Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In March 2011 the Government responded to the Public Accounts Select Committee report “Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State” setting out the coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodies sector. It includes the requirement to undertake triennial reviews of Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is the Government body responsible for administering the compensation schemes for criminal injuries and victims of overseas terrorism in England, Scotland and Wales. Its aim is to compensate the blameless victims of violent crime or acts of terrorism overseas. Part of the Ministry of Justice, it was established in 1994 under prerogative powers.
To deliver the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be subject to a triennial review. The Ministry of Justice, as the sponsoring Department, has today launched a consultation, which will last until 8 February 2013, inviting views. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the review will consider the following:
the continuing need for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—both its functions and its form; and
where it is agreed that it should remain, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies”. The final report and findings will be laid in this House.
Hardship Fund (Low-Paid Victims of Crime)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today announcing the implementation of a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.
Victims of violent crime endure both physical and emotional suffering and, in some cases, financial hardship due to being unable to work as a result of their injuries. The Government believe it is right to focus criminal injuries compensation on victims of more serious crime and that for victims with less serious injuries, prompt practical and emotional support is a more suitable response than relatively small amounts of compensation.
That is why the revised criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012, which also comes into force today along with the victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme 2012, focuses on those most seriously affected by crime. For those with minor injuries, we believe that prompt good-quality services are a better response than small compensation payments.
However in some cases, even the less serious injuries result in the victim being unable to work for a temporary period and therefore require financial support. Some victims receive financial support from employers through statutory sick pay (SSP) or an equivalent employer-provided scheme. In other cases, particularly where the victim is in low-paid employment, no financial support may be available for this temporary period.
The Government believe that this latter group of victims should be given some financial support, at the same rate as SSP, over a short period to relieve them of the immediate hardship that arises from their being temporarily unable to work and that is why we have set up a hardship fund for these victims.
The eligibility criteria for the hardship fund are as follows:
That the applicant is a victim of a crime of violence, but the applicant’s injury is not one which is eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012;
That the applicant is in very low-paid employment and is temporarily unable to work;
That the applicant is not eligible for SSP or an equivalent employer-provided scheme;
That the crime has been reported to the police as soon as is reasonably practicable and the application has been received within four weeks of the date of the incident;
That the applicant does not have an unspent criminal conviction which under the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 would bar them from an award.
The fund will be administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority following referral based on an initial assessment of eligibility by Victim Support. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will request confirmation from the police to ensure that the applicant does not have any criminal convictions that would bar them from an award. Once the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has received all the relevant documentation they will aim to process applications within six working days.
Copies of the hardship fund policy paper, impact assessment and equality impact assessment have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Further guidance on the operation of the hardship fund is available on the Ministry of Justice website.
The revised “Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012” is also available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/victims-and-witnesses/cica.
“The Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme 2012” is available online at: http://www. justice.gov.uk/victims-and-witnesses/cica/victims-of-overseas-terrorism.
Data Protection
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Today, I will publish the Government’s impact assessment of the European Commission’s proposals for data protection.
In January this year, the European Commission published a draft data protection regulation which will impact on business, the public sector and charities and a draft data protection directive, covering the police and judicial sector. Coupled with the publication, the European Commission published its impact assessment of the proposals.
The Commission’s impact assessment estimates that the new regime would bring an administrative saving to the EU, totalling €2.3 billion each year. As the analysis published today shows, the Government disagree with this assessment and believe that the burdens the proposed regulation would impose far outweigh the net benefit estimated by the Commission. For the UK alone the annual net cost of the proposal (in 2012-13 earnings terms) is estimated to be between £100 million and £360 million a year.
The Government’s view is that the Commission both overestimates the benefits achieved through harmonised EU data protection law and fails to address the full costs and unintended consequences of its own proposals, by only considering administrative costs. Our analysis addresses some of these failings by considering in full the impact of the proposed regime, including the additional costs for businesses, including small and medium enterprises, the additional costs to supervisory authorities, conducting data protection impact assessments and complying with other new obligations.
This impact assessment focuses on the proposed regulation. Under article 6a of the UK’s Title V opt-in protocol we believe that the proposed directive will have a limited effect on the United Kingdom, in that it will only apply to data being processed under an EU instrument that binds the UK. Therefore, criminal justice system agencies within the UK will avoid being bound by the directive when processing personal data outside of such provisions.
It is worth noting that organisations which process criminal justice data will also process personal data covered under the regulation and so some of the monetised costs and benefits stemming from the regulation could be shared (for example, the cost of designating a data protection officer). The directive would require transposition into UK law, at which point domestic legislation would also be needed to cover that processing purely internal to the UK. There is therefore a degree of flexibility for member states in determining how the EU-level rules in the proposed directive would be transposed and a fuller assessment of the costs and benefits specific to the proposed directive will be produced nearer the point of transposition.
The UK Government are seriously concerned about the potential economic impact of the proposed data protection regulation. At a time when the eurozone appears to be slipping back into recession, reducing the regulatory burden to secure growth must be the priority for all member states. It is difficult therefore to justify the extra red tape and tick-box compliance that the proposal represents. For example, we estimate the costs for UK small businesses of simply demonstrating compliance with the new rules to be around £10 million (in 2012-13 earnings terms) every year. A further serious issue is the possibility of stifling innovation through prescriptive and inflexible rules on gaining individuals’ consent and informing them about the processing of their personal data, while offering people an unworkable “right to be forgotten”. Instead the focus must be on achieving the right ends: meeting people’s rightful expectation that their personal information is used lawfully, proportionately and securely, while being able to offer them the goods and services they want and need.
Negotiations on the proposals are ongoing in Brussels. With the evidence set out in the impact assessment published today, the UK Government will continue to push for a lasting data protection framework that is proportionate, and that minimises the burdens on businesses and other organisations, while giving individuals real protection in how their personal data is processed.
Copies of the impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website at, www.justice.gov.uk.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
2. If he will bring forward proposals to ensure that victims of crime receive compensation from those who committed the crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Courts have the power to require offenders to pay compensation to their victims for any injury, loss or damage caused by the offence. Courts also have robust powers to recover unpaid compensation orders and other financial penalties.
Priti Patel
Does the Minister agree that there should be a presumption in favour of the victims of crime receiving compensation from offenders? Will she be issuing any guidance to the courts to ensure that that happens?
Mrs Grant
The Government are committed to ensuring that as many victims as possible receive compensation from offenders. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 places a new duty on courts to consider imposing compensation in any case where the victim has suffered injury, loss or damage. Issuing guidance to courts is a matter for the independent Sentencing Council, not for the Government, but the council’s guidelines already draw the courts’ attention to their powers to impose compensation.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
To what extent is this form of compensation a substitute for the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which has been cut to ribbons by the order laid in July this year?
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Would the Minister be open to fresh thinking on this? If, for example, prisoners were given the opportunity to work, earn and keep money for themselves and their families, perhaps they could pay back some of that money to the victims of their crime and also pay tax on it, which would be of benefit to the public, as well as having a rehabilitative effect.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On 11 October 2011, when Louise Casey, the first victims commissioner, resigned, the former Lord Chancellor said that he was urgently considering the future of the role. Thirteen months on—yesterday, in fact—was the closing date for applications to be Ms Casey’s 10-day-a-month replacement. What signal does it send to victims that this Government first doubt the need for a commissioner, then delay appointing one for more than a year, and finally make it a half-hearted, part-time job?
Mrs Grant
For a long time, victims have felt completely unsupported by the criminal justice system, and it is my job, as victims Minister, to try and put that right. I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We are raising money for victims through the victims surcharge and the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, and we are giving victims a louder voice through the appointment of a victims’ commissioner. I look forward to making that appointment, and meeting and working with the commissioner.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
3. What plans he has to increase public confidence in community sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 was approved by the House yesterday. Having already been approved by the other place, it now has the approval of Parliament and will be implemented by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on 27 November this year.
Julie Hilling
Given that the scheme will no longer pay out for criminal injuries such as a broken jaw, and that the awards for more serious injuries are not being increased, will the Minister confirm that the spin is just not true and that the changes represent a cut of £50 million for innocent victims?
Mrs Grant
Absolutely not. The aim is to provide proper compensation for those who have suffered serious criminal injuries. When the injuries are less serious, prompt, practical victim service provision will be provided, which is what victims say that they need. In addition to that, up to £50 million will be provided for victims from the victim surcharge.
Rosie Cooper
In the consultation on the cuts to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the Ministry of Justice promised to protect payments to the most vulnerable and seriously injured victims of crime. Why, then, will the most severe cuts affecting compensation for loss of earnings fall on more than 1,000 of the most seriously injured victims of crime and on the dependants of murder victims? Have not the innocent victims of crime suffered enough?
Mrs Grant
We are of course concerned about all victims. The scheme provides some payment in recognition of loss of earnings, but it was never designed to compensate for a full lifetime’s loss of earnings. Eligible applicants will receive a clear, predictable sum that will supplement other amounts that they may receive from other sources, such as state benefits. Our changes to the scheme should also allow victims to receive payments in a much speedier manner.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Do not the changes confirm the important principle that, although the state is not liable for compensating for the criminal actions of others, it has a particular responsibility for the victims of serious crime, to ensure that they do not have to wait months or even years for compensation from an unsustainable scheme?
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister tell the House what consultations on the matter of the reform of the criminal injuries compensation scheme were held with the devolved Administrations?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Having butchered the criminal injuries compensation scheme by £50 million, starving blameless victims of financial redress, will the Minister tell us when we will see the details of the hastily cobbled-together hardship fund? Will she also tell us whether the fund will be topped up when those in hardship exceed the mere 700 or so whom the scheme is likely to cover, instead of the 30,000 who will lose out as a result of these changes?
Mrs Grant
I am not going to take any lessons from a party that put this country in the most awful financial difficulties—[Interruption.] Absolutely not. The current system is not sustainable or sensible, and it needs to be simplified. As I have already said, the new victim surcharge will raise up to £50 million for victims services.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
7. What plans he has to review prisoners’ entitlement to privileges.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
10. What progress he has made in encouraging tribunal judges to supply feedback to Department for Work and Pensions decision-makers on the reasons for successful employment and support allowance appeals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The provision of feedback on tribunals’ decisions is a matter for the judiciary, but new arrangements were introduced in July. They were agreed by the chamber president and the Department for Work and Pensions, and allow judges to select reasons for their decisions from an agreed list.
Sheila Gilmore
At the weekend, I spoke to a constituent who was making her second appeal in a year. She was told that there would not be a decision for four months, although the number of tribunal members appointed in Scotland has doubled in the last year. Does her experience not illustrate the huge importance of ensuring that proper reasons for decisions are given to DWP decision-makers, so that the decisions are right in the first place? That would be better than the provision of a drop-down menu or a very limited selection of reasons.
Mrs Grant
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working closely with the DWP to improve the quality of the original decisions and also the reconsideration process, so that only appropriate appeals reach the tribunal. As for waiting times, dealing with matters in a timely fashion is of course very important. I am pleased to announce that the waiting time between the receipt of an appeal to disposal has fallen from 22 weeks to 19.3 weeks, and that in Scotland it is down to 12.6 weeks.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
11. How many foreign national prisoners were repatriated to their home country to serve their custodial sentence in 2011.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
17. Whether he has made a comparative assessment of the number of claims for compensation for whiplash injuries in courts in (a) the UK, (b) France and (c) Germany.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
We have not conducted comparative assessments, but we know that whiplash claims are higher in England and Wales than elsewhere. The increase in whiplash claims at a time when there are fewer reported road traffic accidents is unacceptable. The Government will consult shortly on measures to tackle the cost of whiplash claims.
David Mowat
The very high level of claims in the UK pushes up insurance premiums for ordinary people by hundreds of pounds a year. In Germany, two medical opinions are required before claims go forward. Are we considering introducing that here, and what other measures are we considering to sort out this industry?
Mrs Grant
The Government are committed to finding ways of tackling fraudulent whiplash claims. We are about to consult on increasing the small claims threshold for personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents from £1,000 to £5,000. We are also about to consult on the creation of independent medical panels, which could improve diagnosis, transparency, consistency and identification in respect of exaggerated injuries.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
18. What plans he has to reduce the number of young people within the criminal justice system.
Grahame M. Morris
May I refer the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) back to the answer she gave a few moments ago in response to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)? Given the importance of this to victims of workplace accidents and industrial diseases, will the Minister meet a small delegation of Labour MPs to receive representations on the implications of the proposal to amend the ceiling on small claims compensation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Yes, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the delegation.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
T3. Is it not rather counter-intuitive, given the Secretary of State’s excellent views, to be closing rather than opening prisons? Why then are the Government consulting on closing Lincoln prison, which, as far as I know, has caused no trouble to the community since Eamon de Valera escaped from it during the first world war, and which provides 400 jobs, and humanely and safely locks our local villains away?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Has the Secretary of State any concerns that the provisions in the criminal injuries compensation scheme voted on by the House last night in terms of sex abuse victims aged between 13 and 15 are a dangerous and dubious legislative signal to be sent by this Parliament as its first legislative signal in the wake of the scandal concerning Jimmy Savile?
Mrs Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but would point out that our reforms have led to no changes to the 2008 scheme in respect of certain sexual abuse issues. Further guidance has been given on other particular matters. Victims coming forward in the Jimmy Savile case should certainly be able to make applications for compensation.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
When innocent people can be framed on social media sites will the Government consider, with some urgency, looking at a certain part of the libel laws? Innocent people do not deserve to be named; they certainly do not deserve to be put through the grilling that certain people have faced. Would the Secretary of State and the Government look at that as a matter of urgency?
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give an indication of the cut-off date for claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Victims of crime and their representatives need to know that date. Will it be Friday 23 November? Will it be Monday 26 November?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the Minister have an assessment of how curfew orders have been working since their hours and length were increased last year?
Claims Management Companies
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate on the regulation of claims management companies, or CMCs.
I acknowledge at the outset that some CMCs can provide a useful service for some consumers, by alerting them to circumstances in which there might be a justified complaint, and by supporting them in obtaining redress. Nevertheless, a notable minority fail to comply with many of the simple requirements placed on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and my hon. Friends the Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and for Warrington South (David Mowat) have made clear today, malpractice continues, including in such areas as lack of transparency about fees; unfair contract terms; encouraging frivolous claims; insurance fraud; using aggressive marketing techniques; accepting leads or claims from unsolicited text messages; and malpractice in the handling of PPI claims. That is the type of behaviour that we are committed to eradicating. We all want a stable and robust regulatory system on which the public can depend, and we also want consumers to get claims services that meet their needs, from CMCs they really can trust.
Although substantial progress has been made since regulation began, there is clearly more to be done. I have listened carefully to the various thoughts and ideas that have been raised today in an informed and considered manner, and I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), that I will listen carefully to everything and everyone I need to, including claimants and all other stakeholders. I am glad he has indicated that there is consensus on many of the issues that we need to address.
Providing consumer protection by driving out malpractice remains the primary objective of the Ministry of Justice’s claims management regulation unit, and we support that approach. Most CMCs want to comply, which is why the CMR unit uses a range of measures to help them to do so. For example, about a year ago the unit formed a specialist compliance team to focus on tackling the mishandling of PPI claims. The team has conducted a comprehensive programme of audits, and has issued warnings and taken other forms of enforcement action where problems have been found. That work continues, and includes targeting CMCs that submit claims where no PPI sale exists, those that charge up-front fees—we have heard a lot about that today—and those that operate call centres, to ensure that sales calls are compliant.
Within the personal injury sector, most of the issues relate to businesses or organised groups attempting to defraud the insurance industry. The CMR unit contributes valuable information and expertise, and has worked with a range of organisations and agencies to tackle fraud. Its operations have resulted in arrests, charges and convictions.
On unsolicited text messages, notably raised by Lord McNally of Blackpool on Monday in the House of Lords, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other Members today, I recognise that the growth in the practice has caused a nuisance to the general public, particularly as the content of the messages is often misleading. The problem presents big challenges, and we fully support the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office, or ICO, in enforcing the legislation that protects individuals from unsolicited text messages and other forms of direct marketing. It is important to point out that such messages are generally sent not by CMCs but by others, to generate leads for others businesses including CMCs. The CMR unit is actively working with the ICO to investigate and take enforcement action against CMCs that accept leads or claims from that type of marketing.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The Information Commissioner has said that unsolicited texts are a breach of the EU regulations on electronic communication. Will my hon. Friend investigate, with the Information Commissioner, whether there is a resource issue regarding his tackling this activity, which is such a nuisance to consumers?
Mrs Grant
We are working hard with the Information Commissioner, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on that point.
At a time when resources are scarce, much has been achieved. Regulatory enforcement action has increased year on year, with 150 audits of CMCs carried out, and 409 CMCs warned, suspended or cancelled over the past year. The CMR unit has also removed the licences of more than 800 CMCs, across sectors, since the start of regulation in 2007, and many others have left the market after the commencement of investigations and enforcement action.
That is where we are at, but where do we go from here? There have been calls over the years to consider transferring the claims management regulation regime to another regulator, but now is not the time for such a fundamental change. We have a big programme of reforms under way, and its central objective is to address CMC bad practices and strengthen the regulatory and complaints regimes to provide better protection for consumers and the public. Our reform agenda includes four main measures.
Following a review of the CMC conduct rules and an informal consultation with key stakeholders, we recently ran a public consultation on proposals to tighten those rules. We intend to issue a response by the end of this year. Most critically, we propose that, first, contract agreements between CMCs and consumers will have to be made in writing before any up-front fees may be taken. That concern was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others.
Secondly, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, CMCs will have to refer to being regulated by the claims management regulator rather than the Ministry of Justice. The shadow Minister welcomed that proposal.
Thirdly, CMCs will have to inform their contracted client of any variation in or suspension of their authorisation; and, finally, CMCs that operate websites will be required to publish their terms and conditions online as standard, including examples of how their various costs are calculated in a specific format.
On the delay to the rules review consultation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I can confirm that the consultation was launched as soon as possible after internal clearance of the intention to consult and the release of the initial impact assessment.
Last year, we also ran a public consultation on imposing a ban on CMCs offering financial rewards or similar benefits as an inducement to make a claim. That proposal was made in response to the recommendation contained in Lord Young’s report “Common Sense, Common Safety”. The ban will come into effect along with other amendments to the conduct rules from April 2013.
From next year, we intend to commence powers under the Legal Services Act 2007 to extend the legal ombudsman’s jurisdiction to provide an independent complaints and redress scheme for clients who are dissatisfied with the service provided by CMCs that they have contacted. Consumers will benefit because the legal ombudsman has wider powers of redress, including the ability to award compensation.
Lastly, we are implementing the primary recommendations contained in Lord Justice Jackson’s “Review of Civil Litigation Costs,” including in particular a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional-fee agreements and a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases.
Mr Slaughter
How will restricting the ability of claimants to obtain proper legal representation restrict the operation of CMCs that either make unmeritorious claims or make meritorious claims incompetently?
Mrs Grant
We are not restricting access to justice in any way. That is another argument I have had with the hon. Gentleman in other debates over the past year and a half. Access to justice will still be possible and meritorious claims will continue to be made.
I have sought to cover a lot of ground in a relatively short space of time, and I have talked through improvements in the way the CMR unit does its day-to-day job and its work in preparation for next year’s reforms. We remain focused on delivering a successful and strong regulatory regime. To give consumers and defendants more confidence in the system, it is important that CMCs ensure that they comply with the rules.
I reassure all hon. Members here today that there will be no let up in the CMR unit’s compliance and enforcement work, and it will do what is essential to strengthen the regulatory and complaints regimes to provide better protection for consumers and the public.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I have listened with great care to the points made by hon. Members in today’s debate and I shall respond in a moment to some of them. In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice set out the principal reasons for reforming the scheme. He made it clear that proper support for victims and witnesses is a very high priority for this Government.
The public expect the criminal justice system to have at its heart the interests of those who have suffered. That includes paying compensation in certain circumstances, but the question for any responsible Government is what those circumstances should be. My right hon. Friend sought to set our changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the context of all the changes we are making to the support that we provide for victims and witnesses. It would be foolish to consider them in isolation. The key point that the Government want to make is that we seek broadly to maintain overall spending on victims, not to cut it, but to change its composition so that money is used more effectively.
As to the criminal injuries compensation scheme itself, there are two main problems, which were highlighted so eloquently and clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr Blunt), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). The first is that it is in financial difficulties. I know that Opposition Members have made much of their disagreement with us over this, swallowing whole the briefings provided by trade unions, but the fact is that the scheme does need to be put on a sustainable footing.
Mrs Grant
The second point is that the design of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is inadequate and the policy rationale flawed. Compensation is in many cases poorly targeted, with millions of pounds spent on relatively minor claims such as sprained ankles. Worse than that, over the past decade, nearly £60 million has been paid to 19,000 claimants who were convicted criminals. So, instead of taking money from an unaffordable scheme and using it to give cash for minor injuries months or even years after the event, our plans seek to make a structural change in the nature of the help that we give to our victims.
Mrs Grant
The scheme will be focused on the most serious cases involving innocent victims, reducing the burden on the taxpayer by £50 million. Linked to this, spending on victims services will be increased by a similar amount, but with the money—crucially— coming from the pockets of the criminals themselves. A major step in that direction was the implementation on 1 October of the statutory instrument giving effect to changes to the victim surcharge. The money raised from offenders will pay for more and better services for victims, providing the practical and emotional support they need. We believe as a matter of principle that that is a better response than compensation for lower-end injuries.
Reform is necessary and it will protect the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the future. I explained last week why we are making changes to the tariff of injuries. Tariff payments will, in future, be available to those most seriously affected by their injuries and those who have been victims of the most distressing crimes. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) all raised concerns about the tariff. I know they will not be persuaded by our removal of bands 1 to 5 or the graduated reduction we have made to bands 6 to 12, but the rationale does, notwithstanding their assertions, stack up. It is wholly consistent with our policy of focusing on those most seriously affected by their injuries—
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that engages the Chair. The point has been put on the record, but the Minister will wish to continue her speech.
Mrs Grant
In the Delegated Legislation Committee last week, I said that, although we saw no merit in making further changes to the scheme, we were nevertheless persuaded that something ought to be done for certain low earners who were temporarily unable to work due to their injuries and who would no longer fall within the scheme. I announced a hardship fund that aims to meet a pressing need for people who might well find themselves in real financial difficulty.
Opposition members of the Committee were critical of the lack of detail I provided on that occasion. However, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice provided details today in his opening speech, and it is a great shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) seem unable to acknowledge the fairness and decency of the fund and recognise that it will help some of the very poorest people in our country.
Mrs Grant
No. I have been very generous in taking interventions in three debates so far, so I will make my points and will not waste any more time.
Moving on, we have defined eligibility for the scheme more tightly so that only the direct and blameless victims of crime who fully co-operate with the criminal justice process obtain compensation under the scheme. That is surely right. Those with unspent convictions will not be able to claim if they have been sentenced to a community order or been imprisoned, and those with other unspent convictions will be able to receive an award of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. Not only that, but applicants will need to be able to demonstrate a connection to the UK through residency or other connections.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and many others have been critical of our approach to dangerous dogs, because in future the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will pay only where the dog was set upon the victim by its owner. A similar approach already applies to injuries caused by motor vehicles; in order for the applicant to be eligible, a car has to have been deliberately driven at him or her. Contrary to our critics’ assertions, that will not have much of an impact on claimants because awards for dog attacks are few. That said, aggressive dogs of course present a serious and growing problem, which is why the Government are active in that area, with work going on at the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and elsewhere.
The last major element of the scheme is special expenses. As is consistent with our policy of focusing payments on the most seriously affected, we have retained the vast majority of those payments in their entirety. However, we have made it clear that the scheme should be one of last resort in relation to special expenses and that payments will be made only if the claim is reasonable.
Finally, we have made some changes to the process of applying for compensation in order to make the scheme easier for applicants to understand. For the first time, for example, the evidence required to make a claim is being included in the scheme, which is a simple but plainly very helpful change. The Government believe that the draft criminal injuries compensation scheme provides a coherent and fair way of focusing payments towards those seriously—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Presumption of Death Bill
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on his good fortune in securing a high place in the private Members’ ballot and his good judgment in choosing to introduce a Bill on the presumption of death. The Bill is clearly based on the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977 and the Presumption of Death Act (Northern Ireland) 2009—and, therefore, the Presumption of Death Bill introduced in this House in 2009 by the then Member for Daventry, my noble Friend Lord Boswell of Aynho.
The Bill is important because it will greatly improve the position of people and businesses left behind when a person disappears. At present, individuals—often family members—may have to use a number of procedures to deal with different aspects of the property and affairs of the missing person. This can make a difficult situation daunting. Meanwhile, it seems that different businesses adopt different approaches, and even legal professionals can find it difficult to identify the right solutions for their clients. The Bill will make a real difference in such cases.
The importance of the Bill is brought home by the stories of real people. I have listened carefully to the stories of hardship and distress that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and others have described. I share their concern that the current law is not working as well as it should. I want to take this opportunity to add brief details from some case studies provided by the charity Missing People, which has worked so prominently in campaigning for a change in this important area of law.
The first case study relates to Janis from Merseyside. Janis told her story to Lucy Holmes, policy and research officer with Missing People. I shall summarise what she said. Janis’s husband James, in his 40s, went missing three and a half years ago. She spoke to solicitors, who told her that she would have to wait seven years until he could be pronounced dead. Only then would the mortgage and other financial matters be sorted out. The financial implications were an added stress, which Janis could have done without, and I shall mention some of the financial problems she faced. Janis and her husband held shares, but they were in her husband’s name. As a result, she was unable to access them. Janis and her husband had originally taken out a fixed-rate mortgage, but the fixed rate stopped a few months after he went missing. She tried to see whether she could get a mortgage holiday or a change in the product, but was told that she could not, because she needed two signatures—her own and her husband’s. She ended up locked in a standard-rate mortgage. Janis was also unable to sell her house without her husband’s signature.
The second case study relates to Julie, from west Yorkshire, who also told her story to Lucy Holmes at Missing People. Julie’s former husband Peter, in his 30s, has been missing for nearly 10 years. Julie believes that he has died but his body has not been found. He first went missing when they were in the middle of sorting out the finances for their divorce. The judge was sympathetic and explained that Julie would be able to go back and sort everything out, including her husband’s estate, if he was still missing after seven years. It was therefore always at the back of her mind that she would have to wait that long. The types of problems Julie has encountered include not being able to access Peter’s pension, which could be left to their children if she could declare him deceased. Julie also had problems finding a solicitor who could help her. None of the solicitors she tried—and she tried several—knew how to handle the case. Eventually she got a solicitor she knew to do it for free, in his own time. Julie needs to access endowment and insurance policies, but she cannot touch them because she needs her husband’s signature. She needs the money for her children’s university education, and finds the whole situation horrendous. She complains that there are no rules or guidelines.
These stories, taken together, create the strong impression that the disappearance of a husband has locked the wife who has been left behind into a financial conundrum from which there is no obvious escape and on which little information is provided.
The third case study was provided by Rachel Elias, the sister of Richard James Edwards of the Manic Street Preachers, in evidence to the inquiry of the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults in June 2011. She also provided written evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry into the presumption of death. Her brother disappeared on 1 February 1995, and has not been seen or heard of since that date. At the time of his disappearance, he was a member of the successful British band, the Manic Street Preachers. Once the family were convinced that Richard was dead, an application was made for a leave to swear death order. The process took about three years and cost them about £3,500. Rachel Elias commented on how hard it had been to prepare the paperwork and provide the corroborative evidence, 13 years after the disappearance.
The Justice Committee also took oral evidence from Vicki Derrick. Vicki told the Committee of the disappearance of her husband in 2003. She said that she could not change her mortgage or move house because they were in joint names, and that she could not get a life insurance policy to pay out. She described how she had moved overnight from having a joint income to being a single mother on a greatly reduced income, and how she had to rely on her family to support her. She somehow survived the eight years of uncertainty and difficulty, which came to an end in February this year when the remains of her late husband’s body were found. The finding of the body ended the need for a presumption of death certificate in that case, but that happened only by chance.
These case histories, and the other cases that have been described by hon. Members, tell of individuals from different backgrounds who have been visited by tragedy. I offer them my condolences and sympathy. I know that my expressing sympathy and solidarity will probably make little difference in the struggle that those individuals face in coping with their loss and trying to move their affairs forward when it seems almost certain that the missing person will not return. What can make a difference is simplifying the law to provide a clear path for people to take if they believe that the missing person is dead.
That brings us to the content of the Bill. There will be a single, obvious, all-purpose procedure for obtaining legal confirmation that a person is to be deemed to be dead. This should make the process of moving on more straightforward, not only for those affected by the disappearance but for those who advise them. Businesses such as insurers should also benefit because the making of a declaration will make it easier for them to know where they stand. In short, the Bill will provide a means to clarify the uncertainties caused by the disappearance.
Clarification and simplification must not, however, be introduced at the expense of rigour. The declaration of presumed death will be granted only following consideration of the evidence. No one should lightly be presumed to be dead. If the interests of the missing person, and of the people who would be affected by his or her deemed death, are to be protected, the process of obtaining a declaration of presumed death must be thorough and robust. To achieve this, the Bill creates a new court procedure and an associated process of registration.
The court procedure will enable a person with sufficient interest to obtain a legally binding declaration from the High Court that a person is to be deemed dead for all purposes, including the end of the marriage or civil partnership. The High Court will make the declaration if it is satisfied that the missing person has died or has not been known to be alive for a period of at least seven years. Based on experience in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we expect that on average between 30 and 40 declarations are likely to be issued each year.
A court also has the power to deal with myriad consequential property-related issues that may arise as a result of the declaration. Once the court has made the declaration and the time for any appeal has passed, the High Court will send details of the presumed deaths to the Registrar General for England and Wales, who will enter the relevant particulars in the register of presumed deaths created under the Bill. The Registrar General will also include the entry in that register in the index of the registers of deaths. This will enable those left behind by the missing person and others to find out about the presumed death and, on payment of an appropriate fee, to obtain certified copies of the entry in the register of presumed deaths. These certified copies will, without the need for more evidence, be conclusive evidence of the death of the missing person. They will be usable in the same way and for the same purposes as death certificates in relation to an actual death.
There is, of course, a crucial difference between actual deaths and presumed deaths: the actually dead do not return, but the presumed dead may do so. Experience in Scotland suggests that this happens only rarely. None the less, the Bill, as it must, makes provision for amendment or revocation of a declaration by giving the court power to make a variation order on application. A variation order will alter the facts on which any property-related orders made as a result of the making of the original declaration were based. The Bill therefore gives the Court power to make such further orders as it considers reasonable in relation to any property acquired as a result of the declaration varied or revoked.
This power is subject to limitations—for example, to protect innocent purchasers—and in some cases the court is required as far as possible to have regard to the principles specified in the Bill in deciding what to do. These provisions are, I think, the most complicated in the Bill, but they are necessary and follow in general terms the Scottish and Northern Irish precedents that I have mentioned.
It is clearly vital that the court should have the best information that it can obtain in making declaration or variation orders. The Bill therefore gives the Court power, on application or of its own motion, to order third parties to provide specified information relevant to the question of whether the missing person is dead or alive. Details of the court procedure and the registration process will be set out in the rules of court and the regulations to be made in due course.
The Bill will, from time to time, result in the payment of a capital sum or of a transfer of a piece of property from one person to another, consequent on the presumed death. However, as described, circumstances could arise in which that capital sum or property should actually have gone to someone else. Recipients of these sums or pieces of property might well want to consider whether it would be appropriate to take out insurance against the possibility that these circumstances could arise in their own particular cases. That will be a decision for them.
In two cases, however, the Bill makes specific provision about insurance. First, it provides that the court can order trustees affected by a declaration to take out insurance against claims consequent on the making of orders in connection with the variation order. Secondly, the Bill allows an insurer to require the potential recipient of a capital sum made as a result of a declaration—for example, the sum assured under a life insurance policy—to take out insurance against claims consequent on the possible future making of a variation order.
The new procedure for a declaration of death will replace some, but not all, of the existing procedures by virtue of which a person may be deemed to be dead under the law of England and Wales. The Bill will, for example, repeal the declaration of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The new procedure is intended to replace the present probate procedure for obtaining leave to swear death orders. The retention of other existing procedures will preserve flexibility, and will ensure that not everyone seeking to establish a presumed death is required to go to the High Court if there is a suitable alternative procedure. However, the Bill will require assumptions regarding the time and date of death under other procedures to adopt the same conventions as are specified for declarations made under the Bill. There are similar requirements in the Scottish and Northern Irish Acts,
Members have made numerous points today. I acknowledge the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about guardianship, and assure them that I will take those concerns into account in reaching a decision on whether—and, if so, how—to develop legislation on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) asked whether there had been a revocation in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland legislation came into force only in 2009 and, as far as I am aware, no declarations have been revoked. The hon. Member for Islington North also raised the issue of guidance. I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice acknowledges the role of good guidance, and that substantial work is being done in that respect.
By creating this procedure and process, the Bill will achieve the objective of recommendations made by the Justice Committee in its Twelfth Report of the previous Session. As a former member of the Committee—although I was not a member at the time when the report was produced—I am pleased to learn that its recommendations are being implemented. The Committee’s inquiry into the subject of presumption of death followed an extensive investigation earlier in the Session by the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults. I regret that I was unable to attend the round-table discussion organised by the APPG last week, but I am pleased to acknowledge the good work that both it and the charity Missing People have done to raise the profile of the difficulties faced by individuals and families when a person goes missing and does not return.
In their response to the Committee’s report, published in July 2012, the Government stated their intention to introduce
“legislation to create a certificate of presumed death…when Parliamentary time permits.”
If enacted, my hon. Friend’s Bill will achieve the same result as the Government’s intended Bill. I am pleased to confirm the Government’s support for it, and I wish it a swift and successful passage through the House.
Court-appointed Deputies
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on securing this debate. I know that he has a keen interest in these matters, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the work of the Office of the Public Guardian and in particular the Public Guardian’s role in supervising deputies appointed by the Court of Protection. This is a vital and complex area of work, and people who have lost capacity are often very vulnerable indeed. It is absolutely right and proper that we consider whether the arrangements that are in place to support and protect them are completely acceptable and operating as well as possible.
My hon. Friend raised issues that centre on the role of deputies appointed by the Court of Protection and then supervised by the OPG. It would be helpful if I outlined how the system of deputyship currently operates, before describing how the OPG is considering, through a fundamental review, some of the wider issues raised about deputies and how they are supervised.
The decision whether a deputy is required, and who the proper person is to take on that role, is entirely a judicial matter. The court will only appoint a deputy when the person concerned lacks capacity to make the relevant decisions and if no legal arrangement had been made while they still had capacity. In the case of financial matters, if there are assets that require management frequently the only option is to appoint a deputy.
Once a deputy is appointed, they must always act in the best interests of the person for whom they have been appointed. They must also ensure that the individual concerned is supported to make as many decisions for themselves as they can. Where the deputy has to make decisions on the person’s behalf, they must still ensure that the person concerned is involved in the process as much as possible. That is especially important in cases where a person may lack capacity to make some decisions but not others, or where their level of capacity can fluctuate or vary over time. These factors make the role of deputy a challenging one and the balance between allowing a person to make decisions for themselves and having to make a decision for them is often a fine one.
When a deputy needs to be appointed, they will often be a family member or close friend of the person lacking capacity. Normally, the court will consider appointing a professional deputy only in circumstances where there is no one else suitable and able to act. It may be that the person lacking capacity has no close family or friends, or it may be that a conflict of interest exists within the family, or that the size and complexity of the estate mean that a professional deputy is better placed to act on their behalf. Such professional deputies are entitled to charge fees and in complex cases these costs can be very high. However, the costs must be representative of the work done by the deputy. The costs charged by professional deputies are set out in a practice direction issued by the president of the Court of Protection. If a deputy wishes to claim over and above the fixed costs, their claim must be assessed and approved by the senior court costs office.
Once a deputy has been appointed by the Court of Protection, the Public Guardian is responsible for supervising them to ensure that they carry out their duties properly and act in the best interests of the person they are representing. This is a statutory duty placed upon the Public Guardian by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and it is entirely right that, where the state has had to intervene to appoint an individual to make decisions on another person’s behalf, that individual is subject to adequate but proportionate oversight.
However, the Public Guardian does not have any role in directly managing the affairs of a person who lacks capacity. Their role is entirely to supervise and investigate. It is not within their jurisdiction to remove a deputy once they are appointed or to place limits on how the deputy exercises their powers. If the Public Guardian believes that a deputy is unable to fulfil their role or functions effectively, they may make an application to the Court of Protection seeking the deputy’s replacement or seeking to have limits placed on their powers.
In most cases, the Public Guardian will require the deputy to report to them on at least an annual basis. In the early stages of appointment, there may also be additional contact from the Public Guardian’s office to ensure the deputy is carrying out their duties properly and to identify any need for additional support. In certain cases, that may also involve a visit from an independent Court of Protection visitor who will report their findings to the Public Guardian. My hon. Friend may be pleased to know that almost 6,500 such visits took place last year.
I now turn to the work that is currently going on at the OPG as part of the Ministry of Justice’s “Transforming Justice” agenda. This work is being taken forward under Alan Eccles, who was appointed earlier this year as the new Public Guardian. The OPG is currently taking forward a major transformation programme that is designed to move its services on to a digital platform, to reduce the bureaucracy of the current paper-based system. The programme is focused squarely on placing the needs of users, including deputies and those whom they support, at the heart of the business, and on ensuring that the OPG is able to meet the demands placed on its services well into the future.
As part of that work, the new Public Guardian has launched a fundamental review of how the supervision of deputies is carried out. The aims of the review are twofold: first, to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to protect people who lack capacity and to ensure that decisions are made in their best interests; and secondly, to ensure that supervision is proportionate. That means focusing attention on those cases that require most support or where there are potential concerns, but allowing deputies who are operating effectively to do their job with minimal intervention. That might mean tailoring supervision to the needs of different kinds of deputies. Professional deputies, such as legal professionals and public authorities, might require a different type of supervision from lay people acting on behalf of family members. Also, a new deputy will often require additional support so that they understand their responsibilities and the support available to them.
Any changes will also need to be in line with the Public Guardian’s statutory duties, to which my hon. Friend referred, and must also consider the demands that the increasingly ageing population places on the OPG’s services. The OPG must be able to deal with the rising number of deputies in the future, as well as encouraging people to plan for the future by making lasting powers of attorney, which may remove the need for a deputy to be appointed at all. A key element of the work is the need to build a richer understanding of the deputies’ circumstances and their needs. I am pleased to say that the OPG has already surveyed some 1,300 deputies. In the coming months the OPG will conduct in-depth interviews with deputies to gain a deeper insight into their needs and the needs of those for whom they care.
The OPG will continue to listen to experts across the mental capacity field as it looks to improve its services. Building a clearer picture of its customers will help the OPG to design a more responsive and effective supervision regime, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham will support.
Mr Bacon
The Minister mentioned the Office of the Public Guardian and his statutory powers. In cases of over-billing, once it has been stamped by the court, as the Minister alluded to, the issue for the Public Guardian is that, under present legislation, his scope to act is extremely limited, even if, as it may transpire, the over-billing has happened as a result of the Court of Protection successfully being misled by a deputy.
Mrs Grant
The issue that my hon. Friend raises in relation to over-charging vulnerable people is extremely important. It is worrying and it is one of the reasons why the new Public Guardian has launched a fundamental review into the supervision of deputies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham raised the matter with me just a few moments ago, and I will look into it. I will write to him, and perhaps we can take matters forward.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who I know has met the Public Guardian and who has extensive personal experience of the current system of deputyship. The issues are important and I hope that both my hon. Friends are reassured that the Government take matters very seriously. I will look carefully into the issues they have raised on accountability, visits, the statutory powers of deputies and panel composition. I hope they are both reassured that the OPG continues to look into this area to make further significant improvements.
Duncan Hames
I very much welcome the fundamental review that the Minister has advised us of this afternoon. She said that the OPG had been and would be surveying deputies as part of the review. I hope that she will ensure that the clients of deputies are consulted and interviewed and asked their views as part of the review in order that the true customers of the service have their voices heard.
Advisory Committee on Civil Costs
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The guideline hourly rates (GHR) for solicitors in legal proceedings are set by the Master of the Rolls. The Advisory Committee on Civil Costs (ACCC) was established in 2007 by the Ministry of Justice to provide advice on this and other issues— 12 September 2007, Official Report column 124WS.
I am grateful for the work which the ACCC has carried out since its inception. However, I have decided that the ACCC’s remaining function of advising on the GHR should be transferred to the Civil Justice Council (CJC) from January 2013. I envisage that a sub-committee of the CJC would be established to deal with this issue. The ACCC will be disbanded forthwith, which will reduce the number of advisory bodies.
This proposal does not go so far as Sir Rupert Jackson’s recommendation for a Costs Council as the new sub-committee’s standing role will be limited to a review of the GHR; other fixed costs will remain for the Lord Chancellor to consider in the first instance. However, there may be other costs issues on which the Lord Chancellor and judiciary would welcome advice from the new sub-committee from time to time. I will liaise with the Master of the Rolls, who chairs the CJC, concerning the membership, terms of reference and work to be undertaken by the CJC within the scope of its statutory role of keeping the civil justice system under review.
Inquests (Service Personnel)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House reporting progress with the inquests into deaths of service personnel who have died on active service overseas. As the season of remembrance approaches, we make this statement in solemn recognition of the sacrifice made by our service personnel who have given their lives for their country. We honour too the sacrifice of the families they have left behind. Our thoughts are particularly with the families of the 13 service personnel who have died since our last statement in July.
In this statement we provide details of inquests conducted by the Oxfordshire coroner, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 21 October 2012.
We have placed tables in both Libraries of the House giving supplementary information for this statement. The tables provide the status of all current cases. They include information about those cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held or has been directed to be held.
The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice have worked together for several years to ensure that our processes are the best they can be. On 17 September His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC took up post as the first Chief Coroner for England and Wales. He will have a number of specific powers and duties in relation to service personnel inquests. Most recently, on 24 September, we commenced section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which for the first time enables deaths of service personnel killed abroad on active duty to be investigated in Scotland, where the Chief Coroner thinks it appropriate. We wish him well and look forward to working with him.
Our Departments will continue to support the coroners who are conducting these inquests. Once again we record our sincere thanks to coroners, to their staff and to all those who help, support and inform families throughout the inquest process.
Both Departments have provided funding for additional resources for these inquests since October 2007 to the coroners for Wiltshire and Swindon and for Oxfordshire. This is because the airbase for the repatriation of fallen service personnel was previously located at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire; repatriations were rerouted to the RAF Brize Norton airbase in Oxfordshire in September 2011.
Current Status Of Inquests
Since the last statement eight inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Altogether, 563 inquests have taken place in relation to service personnel who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan or have died in the UK of injuries received in those operations. In three cases there has been no formal inquest. In one of these, the serviceman died of his injuries in Scotland and it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry. In the other two cases, the death was taken into consideration during the inquest proceedings for other service personnel who died in the respective incidents.
Open Inquests
Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
Currently 51 open inquests remain to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. A total of 24 of these inquests relate to deaths in the last six months.
Nine of the open inquests have been retained by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and 19 by the Oxfordshire coroner. Coroners closer to the next of kin are conducting the remaining 23 inquests. Two hearing dates have been set at present.
Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
Six inquests are open into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured but sadly died of their injuries. These inquests will be listed when the continuing investigations are completed.
We will continue to inform the House of progress.