George Howarth

The Information Commissioner’s Office was informed by email.

Data Protection compliance at the Attorney General’s Office was managed as part of a wider role in the office and was in place from April 2015. There were no DPOs required before May 2018.

The Appointment was confirmed on 22 May 2018 and the Attorney General’s Office was informed that day. The ICO, GLD Staff and the Treasury Solicitor were notified 25 May 2018.

The position of Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), in the Attorney General’s Office, is part of the Head of Operations Role. The official was appointed following fair and open completion in 2014 following the guidelines for Senior Civil Service Recruitment. The Head of Operations has held the role of SIRO for the last 6 years.

The Attorney General’s Office publishes its complaints procedure, which is open to members of the public online here. There have been no recorded complaints against AGO staff for breaching the Civil Service Code in the last 2 years.

The Attorney General’s Office shares its Data Protection Officer with the Government Legal Department (GLD) and HM Crime Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). In line with Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Guidance, the role of DPO can be taken by existing Civil Servants. In this instance the DPO function was added to that of the existing roles of Departmental Records Officer and FOI/DPA co-ordinator in the GLD.

The Attorney General’s Office Legal and Communications teams deal with a range of cases. All staff are aware of the terms of this injunction and the need to ensure that any communications comply with those terms.

Through staff training and knowledge management, the Attorney General’s Office has policies in place to ensure compliance with all anonymity orders, including those related to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.

The Attorney General’s Office does not hold transcripts of previous court proceedings relating to the original granting of this injunction or subsequent applications relating to it. Any publication by the media of anything said in open court must comply with the terms of the injunction.

The Attorney General’s Office has complied with the terms of the court injunction that prohibits the publication of information purporting to identify this individual or his past, present or future whereabouts.

In 2010, Jon Venables was arrested and charged, under his new identity, with offences relating to the viewing of child pornography. On 21 June 2010, in the context of those criminal proceedings, Mr Justice Bean amended the Injunction so as to prohibit the publication of information revealed in proceedings in open court, insofar as such information would be likely to lead to the identification of (a) Venables’ then-current name; (b) the address at which he was living immediately before his recall to prison in February 2010; (c) the location at which he was, at that time, being held in custody; or (d) his then-current appearance.

Those amendments resulted from an application by Counsel for Jon Venables on the basis that revealing such information would be likely to lead to the identification of Jon Venables. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was sought by a third party

At a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on 23 July 2010 Mr Justice Bean varied the order, on the application of media organisations, to permit disclosure of the county in which Venables was living before his recall to custody. The purpose of this was to enable identification of the relevant police force and probation service involved in his supervision. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was not sought by this office. At the same time, an application by News Group and Mirror Group Newspapers, who opposed the continued prohibition of the publication of Jon Venables’ new name, was heard and rejected.

On 31 August 2012, on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice, the High Court amended the terms of the Injunction. This application would have been funded by central government. The amendment was made to ensure it prohibited any publication of a person purporting to be identified or depicted as Venables or Thompson.

On 7 February 2018, Venables was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment for three offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual. On 7 February, on the application of Jon Venables, Mr Justice Edis amended the Injunction to permit reporting of information heard in public at the hearing, though the amendments were such that the Injunction continues to protect the new identity and appearance of Venables and certain information which might be used to identify him. I am unable to say how this application was funded beause the varation was not sought by this office

There is an application currently before the Family Court brought by Mr Ralph Stephen Bulger and Mr James Patrick Bulger to vary the Injunction. Various grounds have been provided in support of this application, and it is anticipated these grounds will be finalised in the applicants’ written submissions required to be filed in this case by 23 November 2018. I am unable to say how this application is funded because the variation is not sought by this office.

Allegations about breaches of the injunction protecting the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson can be received from anybody, including members of the public, employers and law enforcement agencies. We are not aware of how they are funded if they are. Referrals are most often made on the basis that the injunction has been breached by the sharing of prohibited images or information purporting to identify Venables or his whereabouts.

This question refers to costs incurred over a considerable period of time. The Government Legal Department (‘GLD’) has carried out a reasonable and proportionate interrogation of its digital records and has ascertained that the following costs have been incurred (all figures given exclude VAT):

(1) On matters relating to applications to vary the Injunction:

• The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) incurred £16,767.40 on time spent by GLD, plus £19,990.01 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.
• The Ministry of Justice incurred £432.00 on time spent by GLD on matters relating to the current application to vary the Injunction.

(2) On matters relating to breaches of the Injunction:

• AGO incurred £33,620.90 on time spent by GLD, plus £30,240.36 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.

(3) On matters relating to the application of the Secretary of State for Justice in 2012 to vary the Injunction:

• The Ministry of Justice incurred £2,479.10 on time spent by GLD, plus £8,546.40 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.

These figures do not include any internal costs incurred by individual government departments in terms of time spent by their officials in matters relating to the Injunction.

The Attorney General’s Office and the Government Legal Department are bound by statutory obligations and act in accordance with publicly available policies on the gov.uk website, as well as the Subject Access Code of Practice published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is available here.

The Attorney General’s guidelines on information security and government work that are followed by external counsel doing government work are available here.

Guidance for handling protectively marked material that is followed by external counsel is available here.

The Attorney General’s Office also has an internal Office Security Policy which is not published, because it contains very specific security information about the office necessary to protect information and staff which it would not be appropriate to publish.

External counsel that do government work are data controllers in their own right with all the attendant responsibilities that entails. They are members of a professionally regulated body and formally undertake to maintain the integrity of the data that they handle.

The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. I have, therefore, asked the Authority to respond.

Government departments regularly engage with individual businesses to support the development of practical solutions to issues raised, to ensure the effective movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government receives regular feedback on issues of concern through the Northern Ireland Secretary’s Business Engagement Forum and the dedicated Protocol sub-group of the Brexit Business Taskforce. This engagement supports ongoing UK-EU discussions on addressing outstanding concerns on the Protocol. Concerns raised are addressed through action, including continuous improvements to the Trader Support Service, which processes approximately 99% of declarations within 15 minutes.

The Cabinet Office receives correspondence on a broad range of subjects. Responsibility for the Ministerial Code rests with the Prime Minister.

The British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance are a fundamental part of the work of Government. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, veterans have continued to be able to access support for employment, housing and training through services including the Veterans Gateway and the MOD’s Veterans Welfare Service. The Department for Work and Pensions is delivering the £2bn Kickstart programme, creating high quality work placements for young people at risk of long-term unemployment, and each of Jobcentre Plus’s Districts is currently supported by an Armed Forces Champion to cater for the specific needs of veterans. Training and resettlement is delivered to service leavers through the MOD’s Career Transition Partnership.

As a result of the pandemic, access to CTP services has been extended by three months, and training courses available virtually wherever possible. The Defence Transition Services, which support the most vulnerable Service leavers and their families have continued to operate. The Government has provided additional housing support to the general population, helping rough sleepers into safe accommodation, and published updated guidance for local authorities in June 2020 to ensure the veteran community has appropriate access to social housing, placing a bigger emphasis on mental health needs.

The Civil Service is committed to providing a high quality service to everyone it deals with and all complaints are treated seriously.

All civil servants are required to adhere to Civil Service Code values - integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. If a member of the public wishes to complain about a civil servant, they should in the first instance contact the Department or Agency where the civil servant is employed. Each Department or Agency has its own complaints procedure that can be found on GOV.UK.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

We recognise that the death of a close family member, friend, or colleague can be deeply upsetting. Grief is an extremely personal issue which affects different people in different ways: some people may find it helpful to take time off work whereas others may find work a helpful distraction.

The Government believes that individuals are best placed to understand their own specific needs and we encourage their employers to respond in an appropriate and sensitive way.

In April this year we introduced a new entitlement to Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay, recognising that the death of a child is particularly tragic. Whilst there is no equivalent entitlement for employees who suffer a bereavement in other circumstances, all employees have a ‘day 1’ right to take unpaid time off work for an emergency involving a dependant. Time off for Dependants can?also be used to deal with practical issues, including?registering the death and?making funeral arrangements. All employees also have access to 5.6 weeks of paid Annual Leave a year.

Officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) recently met with representatives from the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD); Cruse Bereavement Care; Jack’s Rainbow; Affinity Coaching Supervision; Bereavement UK; and the Advisory Conciliation Service (Acas) to discuss CIPD guidance for employers and the scope for introducing a new entitlement to Bereavement Leave and Pay for employee’s who lose a close family member.

A follow up meeting with CIPD and officials from BEIS last week. This meeting was also attended by an official from the Department for Health and Social Care.

The Government supports the principle that creators should be fairly rewarded for their work whilst ensuring that we continue to encourage investment in new content and innovative services. We are positively engaging with our European partners to achieve this.