Information Commissioner's Office (Triennial Review)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to making sure that non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) continue to have regular independent challenge.
The review will identify and examine the key functions of the Information Commissioner’s Office and consider how best the functions can be delivered, including whether they should continue to exist at arm’s length from Government. Should the review conclude that the functions should still be performed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its current form, it will go on to consider the potential for securing efficiencies and examine whether their control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. The findings at both stages of the review will be examined by a challenge group.
Further details of the review, including how to submit evidence to it, can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/. The deadline for responses is 16 January 2015.
In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The review will be aligned with guidance published in 2014 by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies”. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
12. What plans he has to legalise humanist marriages.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
As the hon. Lady will know, this Government are the first ever to have addressed the question of humanist weddings in England and Wales. Following the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the Government are honouring their commitment to hold a review. That review finished in September, and more than 1,900 people responded. We will honour our commitment to produce a report following that review by the end of the year.
Nia Griffith
It is ironic that humanists, who have been celebrating same-sex weddings for three decades, are the one group that has not yet achieved equality through the recent Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. Will the Minister make a firm commitment that before the general election he will lay the necessary orders to ensure full equality, so that people can have a humanist celebration without also having to hold a civil ceremony?
Simon Hughes
The Government have legislated for same-sex marriages and were the first Government ever to address that question. I cannot anticipate the announcement at the end of the review. We are currently assessing the many responses to the consultation, as the hon. Lady would expect. We are committed to producing the report, and after that I will be happy to go into details of what the Government plan to do next.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
An immensely strong case was made for humanist marriages during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. On that occasion, the Government chose to duck the issue, but the question is not just on same-sex marriages but humanist marriages overall. The example of Scotland, where more than a third of marriages are conducted by humanists, is overwhelming. Can we please get on with this before the end of this Administration?
Simon Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that in Scotland humanist weddings are permitted, and that has been the case since 2005. The Scottish system is entirely different from that in England and Wales because it is based on who officiates, rather than the place where the marriage takes place. It will be a major change in our law to go down that road. As I said, I will report to the House before the end of the year.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
May I add my voice to those from both sides of the House urging my right hon. Friend to make progress on this issue? Humanist celebrations are not only successful in Scotland, as there are humanist ceremonies for births and deaths in England and Wales as well. He will be aware that there are already exceptions in marriage law for Jews and Quakers, so there is no real reason not to go ahead.
Simon Hughes
My hon. Friend is right that Jews and Quakers receive particular consideration, and I am also aware that—according to the figures we have—between 600 and 800 people conduct humanist weddings every year, although they are not legally valid. I understand the importance of the issue and I was fully supportive of the legislation when it went through the House. I undertake to give a full report to the House with a proposal on how we should move forward before the end of the year.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
14. Whether it is the Government’s policy for the UK to remain a party to the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T10. The rate of self-harm in women’s prisons is much higher than in men’s prisons. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that women in prison have access to mental health care so that they can tackle the problems they face?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
It is true that the rate of self-harm is far too high in our prisons and is traditionally higher among women than men. I can reassure my hon. Friend a little, however: between 2004 and 2010, the number of incidents was over 10,000 a year, but that has come down significantly in the last three years to fewer than 6,000 last year. However, this issue is clearly linked to mental health, and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I have made it clear that we want mental health services to be as good in prisons as in the rest of the country and as good as all other NHS services and that we want to identify mental health issues when people first enter the criminal justice system, so that, ideally, they can be diverted from prison, not sent to prison.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
In a recent court case where a child was being considered for adoption, it was reported that the president of the family division described it as “profoundly disturbing” that the parents did not qualify for legal aid and could not afford legal aid representation. Given the lifelong nature of adoption, will the Secretary of State look again at the issue of legal aid funding for these kinds of cases?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last month the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), called on the Government to launch a full review of family law and justice for children. Has he since been sat on by the Lord Chancellor or can he now stand up at the Dispatch Box and formally announce his review?
Simon Hughes
I have not been sat on and I work collaboratively with all my colleagues in the Department. We are committed not only to talking about these things but to doing things. Last month, we introduced a whole set of new provisions that give support to people in the family courts. We have added legal aid for people going to mediation and now for the first mediation. We are reviewing what further steps we can take, and there will be further announcements in due course.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware of the expert legal opinion published by the Freedom Association, stating that signing up to the European arrest warrant would render worthless and completely redundant the Government’s opposition to a European Public Prosecutor’s Office? While he is at it, will he tell us when we can have a vote on the European arrest warrant, in place of the farce and shambles we saw yesterday?
Deaths of Service Personnel on Overseas Operations
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans and I present our latest joint statement reporting progress with coroner investigations into the deaths of UK service personnel on active service overseas. We wish as always to pay tribute to our armed forces for the constant courage and skill with which they serve our country. We particularly remember those service personnel who have given their lives. Our thoughts remain with their families.
This statement indicates the position at 23 October 2014 on open investigations and inquests which the senior coroners for Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Swindon and other coroner areas in England and Wales are conducting.
As supplementary information to this statement we have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses. The tables include the status of all cases and show whether there has been or will be a service inquiry. In the earlier years covered, a service inquiry was known as a board of inquiry.
The Ministry of Defence’s defence inquests unit continues to work with coroners, including a cadre of coroners who have received special training in handling service personnel inquests. Together they make sure that everything possible is done to progress and complete investigations quickly and thoroughly. Should it be appropriate in future for an investigation to be held in Scotland instead of England and Wales, Section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides for this.
Our thanks are due to coroners and their staff for their thoroughness and compassion in these vitally important investigations. We are grateful to the Chief Coroner for his essential contribution to improving processes, and once more we thank everyone who helps and informs bereaved families at every stage of the investigation.
Repatriations of service personnel who have died overseas have mainly taken place at RAF Lyneham in the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner area, and, currently, RAF Brize Norton in the Oxfordshire coroner area. To help the senior coroners for those two areas to take service personnel inquests forward without affecting the local caseload, since 2007 the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice have made joint additional funding available.
Current status of inquests
Since our last statement on 17 July there have been a further four inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations. The total of inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have died on active service or who have died in the UK of injuries sustained on active service is 614. Three deaths led to no formal inquest. In one of these cases it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland after a serviceman who had made a partial recovery died there from his injuries. The other two deaths were taken into consideration at inquests into deaths which occurred in the same incidents.
Coroners' investigations which have been opened
Deaths in Afghanistan
As at 23 October, 17 coroner investigations are open into the deaths of service personnel on operations.
The senior coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon has retained six of the open investigations. The senior coroner for Oxfordshire has retained eight, and senior coroners for areas closer to the next-of-kin are conducting the other three open coroner investigations. Nine hearing dates have been listed.
Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
No coroner investigations are open in relation to service personnel who returned home injured and have then died from their injuries.
We will continue to inform the House of progress.
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
In accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s ratification process, the Government are laying before Parliament the text of Protocol 15 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the European convention on human rights, under Command Paper No. 8951 with an explanatory memorandum which explains the effects of the protocol, ministerial responsibility for its implementation, and financial implications resulting from ratification.
The key objective of the United Kingdom’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was to secure agreement to further reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. That objective was achieved. The resulting Brighton declaration on the future of the Court, agreed on 20 April 2012, was a comprehensive package of reforms to tackle the excessive backlog of cases pending before the Court, and made clear that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing human rights rests with national Governments, Parliaments and courts. Together, these reforms help to ensure that the Court focuses on allegations of serious violations or major points of interpretation of the convention. Refocusing the role of the Court should reduce its backlog and thus deliver swifter justice for the fewer cases before it.
The Brighton declaration was the result of a hard won—and ongoing—negotiation on the future role of the European Court of Human Rights. It therefore represented a significant step towards realising the goals set out by the Prime Minister in Strasbourg in January 2012, to ensure that the Court does not function as a “Court of fourth instance”. It was not however the end of the reform process: as mandated by the Brighton declaration, work continues at the Council of Europe to consider further reforms in the context of the long-term future of the Court and the convention system.
As part of the package of reforms, the Brighton declaration included agreement in principle to amend the convention in five respects. Protocol 15, the text of which will be laid here today, makes these amendments. Since it was opened for signature on 24 June 2013, Protocol 15 has been ratified by 10 states and signed by 29 others. It will come into force once ratified by all high contracting parties to the convention, and will represent an important part of the implementation of the Brighton declaration.
The Brighton declaration also included agreement in principle to the drafting of Protocol 16 to the convention. This creates an optional system by which the highest national courts can choose to seek advisory opinions on the interpretation of the convention from the European Court of Human Rights. It will come into force once it has been ratified by 10 high contracting parties to the convention, and will apply only to those countries that have ratified it.
Although the Government were pleased that they could help secure agreement on advisory opinions in the Brighton declaration, they have long made clear that they are unconvinced of their value, particularly for addressing the fundamental problems facing the Court and the convention system. The Government will therefore neither sign nor ratify Protocol 16 at this time. They will instead observe how the system operates in practice, having regard particularly to the effect on the work load of the Court, and to how the Court approaches the giving of opinions.
Family and Civil Cases (Support)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
The Government are committed to making sure that when people separate that they do it in the best possible way. Too many people end up fighting expensive and confrontational court battles when they could be helped to resolve their problems outside of the courts. However when people do end up in court it is imperative that they have the right advice and information.
After the major changes to the family court in April this year and the recent announcement in July of a free mediation session for separating couples, I am today announcing further initiatives to help people in the family and civil justice system. A new package of support has been developed aimed at keeping disputes away from court and providing better support for those who do end up in court.
The new support will include:
Improving online information so that it is accurate, engaging and easy to find.
A new strategy, funded by the Ministry of Justice, and agreed with the legal and advice sectors which will help to increase legal and practical support for litigants in person in the civil and family courts.
A new “Supporting separating parents in dispute helpline” pilot run by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) to test a more joined-up and tailored out-of-court service.
This package of support will help provide separating couples and court users with the information, advice and guidance they need to help settle disputes in the most appropriate and proportionate way.
Education and Training (Women Prisoners)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
One of my priorities is to see all women benefit from targeted education and training in prison which meets their needs. This will prepare them in the best way possible for eventual release and future employment opportunities. I have therefore set up a joint initiative between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Justice to introduce a tailored curriculum in women’s prisons. This will mean all women who are serving custodial sentences will have access to a curriculum which is designed around their needs.
Following an assessment of English and maths skills in the first week of their prison sentence, all female prisoners will have a tailored learning plan to meet their individual needs. They will be offered a mix of “life skills” and formal educational skills, which will build on established programmes already available in women’s prisons.
Alongside these changes, we will expand the accredited peer mentors programme, using it to build life skills. The expanded cohort of peer mentors will be able to enhance their employment opportunities through gaining in prison a formal qualification and experience that supports the rehabilitation of other female prisoners.
These broader learning opportunities are a key part of our fundamental reforms of prisons for women, which will allow us to reach those women who previously have been reluctant to engage in custody with education. The tailored curriculum will mean that female offenders will be better equipped when they leave prison, will have a greater chance of finding employment and, as a result, should be less likely to reoffend. We expect that the new Community Rehabilitation Companies will work with education partners to help women continue their education and training on release.
Transparency and Accountability Bill
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for putting his name into the ballot, and I congratulate him on doing well in it and on bringing forward a Bill to address many issues that are of considerable importance to our country. I am very grateful for that and for the constructive comments from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. I am grateful, too, for the contributions of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), to which I shall return, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).
I have only a short time to respond, so I will not be able to do justice to all the issues in the Bill. As I said to my hon. and good Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, I would be happy to sit down with him to ensure that the issues he raises do not die and are pursued generally in the Department, and I extend the same invitation to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, too, if he or his colleagues would like to pursue the matters for which he indicated support.
For the benefit of those who follow our proceedings, and given that everyone agrees that this is something of a portmanteau Bill in five parts, covering family justice, the administration of justice, consumer complaints in markets for public services and freedom of information as well as a general part at the end, it might help our later consideration to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley did not take us through the Bill in the order of the parts. Rather, he started with clause 15, which relates to consumer complaints. He referred to Which?, an organisation that we all greatly respect, to which I shall return. He then dealt with freedom of information in clauses 16 and 17, raising issues that are very much on the Government’s agenda. He then went back to the Criminal Cases Review Commission proposal in clause 14, followed by his views and proposals on clause 13. He then went back to part of clause 2, then clauses 8, 11 and 12. Then he covered the rest of clause 2 along with clauses 3, 4, 6, 9 and 12 in that order. I am not setting this out to be mischievous, but if people are to follow important issues, it is helpful to align what he said with the Bill’s proposals so that we all know where we are.
John Hemming
Anyone reading this debate may wish to refer to the speech I gave when I first put forward most of these proposals. I had more time to speak to them, so I spoke at greater length. I hope that that will inform people better,
Simon Hughes
As my hon. Friend said, this is the second time that he has had the opportunity to address some of these issues through a private Member’s Bill.
Let me briefly put the Government’s commitment on the record. The coalition agreement drew from the manifestos of both the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative parties and made a commitment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide greater transparency, as well as to reform family law, reduce delays in care proceedings and reinforce the principle that a child benefits from the involvement of both parents provided that is safe and in the best interests of the child. We also made a commitment to make it easier for loving parents to adopt children.
We have made progress on extending the Freedom of Information Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden gave a specific example of the illogicality of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which had turned itself into a company. Its exemption was corrected in the early part of this Parliament and is now covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
Simon Hughes
There are other examples, but that one has been remedied by this Administration.
Let me summarise what we have done in response to these important issues. About 250,000 people go into our family courts every year in connection with care proceedings, children’s proceedings, adoptions or family divorce and separation. We are not talking about insignificant numbers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley reminded us that this was the context of the Ashya King case, the Rotherham scandal and many other issues. The Ministry of Justice is not the only Department involved; the Department for Education plays a lead role, and I know that my hon. Friend has talked to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is responsible for children’s issues.
On family justice, we have introduced wide-ranging reform of the family justice system so that cases do not drag on for long periods. We have thus provided greater certainty for the children and families involved, which is positive and a plus. I pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, to the president of the family division for how he has led on this and other issues. We have also reformed the way in which cases are managed before and during the court process so that children are placed firmly at the heart of the system. This very weekend, we are going to confirm that next week the law comes into operation that will mean that the presumption thereafter will be that children will benefit from both parents continuing to be involved in their lives. That is a hugely important principle. It may not always be possible, but that will be the legal presumption from next week onwards.
We have also taken steps to shine a light on the activities of the family court and the Court of Protection by encouraging the provision of more media access to hearings, and by publishing judgments to show how decisions are reached. That is still work in progress, and I spoke to the president of the family division only this week about the need for us to do better.
John Hemming
As I have said on a number of occasions, the media cannot afford to have someone in every family court. Does the Minister accept that media access to hearings is not, in itself, that big a thing?
Simon Hughes
It is, in fact, quite a big thing. What has always been of concern is how to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings, which will involve all sorts of sensitive issues, and now that judgments are being made public, a delicate balance must be struck. In some cases in which publicity has been given only to the judgment, the identities of the parties have none the less been revealed, because in a small community it may be quite easy to put the pieces of the jigsaw together. The position is not as uncomplicated as my hon. Friend suggests. As he knows, there are tensions and difficulties, not because we do not want to be more transparent, but because the protection, safeguarding and interests of children and families must be weighed in the balance.
We have also taken steps relating to the workings of the wider justice system. It is no longer an offence to scandalise the court, so clause 8(1) is not necessary. There are already many provisions in legislation, rules and guidance that provide for access to the courts and their information and enable concerns to be raised about process, appeals to be lodged against decisions, and information to be shared. In respect of protected cost orders for judicial review proceedings, the Government have announced their intention to pursue a different approach from that proposed in this Bill in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords.
In respect of freedom of information, we have extended the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to more than 100 additional bodies during this Parliament. Information about contracts between public authorities and private companies is already available from public authorities, and—this is important, and is relevant to the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—we will be publishing a revised code of practice later in the year. The code will ensure that all those in the private sector who are contracted to do work for the public sector, involving central or local government, must, by contract, observe the same standards of openness that they would observe if they were in the public sector. That does not mean that the same law applies to them, because they are private sector organisations. If that does not work, we shall need to come back to it, but I hope everyone accepts that it is a move in the right direction.
Simon Hughes
That is certainly on our agenda. Whether we can secure cross-Government agreement to deal with matters other than the code of practice during the current Session has not yet been established, but it is on the list of matters that I want to consider. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how we can make freedom of information work. I have already listened to the views of Members on both sides of the House.
We have also improved the way in which complaints can be made about public bodies. I have only a couple of minutes left, but let me briefly say something about that, and something about clause 14. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, a number of consumer bodies are able to make complaints to industry regulators. The Bill proposes that that should be extended to public as well as private services. Mechanisms already exist for the making of complaints about public services, and various ombudsmen are able to consider individual complaints. We do not think that a “super-complaint mechanism” is necessary.
The concept of a single-portal mechanism for complaints has been raised several times. The single gov.uk platform is now largely satisfying that need, because it is easy to find out how and where to submit a complaint. I advise people to refer to that website, which should help them. In addition, the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently asked officials in the Cabinet Office to pilot a new digital channel enabling the public to register complaints about public services. I think that that will be regarded as progress.
There is one clause with which the Government have absolutely no problem, in principle. Having said that the others pose varying degrees of difficulty, I can say that clause 14, entitled “Criminal Cases Review Commission: extension of powers to obtain documents and other material”, has merit on its own terms. The Government do not think this is the right place to do it, but I am absolutely willing to negotiate with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley to see whether we can include it in legislation in this Session or have it ready for legislation in the next. Private Members’ Bills do not have enough time to make progress—I have not changed the view I held before I became a Minister—and I hope the ideas in this one will make progress.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
The coalition Government take very seriously the potential threat posed by a small number of British citizens who have travelled abroad and participated in conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Those who participate in foreign conflicts may be prosecuted for offences such as terrorism under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, murder or conspiracy to commit murder, and offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 for breaches of international humanitarian law. It is of course the case that treason remains on the statute book, although the last prosecution was in 1945.
Mr Hollobone
ISIS, al-Qaeda and other groups are sworn enemies of our country and hate everything we stand for, and British citizens who go abroad to take part in jihad—or holy war—are giving aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies. The British public want to see some exemplary prosecutions for treason so that the seriousness of this international terrorist activity can be fully and properly recognised.
Simon Hughes
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All Ministers in all Departments are very clear both that we need to use effectively the powers we already have and that we have to take new powers, which have been announced by the Prime Minister, to fill any potential gaps in the protections we have. The powers will be targeted, proportionate and effective, and they will ensure that we meet our commitment to international law and human rights.
As a Liberal Democrat Minister, may I make it absolutely clear on behalf of all the team in the Ministry of Justice that we as a Government will take all the measures necessary to keep our country safe? We have already announced that there will be new powers to take passports from people temporarily while investigations are made to prevent them from travelling to places such as Syria and Iraq.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Law Commission’s 10th programme for law reform, which states that the offence of treason should be looked at again because it is outdated and needs improvement? It covers many offences that we would not now consider to be offences, and it is not actually useful law. Will he get his team to look at that?
Simon Hughes
As I said, the offence of treason has not been used since 1945. It dates from a much earlier statute. The Law Commission has not looked at it recently, but there is no reason why it should not come forward with a proposal to do so. On this issue, the Government are absolutely focused on making sure that people who go abroad and either commit serious offences abroad or when they come back to this country are prosecuted now and effectively. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we need to make sure that we have the full panoply of powers while respecting our international obligations, and that there are plenty of such powers without using the offence of treason.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What steps he plans to take to enforce the code of practice for victims of crime.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
14. What progress his Department has made on increasing the provision of restorative justice programmes for offenders.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
Restorative justice can play an important role in empowering victims by giving them a voice and enabling them to explain the real impact of the crime and hold offenders to account. There is a clear link between the use of restorative justice and a reduction in the frequency of offending. The coalition Government have committed almost £30 million for restorative justice services for the three years up to next year, with most of this distributed through the police and crime commissioners as part of our broader approach to funding victims’ services.
Fiona Bruce
The Cheshire police and crime commissioner recently made a welcome grant to the Prison Fellowship for its restorative justice programme, the Sycamore Tree project. This is the first PCC funding in the country for this project, which the Prison Fellowship is seeking to expand but is finding difficult to access owing to data provision requirements for funding. Will the Minister join me in recognising the excellent work going on and meet me and the Prison Fellowship to discuss how PCC funding can be accessed by it across the country?
Simon Hughes
Of course I will meet the hon. Lady who I know has been a strong advocate for the work of the Prison Fellowship and the Sycamore Tree project. As I understand it, funding for public sector prisons amounts to £917,000 over three years. I am sorry about the data problem, but I am sure we can help with that. The Government are clear, however, that our £30 million pot is money raised from offenders to support the victims of crime. It cannot go to prisons or prisoners; it is for activities outside the prisons to make sure that people do not reoffend.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
15. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of joint working between probation trusts and police forces to reduce reoffending.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that more than half of the parties in family courts are now unrepresented by a solicitor. There are concerns from the legal sector that this means that people are not getting fair hearings, and actually hearings seem to be taking longer. What plans has the Department got to review this?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
Before the legal aid reforms, one party did not have legal representation in about two thirds of private law cases. It is common for the courts to deal with people who represent themselves. The Department is very watchful of what is happening, but we have already supported organisations such as Citizens Advice and Advicenow to produce more guides. There is also support for the personal support unit, and there is new material for litigants in person, and new leaflets and online advice and guidance, as well as judicial support and advice. We expect to make further announcements of support to deal with this matter in the very near future.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
In his recent written statement on the Office of the Public Guardian, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), alludes to a future segmented supervision model for deputies. Will he act to reduce the number of people forced to pay through their estate for expensive solicitors to act as deputies, and find them better value alternatives instead?
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in this matter, and I hope that he has found the response to the consultation helpful. It makes it absolutely clear that we want to be much more hands-on in terms of managing the role of deputies who are responsible for other people’s estates, to reduce the number of allegations of abuse and misuse of funds and to ensure that vulnerable people are better protected by the courts. I also hope he will have noticed that I have ensured that if anyone wants to make a decision about who should manage any future decisions relating to life or death, that decision will have to be made in person with someone there to witness it, so that there can be no risk of anyone failing to understand the decision they are making.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T9. I very much welcome the decision by the victims Minister to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and the families of Tyrell Matthews-Burton. May I make so bold as to ask that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has responsibility for courts and legal aid, should join us at that meeting? He is already aware of the case, having recently written to me to confirm that one of the gentlemen charged with taking part in the fight in which Tyrell was killed was convicted of carrying a knife just five days before the event but had his sentence suspended so that he could go on holiday.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
What colour is the probation service change programme on the Cabinet Office evaluation scale?
Simon Hughes
The colour is green; we are proceeding successfully with an issue that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues never dealt with. A third of those who have community orders, and a third of those with long sentences, reoffend within a year, but the figure is nearly six out of 10 for those on short sentences. We are going to deal with that issue now.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what concrete steps are being taken to send them back to secure custody in their own countries?
Transforming the Services of the Office of the Public Guardian
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
On 21 August, the Government published the response to the consultation paper “Transforming the Services of the Office of the Public Guardian: Enabling Digital by Default” which sought the views on the next phase of our proposals to transform the services provided by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). This reinforces our commitment to implementing the “digital by default” approach in public services.
The response announced:
The introduction of new simplified forms for lasting powers of attorney (LPA) which will make it easier for those customers wishing to use the paper-based service;
An expansion of the range of resubmitted LPA cases where a reduced application fee applies, to include those whose current LPA could only be registered after an application has been made to the Court of Protection;
Our thinking for the future supervision of deputies.
I would urge anyone with an interest in the Office of the Public Guardian to read the response.
I have deposited copies of the response paper in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Copies are available on the internet at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transforming-the-services-of-the-office-of-the-public-guardian-enabling-digital-by-default.
Burial Space (London)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this debate on the provision of burial space in London and on his well-informed and up-to-date analysis of the position in his part of the capital city. This is self-evidently an important issue. I am aware that my coalition colleague and former Justice Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), responded to a debate on a slightly broader but similar topic—burial space and the treatment of death—in September 2012.
Government responsibility for burials is shared between two Departments—the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Communities and Local Government. My Department, as my hon. Friend knows, has responsibility for burial law and policy; the DCLG has responsibility for local burial authorities. I am obviously responding today on behalf of the whole Government.
I shall make a few general points. Burials and funeral arrangements more widely are, of course, not just important in policy terms, but hugely important to individuals at various stages in their lives and to families. People are faced, sometimes unexpectedly, with the task of making practical arrangements, while dealing with a wealth of emotion—their own and that of other grieving friends, relatives and neighbours—and they may never have been through this process before.
Burial space has increasingly become an issue in some parts of England and Wales. One of the big questions is whether this is a national problem that needs to be addressed by central Government, or a local or regional problem—for example, a Greater London problem—best dealt with by existing or new local measures.
Back in 2005, when the Home Office was responsible for burial law and policy before the Ministry of Justice was created, it conducted a survey of burial provision that indicated that, at that time, the median remaining life of cemeteries was between 25 and 30 years. Since the Greater London authority report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon referred was published in 2010, York university cemetery research group published an audit of burial space in 2013, which concluded that the situation in London was more critical than elsewhere, but that this was not true of all London burial authorities. Certainly, its analysis was that the position was not critical in Barnet—my hon. Friend’s local authority—because it is a borough in which the relevant authorities have planned ahead. My information is that there is enough burial space in general for what was then assessed to be at least the next 60 years, so Barnet is very well provided for.
Until early in the last century, burial was the only lawfully available option for disposing of the dead in this country. Parliament then responded to the growth of interest in and understanding of cremation. The Cremation Act 1902, which permitted cremation for the first time, was followed by the Roman Catholic Church lifting its own ban on cremation.
My hon. Friend gave the figures for London. The most recent national figures that I have available show that just over 70% of all disposals of bodies after death in England and Wales are now done by cremation. However, for many people, there are strongly held views behind their wish to be buried, or for burial for the family member for whom they are responsible. For many people in all our constituencies, the faith that they have and hold or the views that they have and hold mean that burial is the only acceptable option to deal with the bodies of the dead.
For example, in my constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which is made up of the northern two fifths of the London borough of Southwark, we have a very diverse and constantly changing community. We have a large Christian community of many denominations and a large Muslim community. They are the largest two faith communities. We have smaller communities of Buddists and Baha’is and people from every other major world faith, as well as people of no religious faith. My hon. Friend’s constituency will have the same variety of faith views, although the numbers obviously differ in different parts of London.
In addition, relatives—often husbands and wives—wish to be buried together, no matter how long apart the deaths have occurred. The Ministry of Justice has responsibility for issuing the exhumation licences that can make that possible. None of us, I am sure, would underestimate the importance of those final arrangements and the wish of families to fulfil the dying wishes of whoever has died. There are important reasons for the fact that there continue to be 150,000 burials across the country every year.
I myself asked, what is the law on burials? Where can people be buried? It is worth putting the answer on the record for clarification. There are few regulations concerning where someone can be buried, although the landowner must give permission. The local authority will usually give guidance on any regulations that they expect to be observed. It would be wise of people also to contact the Environment Agency. However, there is nothing in law to prevent burial on private land such as a garden, as long as certain steps have been taken. The landowner has to authorise the burial, and the local environmental health officer has to be informed of the proposed burial and be content for it to take place there because, depending on the nature of the location, there may be public health implications. Woodland and green burials, which I understand to be more common, also require the permission of the landowner.
From my hon. Friend’s contributions and his questions earlier this year, and from my own constituency and ministerial experience, I know that there are three separate issues to be considered. First, on projections of demand, I shall not repeat into the record the figures that my hon. Friend gave, which are commonly available. They are from the Office for National Statistics and the Greater London authority, and they must inform our debate. They predict a decline in death in London, as my hon. Friend said, but of course he is right to say that as faith groups in particular change as a proportion of the London community, the demand for burial will change.
The London cremation rate in 2008 was 75%. The best figures that I have are that 27% of Christians opted for burial, while 91% of Buddhists, 96% of Jews and 96% of Muslims chose that option. As my hon. Friend rightly said, Hindus and Sikhs have a strong preference for cremation. Some 50% of those with no religion opted for burial. The logic of those figures is that boroughs with larger proportions of certain faith communities are likely to face increased pressure for burial space and greater reluctance to reuse graves—a point I shall come to in a moment. In my hon. Friend’s borough of Barnet, as I anticipated he would say, there is likely to be continued demand for burial space for the Jewish community, which is significant in that borough and some others in London.
Of the 33 London authorities, the GLA 2010 survey showed that current burial spaces then available were full in eight local authorities: Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets. Southwark figures were not given. The other boroughs said that capacity was critical or problematic, or adequate or sustainable. I think that my hon. Friend has seen the figures, the map and the graph, but I am happy to share them and will make sure that they are published for others to see.
The second issue is whether and when existing graves should or could be reused. I have been approached by several hon. Members and by the burial and cremation sector with requests for the Government to give further consideration to the reuse of old graves. When the Home Office conducted its survey of burial provision in 2005, it also canvassed views on the principle of reusing old graves. At the time the response rate was very low, but the small number who did respond were against reuse. That said, I am clear that the issue of shortage of burial space in some areas is not one that can be ignored and therefore the question of reuse must be addressed.
My hon. Friend referred to, and other Members may be aware of, the reuse scheme available to London burial authorities by virtue of section 74 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007. That provides powers for burial authorities to extinguish the burial right in graves where—this is the crucial point—no interment has taken place for 75 years, and then to reuse the plots by redigging, lowering the existing burial, capping and putting in new bodies on top. Despite that facility having been available for several years now, take-up is almost non-existent. Although the City of London, one of the 33 local authorities in Greater London, reused just under 900 graves in the four years up to 2013, it did this in nearly every case using the powers not in the 2007 Act but those under ecclesiastical law where, on Christian consecrated land, reuse of graves is permitted if the Church authorities issue what is called a faculty. The York research group report that I mentioned earlier confirmed the limited use of these powers under the 2007 Act. It suggested that the reason for this is partly the difficulties involved in establishing who owns the monuments, and similar issues, and partly the administrative complexity of identifying grave ownership.
A number of those who are calling for something to be done have asked that access to the reuse scheme in the 2007 Act that applies in Greater London be extended to apply to the rest of England and Wales. There must clearly be reasons why London councils are not generally making more use of these powers, and before the Government consider legislation to extend the scheme more widely, we need to make sure that we understand the reasons why they have not been used significantly in London.
The third issue, which my hon. Friend did not touch on but may well have come across—I certainly have—is the potential for collaboration between local authorities or differing policy in local authorities, including adjacent local authorities. Given that the figures available show that there are some authorities that are next to each other where one is full and the other has spare capacity, it would clearly be helpful if those with spare capacity collaborated with those that do not have space.
There is another issue of justice that we need to look at seriously. Often differential charges are applied according to whether, at the time of death, a person is living within the boundaries of the area in which they wish to be buried—or their family wish them to be buried. Charges are often considerably, sometimes punitively, higher for those living outside the areas in which they had expressed a wish to be buried. Somebody who has lived almost all their life in one place and moves, for example, to a nursing home, which then becomes their address, but wants to be buried in the borough—the community—in which they have lived in all their life, and perhaps where their husband, wife or parent is buried, may suddenly discover that the price is five times what it would have been if they had stayed where they were. That is clearly not just, and I am determined that, with local government, we deal with it.
I fully accept and understand the importance of this issue, as do the Government more widely. The most important factor is to be clear, with up-to-date information, as to why some councils, but not others, are finding themselves without sufficient burial space. As my hon. Friend knows, and was kind enough to indicate, I have already taken a number of steps since I took up this post to make sure that that is the case. I have met and heard the views of those interested and involved professionally in this area, including representatives of the National Association of Funeral Directors and some constituency funeral directors, particularly F. A. Albin and Sons, who are very experienced and very clear about some of the things that need to be done. I thank the association and Albins for their help and advice.
In June, I met the all-party parliamentary group on funerals and bereavement, who wanted to make sure that everything possible was being done to enable the prompt burial of those whose religion requires it—a matter of significant concern to Jewish, Muslim and some Christian communities as well as some other communities and people. I am working with the chief coroner, His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, who arranged a bereavement event in the summer and has provided guidance to coroners on dealing with out-of-hours requests to facilitate timely burials.
Next week I am meeting a group of hon. Members who have written to me or to my predecessors about their concerns over the availability of burial space in their constituencies. I have arranged for a general meeting to gather evidence and take their views. I think my hon. Friend is able to come to that, and I welcome him. Let me use this opportunity to put out the invitation more widely to colleagues who may not have seen it either to come to the meeting next week or to let me know what their local concerns are, particularly whether the 2007 Act is working in London and ought to be extended. I should also like to announce that in the near future I intend to invite faith leaders to share their views with me as to what ought to be done.
The position I inherited was that the Government had said for some time that they wished to keep this subject under review. In the weeks ahead, encouraged by people such as my hon. Friend, I want to be in a position to move forward from that holding position. This debate and the coming meetings will help us properly to consider whether, for example, it would now be appropriate to discuss enabling legislation that would permit other local authorities outside Greater London to permit the reuse of graves in their areas. That would of course have to be after full consultation on the idea and on any proposed legislation with the communities affected, and democratic deliberation and decisions by the local councils in question. There may also be other things we need to do in Greater London, and beyond, that Government can either facilitate or enable.
I am determined not only that the Government should be active in anticipating the problem and dealing with it but that we act in the right way. I offer the House and colleagues, and all those professionally involved, a clear commitment to continue working on and engaging with this issue to make sure that we come to some conclusions on the way forward over the next few weeks and months.
Question put and agreed to.