affect the public’s daily life. Freedom of information requests may lead indirectly to a reduction of costs because public authorities are now fully aware of the risk of exposure if they misuse funds. Although the Act has succeeded in its primary aim of increasing transparency and accountability, it is less clear whether it has facilitated decision making, and it has not gone far down the road of creating greater confidence in those of us who serve in public office.

In the light of the media’s tendency to sensationalise bad news, it was perhaps unrealistic ever to expect that the Act would contribute to greater public confidence in those in power. Individuals certainly have the tools to engage with decision making as a result of the Act, but those who choose to participate are usually those who have a professional stake in the outcome. The FOI regime offered enhanced democracy, but in the years since it was drafted, the parameters of public debate have shifted greatly, and internet search engines disclose information that the Government would rather keep hidden. The onus must be on Parliament and ourselves as individuals within it to face this brave new world and the challenges that technology inevitably presents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The fears expressed by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), about the quantity of Members in this debate have been laid to rest by the quality of the contributions. We have had three outstanding contributions by Members who are quite expert on this subject. There has also been, among the three parties represented so far, a large degree of consensus. I hope that I can make the official Opposition a fourth party to that consensus and I hope even more that the Minister will join it when she replies to the debate for the Government. I say that because I agree with what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) said. I think that he said that freedom of information was the best thing that the Labour Government did. I had written down that it was “one of the best things” that the Labour Government did. Of course, if we were here to discuss all the good things that the Labour Government did, we would use up the rest of the time, but can we at least agree on that?

I am not surprised that we are still discussing the way in which the Act works 13 years after it was passed. It took five years for it to be introduced, and I think that that was probably right. It has taken eight years, judging by what the Select Committee says in its invaluable report, to bed in, and I think that that is also right and nothing to cause us concern, because, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, this is a major change in culture for Government—a major change to the way in which administration takes place in the public sector. It has affected, for the better, decision making, as well as the operation of the Government and the public sector.

Through the stance that the Select Committee has taken in its report but also by—if I can put it this way—flushing out the Government in their response, it has done a great service to advancing the cause of the Act and freedom of information. I find very little to disagree with on the policy issues dealt with in the report, although perhaps there is a slight degree of complacency in relation to some of the practicalities of the way in which the freedom of information system works—I have had some experience of that myself. More needs to be done to ensure that the existing system operates effectively, but before I come to that, let me just review where I think the parties are.

I looked at the manifesto commitments. The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto said that they wished to extend freedom of information legislation

“to private companies delivering monopoly public services such as Network Rail.”

That was on the same page as replacing the House of Lords with a fully elected second Chamber, but we cannot have everything.

The Conservative manifesto made no mention of freedom of information, but in some ways what it did say was more interesting. It talked about

“transforming the way the state goes about its business, using decentralisation, accountability and transparency”.

It says that

“we will bring the operation of government out into the open…we will create a powerful new right to government data, enabling the public to request—and receive—government datasets in an open and standardised format.”

It says, for example:

“We will…require public bodies to publish online the job titles of every member of staff and the salaries and expenses of senior officials”.

All of that resolved itself into one sentence in the coalition agreement:

“We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.”

What that throws up is a matter that the Chair of the Select Committee has already referred to—the difference between the voluntary publication of information and the ability of the citizen to request that information. There is general agreement that transparency and the publication of data is not only a good thing in itself, but can assist the process of freedom of information. Clearly, if more information is put into the public realm and if public authorities get into the habit of being transparent about the way they conduct themselves, that is not only complementary; it actively assists and removes some of the bureaucracy from freedom of information. However, the two things should not be confused.

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat manifesto specifically referred to Network Rail. I had a meeting with the head of transparency for Network Rail—there is one—earlier this week, and they were gently trying to persuade me that, given that it has a proactive policy for being transparent, perhaps it did not also need to be subject to freedom of information. I do not want to put words into their mouth, because they did not go quite that far, but that was the gist of the discussion. Well, I disagree. I think that it is laudable if Network Rail has that aim, but that should not remove from it the burden of having to comply with the Act.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was mentioned. Some of the additions under that Act were simply consequential on other changes. Bringing academies into the same ambit as state schools is controversial, but it does not add much. I am sorry that we have not—

[Sir Alan Beith]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman would have complained pretty bitterly if we had not taken that action. He should be a little less churlish about the Protection of Freedoms Act, not least because, for example, it brought in the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was carrying out very significant public policing functions while also being a representative body for chief police officers. That extension was an extremely important one. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about Network Rail, which is a very ambiguous body, created originally under the previous Government, but we are only a coalition. We get some of our proposals through, but not all of them.

[Mr Slaughter]

I hope that, rather than being churlish, I am being balanced in saying that the Government—both parties in the coalition—have taken steps on transparency and that there is an impetus from at least some parts of the coalition to move forward the ambit of the Act. I have never been able to understand why, for example, council housing departments should be subject to it but housing associations should not and why the NHS should be subject to it but Network Rail, which is also a large public sector organisation, should not. We should be resistant to special pleading from organisations.

I addressed a conference of university officials some time ago, and freedom of information was a big concern of theirs—that is, not being subject to it. I will say a little more in a moment about the research, with which I do have some sympathy, but the idea was that universities should not be subject to it because, they were saying, it costs them money and they are relatively small organisations in the great scheme of things. I am not sure that is true, for a start, but the number of requests that an organisation receives probably bears some relation to its size and therefore to its means. I suspect that many of our universities are rather bigger than, say, some small district councils.

We should therefore resist special pleading. Where there are grey areas, we should err on the side of openness rather than exemption. In particular, we should look at the points that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made in relation to the increasingly blurred lines between the public and private sectors.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the shadow Lord Chancellor and my boss, made it very clear in his Labour party conference speech last year that the next Labour Government would extend FOI to

“cover the delivery of public services”,

such as prisons, schools and hospitals, by private companies and the voluntary sector. That must be right. It is right in any event, but the contractual roles that organisations —we know the usual suspects: Capita, Serco and G4S—are taking on not only involve huge additional powers, but often mean that whole areas of Government service, policy and decision making are devolved to them.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

I was talking to the Public and Commercial Services Union this week about the fact that it is envisaged that the criminal fines enforcement process—collection—be passed to a private company on a very long contract that delegates not only administrative, operational and decision-making powers, but some powers that until recently were judicial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and to his points. The veto has only been used six times in eight years, so it is used sparingly and carefully. The veto is a proportionate measure, which is not being used except to protect sensitive information. We have said simply that we will review and revise it, but absolutely no decisions whatever have been made yet. We will publish any revision that we intend to make later this year.

We do not intend to introduce any new absolute exemptions, but we have listened to the concerns of the research sector and have agreed to introduce a new qualified exemption for pre-publication research information, to provide additional reassurance that such material is adequately protected from inappropriate premature disclosure. We have also listened to the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the time available to bring prosecutions under section 77 of the Act, where people destroy, alter or hide information to frustrate requests. We do not think that that is a widespread problem or practice, but it is unacceptable that anyone guilty of such an offence should be able to evade prosecution because the Information Commissioner has insufficient time to investigate the case.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the Information Commissioner reporting to Parliament. At the moment, we do not feel that making the Information Commissioner a parliamentary body is appropriate, because its work does not relate primarily to that of Parliament. My right hon. Friend also expressed concerns that FOI requests and internal reviews perhaps take too long to answer. We will revise the code of practice issued under section 45 of the Act to provide guidance on the time that should be taken to answer requests when the normal 20-day deadline is extended to allow for consideration of the public interest test and internal reviews. We do not believe, however, that the problem is sufficient to justify primary legislation.

The shadow Minister mentioned Network Rail, which is a matter of interest to the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the Department for Transport. There is no plan to extend the Act to Network Rail, but the scope of the Act will be kept under review.

The Government published our response to the Committee on 30 November. There is a great deal of work to be done over the coming months to work through the detail of our proposals and to consult where necessary. As that work is in its early stages, it is too soon to provide the further details that the shadow Minister requested this afternoon of the exact changes that we want to make, such as cost-limit and veto policy. However, I reassure him and other right hon. and hon. Members that we do not intend to waste time in taking our plans forward; they will see evidence of that in the coming months.

[Sir Alan Beith]

One thing that does not need to be tied in heavily with all the other things that the Minister is considering is the provision on university research. How does she hope to take that forward?

[Mrs Grant]

I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend with the exact detail about how that will be taken forward; he will hear from me shortly.

To conclude, my right hon. Friend Lord McNally said in the other place on 17 January last year that the Freedom of Information Act is

“robust enough to survive rigorous post-legislative scrutiny.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 548.]

The Justice Committee’s measured report on its operation, together with our response, demonstrates the accuracy of his view. As I said at the outset, the Freedom of Information Act has been a success in the accountability that it has brought. It has generally worked well. I believe that it will be further improved and will continue to make a valuable contribution to transparency and accountability.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to respond briefly and thank right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The effort that we put into the report underlines the fact that Parliament and the Government need to carry out post-legislative scrutiny—and, as I have said, the Government did indeed carry it out for the Act. That is necessary to establish whether the laws that we pass do the job for which we pass them. For years, Parliament hardly ever carried out such scrutiny, but now we do it systematically. It is a good thing, as today’s debate shows, even if the proceedings were distinguished more for their quality than their quantity, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) felicitously put it.

Some important points were raised in the debate. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), my colleague on the Select Committee, made some important points about archiving and archive practice. We shall pursue that matter because the National Archives come under the Ministry of Justice, and therefore the Committee. We shall have further discussions about some of the relevant issues when next we meet representatives of the National Archives.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has been a doughty fighter for freedom in general and freedom of information in particular, and he raised some interesting points about how the provisions for private contractors can be made to work. All the examples he gave should be covered by freedom of information. The only question is whether the contracting method will work as a way of dealing with them. I am sure that he, as an experienced business man, will recognise certain difficulties: it would seem inappropriate for example, for freedom of information to apply to a company’s deliberations about whether to bid for a contract. That is the company deciding in which direction to take its private sector work. However, once it is engaged on the contract, its quality of service, the disciplinary measures that it uses to maintain that quality, and all such things are freedom of information matters. We should ensure that the contracting arrangement can cover them. If it cannot, we shall have to think again about our approach.

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

The whole point, though, is of course that it is about the money. For instance, when private contractors bid they would also like to know what their rivals are bidding, and the secrecy behind that process conceals true costs and is not an impetus to competition. That point was made by Tarmac in the original discussions that Rhodri Morgan had long ago in the Justice Committee’s predecessor Committee. Tarmac’s directors were advocating that they wanted their contract details and their costs—in other words, their bidding prices—to be available, because they believed that their competitors were putting in false under-bids that they could not sustain and that would fall on the public purse. That, of course, was their argument, but there are good reasons why that information should be made public.

[Sir Alan Beith]

We have also seen the implications of all that in areas such as contracting for rail franchises. However, it is a difficult balance to strike: having a healthy private sector, which can also usefully take up Government contracts, and also having a Government mechanism that properly supervises those contracts and ensures that freedom of information requirements are met. We have suggested one approach to strike that balance. We hope that it can be made to work. However, if it does not, then—as the Minister herself conceded—we will have to think again about how we satisfy that fundamental requirement in relation to public services.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) also contributed by way of an intervention, although he is sitting on a Public Bill Committee at the same time. That seems to happen to members of my Committee all the time—the Whips think that members of my Committee are especially valuable members of Public Bill Committees.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, covered some very important points. In particular, he focused on some of the things that the Government have not yet decided. Clearly, as the Minister said, there is a lot of work still to be done. There still seems to be some uncertainty about how committed the Government are to measures that we have indicated may be difficult, but which the Government are interested in in an attempt to deal with what they see as the costs of freedom of information. We will be watching rather carefully this process of discussion that is going on from here, and I hope that the Minister will take very carefully into account all the points that have been made in this debate. On things that have a certain amount of urgency about them—I mention in particular the separate provision to protect university research—I hope that we will not find it necessary to wait for some general further measure in relation to freedom of information if other ways can be found of bringing things forward sooner.

I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The simple answer to the latter point is that responsibility will continue to lie with the public probation service and, ultimately, the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman and I know that in any system with a rate of reoffending there will be further crimes, whether a public, private or voluntary sector provider does the work. I want to ensure that the level of reoffending continues to go down and that we try every means at our disposal. The payment-by-results regime opens the way to innovation to ensure that we do the best possible job in ensuring that people do not reoffend.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Although I understand the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for getting on with the job without waiting for more pilots, a decision that some of his advisers might have called courageous, may I ask him to pay particular personal attention to ensuring that charities and voluntary organisations with a track record are not crowded out by how contracts are let? Will he also consider whether he should expand the role of the chief inspector of probation so that quality control over the whole of the provision is maintained?

[Chris Grayling]

The latter point is an important one and I rather agree with my right hon. Friend on that. I look forward to having discussions with him and his Committee about it. I am also strongly supportive of the voluntary sector. It is simply not the case, even though the Opposition keep saying that it is, that the voluntary sector is not involved in the Work programme. That programme supports well over 100,000 people in the voluntary sector, using the real expertise of small and larger organisations such as the Papworth Trust and the Salvation Army. I want to see more of that in this process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Work programme. About 200,000 people who were long-term unemployed have started work through that programme. The Labour party has been utterly disingenuous in how it has argued around the figures. There are people with first-rate expertise out there, particularly in the voluntary sector. I will be seeing such people tomorrow to talk about how we can help offenders participate. Those people can bring real expertise to make sure that reoffending rates, which are much too high, come down.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

When are the Government going to produce a strategy on dealing with women offenders and reoffending by women?

[Chris Grayling]

Our aim is to do so early in the new year, but we do not want to rush it. I recognise that there is a need to differentiate the needs of women in prison from those of men in prison. The challenges are different and our responses should be different. One of my early steps in recognising that was to separate ministerial responsibility for men and women in prisons so that we could place a proper focus on the latter and their distinctive needs.