Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I cannot comment on individual cases at this stage, but we are engaged with all 31 centres. New ones are coming on board too. We are still in the middle of commissioning so it would not be appropriate for me to go into that level of detail.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

These excellent centres are facing problems financially, as the Minister appreciates. She will also appreciate that on a cost-benefit analysis, short-term expenditure will pay dividends; it will keep women out of the prison estate, without further costs for children in care and so on. Ultimately it is a great investment.

[Mrs Grant]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are determined to see fewer women offending and reoffending. We want to make appropriate provision for female offenders that addresses the root causes of their offending and their specific needs.

Freedom of Information

Debate between Helen Grant and Elfyn Llwyd

Thursday 24th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. I am grateful to the Justice Committee for its thorough work on the post-legislative scrutiny and to all those who contributed to its inquiries. I re-endorse the sentiments that have been made this afternoon in relation to my right hon. Friend’s great aplomb and his ability to chair the Committee.

The Government remain committed to greater transparency—the Freedom of Information Act is a key part of that—and we have been successful in our key aims of increasing openness, transparency and accountability. I agree with hon. Members that it is perhaps less clear how much of our secondary objectives of increasing trust and public participation have been met and that, to some extent, those objectives may not have been realistic ambitions. I agree with the Justice Committee that the Act has been a

“significant enhancement to our democracy.”

It is not perfect, but it is generally working well. For that reason, the Government are not proposing a radical overhaul.

Before turning to the specific issues raised by post-legislative scrutiny, it is important to say that we need to put them in the context of the Government’s wider transparency agenda. Since we came to power, we have published almost 9,000 data sets, covering a wide range of subjects connected to health, education, transport, crime and justice. In June 2012, we published the open data White Paper, “Unleashing the Potential”, which sets out how the transparency agenda can help to provide greater access to and the re-use of raw data. We have set up the Open Data Institute to promote innovation, using the data that the Government publish, and pushed strongly for more transparency internationally, including through the international Open Government Partnership.

I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government’s transparency agenda is no substitute for, and will certainly not diminish, the important work that is being done in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. As we take the transparency agenda forward, we will push for greater openness and accountability, so that people know what is being done in their name and with their taxes.

Proactive publication needs to be complimented by an effective system that allows the public to seek information for themselves about how public authorities do their jobs. That is why the Freedom of Information Act is so important and why we are taking a number of steps, following scrutiny, to strengthen and extend it.

We are reducing from 30 to 20 years the lifespan of some of the exemptions to disclosure in the Act. That reflects and is simultaneous with the changes that we are making gradually to replace the 30-year rule under which public records are released by the National Archives with a 20-year rule. We have made secondary legislation to begin that transition over a 10-year period, and it came into effect on 1 January.

We are introducing enhanced rights to access and reuse data sets under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A public consultation on a draft code of practice to help public authorities to meet those new obligations concluded on 10 January, and the provisions will be commenced shortly.

We are taking steps to extend the Freedom of Information Act to more organisations that perform public functions and to companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities. We have already extended it to all academies, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

In our response to post-legislative scrutiny, we made it clear that we intended to conclude consultations with a wide range of other bodies, including more than 200 harbour authorities, awarding bodies, approved regulators under the Legal Services Act 2007 and 2,000 housing associations. Therefore, unless there is good reason for not doing so, we can extend the Act to any public function that they carry out. Our aim will be, where possible, to introduce secondary legislation over the next two years to implement the changes that we decide are warranted.

I am aware of some Members’ concerns about the position under the Act of contractors and other companies that provide public services. The challenge that outsourcing public services poses to transparency is real, and it is one that we have sought to address proportionately. We do not currently propose the formal extension of the Act to providers of outsourced public services. We prefer the Justice Committee’s recommendation that contractual transparency clauses be used and enforced to ensure that freedom of information obligations are met.

We strongly encourage public authorities and contractors alike to go further than the minimum requirements in the Act and voluntarily to provide more information. To that end, we will issue guidance that sets out the circumstances in which we want to see further information released. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and the shadow Minister raised powerful concerns about this issue, but I reassure them that if our proposals do not have the desired effect, formal extension of the Act can be considered and is always possible.

We have sought to balance the need for transparency with the need to minimise burdens on business and to encourage active participation by bodies large and small in the provision of public services. Some people might not consider that enough, but it is a light-touch, good approach requiring the co-operation of public authorities and contractors alike. As I said, however, if that approach yields insufficient dividends, we will consider what other steps we need to take to ensure accountability, and that includes formal extension. I hope that provides reassurance.

Let me now turn to the Act’s cost. Despite the many benefits that the Act has brought, we cannot ignore concerns about the burdens that it imposes on public authorities. That is especially important in the current challenging financial climate and at a time when more freedom of information requests than ever are being received. Central Government received 47,000 initial applications in 2011, at a cost of £8.5 million in staff time alone. Local authorities and other public bodies are also affected. We aim to focus our efforts on the disproportionate burdens placed on public authorities by what we call industrial users of the Act.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am listening carefully to the Minister, especially on this part of her speech. I do not recall any local authority that gave evidence to the Committee saying that the costs were prohibitive. Perhaps she is over-stressing that aspect.

[Mrs Grant]

Whether or not I am over-stressing them, these matters will be considered in great detail through consultation, and there will be ample opportunity for others to have an input and become involved.

Our research indicates that a very small number of requests contribute to a relatively large proportion of the cost of freedom of information: 8% of requests to central Government cost more than £500 to answer and make up 32% of total staff costs. The Justice Committee recognised that issue in recommending a small reduction in the cost limit beyond which requests need not be complied with. We believe that would result in only the most minimal reduction in costs, so we will consider whether to go further.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised consideration time, and the shadow Minister raised thinking time. We recognise, of course, the practical difficulties in including such tasks, but they are worth considering to find out what might be done.

The introduction of fees for tribunals has also been raised by Members today, and we will certainly consider what we can do to recover the costs associated with the running of tribunals, but we do not think anything that we do will impede access to justice. We will also consider other ways to reduce burdens fairly and proportionately, including addressing where one person or group of people use the Act to make unrelated requests to the same public authority so frequently that it becomes an inappropriate burden.

I assure Members that whatever measures we ultimately decide to take, we will have regard to the need to reduce burdens without an excessive impact on transparency. An example of that is our decision in the post-legislative scrutiny response not to introduce new fees for answering freedom of information requests. To do so would both deter the legitimate use of the Freedom of Information Act and prove expensive for public authorities to administer.

The third key area addressed by post-legislative scrutiny was the protection afforded to highly sensitive information. The Government welcome and share the Committee’s conclusion that it was Parliament’s clear intention that the Act should protect safe space for policy formulation and Cabinet discussion. That issue has rightly been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I note his and other hon. Members’ references to the allegation of a possible chilling effect.

We agree with the Committee that the current system of protection in the Freedom of Information Act, including exemptions for the disclosure of information and the availability of the veto, has generally worked well. We share the Committee’s view that new absolute exemptions are not necessary. Although we are committed to transparency, so that any freedom of information regime can operate effectively, it is right that we keep under review the protection given to genuinely sensitive information. Effective government depends on the protection of the principle of collective responsibility and the ability of both Ministers and officials to provide advice freely, frankly and with candour.

We have announced our intention to review and, as appropriate, revise the Government’s published policy on the use of the veto. The policy is designed to assist where use of the veto is considered in respect of information that relates to Cabinet collective responsibility. However, no limitation in the Freedom of Information Act prevents the veto being used for other information. Indeed, the Government have concluded that its use was justified in other contexts on more than one occasion last year. Accordingly, we propose to consider whether the veto policy can be adapted both in terms of the process for its use and to offer greater clarity and reassurance on its ability to be used in appropriate cases that do not involve Cabinet-related information.

Other changes that we will introduce to improve the operation of the Freedom of Information Act will require a combination of primary and secondary legislation.

Legal Aid

Debate between Helen Grant and Elfyn Llwyd

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I will truncate my remarks because other Members wish to speak.

I do not wish to trump the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but I have 35 years’ experience of family and criminal legal matters, and I have been publicly and privately funded. However, I totally agree with most of what he said, and when people agree across the House, there is obviously something to worry about because there is a problem. The hon. Gentleman laid out some important facts. Like me, he is a member of the Justice Committee, and he made several of the points I was going to make.

I really wish that the Government would slow down. Many of their proposed changes, including those we are discussing today, are being rushed, and there is not adequate time for real consultation. Yes, there have been 5,000 consultees in this case, but the consultation has been a rushed job, and it has left a real fear out there. For example, Desmond Hudson, the chief executive of the Law Society, has said:

“If the government persists with these proposals it would represent a sharp break from the long-standing bipartisan consensus that effective access to justice is essential to underpin the rule of law.”

To that I say, “Hear, hear.”

Given the time constraints, I will confine myself to family law, although I recognise that there are problems in relation to immigration law, welfare law, housing law and many other parts of the social welfare legal system. As has been said, a mistake has been made, albeit one whose consequences were not imagined at the time. The way in which the qualification criterion relating to violence has been framed is utterly unworkable. As a practitioner, like the hon. Member for South Swindon, I have seen accusations made for various reasons, and it is as sure as the fact that I am standing here that people will make accusations of violence simply to avail themselves of a legal aid certificate, that being the only way in which they will be able to get representation.

Victims of violence may be brought to court by those seeking to continue their control over them. As has been said, we need to look at the definition. It could cover abuse, including mental abuse and all kinds of other dominant abuse. It will not always be male on female, but it will mostly be. To use European parlance, there will be an inequality of arms, which will, in effect, mean that if one party can afford a lawyer, and the other party is honest enough to say that there has been no violence, that party will not avail herself—it will probably be a woman—of any assistance. That must be wrong.

I accept, by the way, that mediation is a good step forward in some ways. It has been tried for many years in relation to a great number of issues, including some that are as far from the one we are discussing as multimillion-pound shipping contracts; indeed, it seems that London is the mediation capital of the world, and good luck to the lawyers involved. However, the issue before us is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I have received dozens, if not hundreds, of letters from lawyers practising in this field. Every time a lawyer claims that the loss of legal aid will damage members of the public, that is thought to be special pleading on behalf of the lawyer. Let us cut to the chase: legal aid lawyers have not had an increase in fees for the past 11 years, so anyone wanting to become a fat cat would not open a legal aid practice. As a lawyer yourself, Mr Weir, I suspect that you know that, too, although you should not get involved in the debate. This is not a question of self-serving special pleading; the people we are talking about are dedicated to providing a service, and as anyone will know if they have been in court when there has been the possibility that a family will be permanently broken up and one party will never see the children again—I have been in court on such occasions—such cases are very fraught and emotionally charged.

[Mrs Grant]

The proposals also rely on judges, chairmen of tribunals and magistrates having the time to give advice to litigants in person. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that time simply does not exist? Judges already have back-to-back lists. To give an example from Kent, there is already a five-month waiting list to see a judge for parents who are being denied access to their children. That is totally unacceptable for any parent.