Petitions
Tuesday 5 February 2008
observations
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Farepak
The Petition of those affected by the collapse of Farepak,
Declares that the collapse of Farepak in October 2006 caused 122,000 people to lose their Christmas savings; that many families suffered financially and emotionally from that loss; and that they deserve reimbursement. Furthermore, it has been over a year since the collapse of Farepak and it is unlikely, according to the administrators, that any money will be paid back to its customers by Christmas this year.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Prime Minister to speed up the process of paying money back to the affected customers before Christmas this year; and further urges that if any culpability is found against any of the directors of Farepak that action will be taken and will he ensure that previous honours bestowed to them, if any, will be removed.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Jessica Morden , Official Report, 12 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 432 .] [P000082]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform:
Shortly after the collapse of Farepak Food & Gifts Limited, in October 2006, the then Secretary of State for the DTI, Alistair Darling, confirmed that an investigation into Farepak and other companies in the European Home Retail Group had been commenced.
The question of action against any of the Directors of Farepak, or against directors of the European Home Retail Group of which it is a part, will be considered as soon as the investigation has been completed. Such action could take the form of prosecution, disqualification and/or disclosure of information to the Accountancy & Actuarial Discipline Board (AIDE) regarding the conduct of those directors who are accountants. The AIDE has announced its own investigation into the conduct of certain members of professional accountancy bodies who were involved in the events leading up to the collapse of European Home Retail and Farepak.
Ministers cannot intervene in the conduct of the individual Insolvency procedure, which is subject to the overall supervision of the court. The liquidators continue to work closely with the Creditors Committee, which represents the 122,000 creditors.
The liquidators have advised that there are a number of factors which mean they cannot say when a dividend can be paid.
The liquidators are still pursuing monies for the benefit of creditors. For example, as previously
reported, in the days leading up to the collapse of Farepak, the directors tried to establish a Trust to ring fence money paid by creditors. However, the Trust was not set up correctly so the administrators applied to Court to determine whether the Trust is valid. The length of time this process takes is now in the hands of the Courts.
Because of the extremely large number of creditors, paying out a dividend will inevitably be a costly process. The liquidators have always sought to work in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible in order to maximise the funds available to creditors. Therefore they are working to ensure that, as far as possible, all monies are realised before paying the dividend, in order to keep the administration costs involved in this process to a minimum and to maximise funds available to creditors.
All 122,000 agents' and customers' claims must be finalised before a payment can be made. As well as processing claims, the liquidators' staff have had a huge task in verifying claims and double checking that claims have not been duplicated by agents and customers. This work so far has reduced claims by approximately 2.25 million for the benefit of creditors. In some cases customers and agents have been written to in order to check details of their claim and some of the responses from these customers are still outstanding.
Justice
Family Courts (Reform)
The Petition of Sally Ann Cooke,
Declares that Sally Ann Cooke has been imprisoned wrongly in the UK as a result of advice from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). That CAFCASS prevented her obtaining access to justice. That CAFCASS obtained a Court Order which allowed her only 3 hours contact each year. In 2006, she obtained only 2 hours contact with her daughter. CAFCASS advised that she was in need of “psychological therapy”. This “medically unfit” allegation has now been disproven by specialist medical examination.
CAFCASS prevented her moving her daughter’s medical records at the threat of having her daughter put into care.
CAFCASS did commence care proceedings, which were not supported by social services. CAFCASS requested that her place at school be kept open, which the education authority refused, as she had moved out of the area.
The Petitioner wishes to have the case reviewed in open court to enable her to prove that she is a fit and able mother and have reasonable contact with her daughter.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government legislate to create greater transparency in the family courts to prevent such miscarriages of justice in the future.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Dai Davies , Official Report, 11 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 271 .] [P000072]
Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Justice :
This petition raises some extremely serious issues and the Government make the following reply:
Complaints about the level of service received from CAFCASS rest in the first instance with the organisation itself. CAFCASS has a detailed complaint procedure in place, which can be accessed through its website at: www.CAFCASS.gov.uk/about_CAFCASS/feedback.aspx, or through any of its offices in England. The CAFCASS complaints procedures offer the opportunity for any service users, whatever their status in a case, to raise concerns with CAFCASS about how CAFCASS has worked with them.
If Ms Sally Ann Cooke has already submitted a written complaint to CAFCASS but is not happy with the way it was handled, she could refer her complaint to her Member of Parliament who can then contact the independent parliamentary and health service ombudsman on her behalf. This ombudsman deals with the complaints of members of the public who feel that they have suffered unjustly because of the maladministration by Government Departments and public sector organisations like CAFCASS. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reviews cases when concerns are raised about how complaint procedures have been applied in any given matter. It can examine how CAFCASS has handled situations, but cannot comment on professional opinions and outcomes in court proceedings. As such there is a provision for complainants to make representations to CAFCASS itself in respect of the handling of their case by CAFCASS.
CAFCASS and Mr Dai Davies MP have informed my officials that the case of Ms Sally Ann Cooke is currently before a court. It would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in this matter or comment on the facts of the case.
The petitioner requests that the case of Sally Ann Cooke be reviewed in open court. The decision to review and hold a case in open court is a judicial matter for the courts to decide on a case by case basis. Such decisions would necessarily need to be made by the court based on its consideration of the best interests of the child. This would include the consideration that publicity around the case could in fact be harmful to the child whilst at the same time being desired by the mother. There are of course appellate procedures open to any person dissatisfied with the outcome of a judicial decision in family or any other matters.
Finally, the petitioner urges the Government to legislate to create greater transparency in family courts. The Government have undertaken two public consultations on this important issue. In 2006, the then Department for Constitutional Affairs published the consultation paper, “Confidence and Confidentiality: Improving Transparency and Privacy in Family Courts”. In that paper we asked for views on a range of proposals, in particular to allow the media into family courts as of right. Responses varied considerably. Responses from the media supported the proposal to allow the media automatic access into courts. Children, young people and the organisations that protect, support and represent them all indicated that allowing the media automatic access could jeopardise children’s rights to privacy and anonymity.
Respondents to the first consultation also wanted more information about the family courts and the decisions they make, and rules about who can attend and what can be reported to be simple and consistent across the different tiers of family courts.
They also wanted children involved in proceedings to have information retained for them until they are adults.
These responses informed our second consultation, “Confidence and Confidentiality: Openness in Family Courts—a New Approach”, which was published in June 2007. The second consultation paper set out our new approach, which focuses on improving openness not by the number of people going into family courts, but by the amount and quality of information coming out. It also announced that the Government would make the rules on attendance and reporting the same across the family courts; and allow the media and others with an interest in a case to apply to attend.
The Government also announced that a pilot was to be set up, with the purpose of providing better information to people involved in family proceedings. This information will be given to the parties involved and retained for the children involved to access when they are adults.
We remain committed to improving the openness of family courts but we are not prepared to jeopardise the privacy of children to achieve this. We are still considering the outcome of our second consultation and what further steps to take. We will publish our response in the spring.
Olympics
2012 Olympic Tax Levy
The Petition of Members of Bexley Pensioners' Forum and others,
Declares that they object to the “Olympic Tax Levy” on London Council tax payers, without their consent. The London 2012 Olympic Games plans submitted to the International Olympic Committee emphasised that the 2012 Olympic Games would, and must be, of benefit to all areas of the United Kingdom. That being the case, Londoners should not be the only section of the UK population to have a special Olympic Tax imposed on them.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to reconsider the impostition of the Olympic Tax on Londoners and further caps any losses being passed on to London Council taxpayers.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. David Evennett , Official Report, 4 December 2007; Vol. 468, c. 805 .] [P000071]
Observations from the Minister for the Olympics and London:
The Government and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games are working hard to ensure the benefits of the
Games reach across the UK via volunteering, business and employment, tourism, culture. As can be seen from previous Games, all host cities contribute to their cost on a varying scale and the benefits will be felt most in London as the host city. They for example have triggered an unprecedented investment in London's future, which is why Londoners are being asked to make their fair contribution towards the Games, as the Mayor believes is right. The council tax remains at this time the only mechanism for this to be achieved.
In June 2003 Government and the Mayor agreed that the London council-tax payer will contribute £625 million to the Games—this has not changed and it could only be changed with the agreement of the Government and the Mayor. However the Mayor has made it quite clear that he thinks it would be wrong for there to be any further contribution to the cost of the Games from the council tax, effectively freezing the Olympic element of the council tax precept.
As London will be a major beneficiary of the Games and its legacy, it is considered fair that Londoners should contribute to the costs, and this is reflected in the revised Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the Government and the Mayor on 27 June 2007.
The London Games will be the biggest regeneration project in Europe. And for the first time in Olympic history, the Games themselves and the legacy are part of the same overall plan. The Lower Lea Valley - the site for the Olympic Park—is scarred by derelict, polluted land and many generations of under-investment. It is also home to some of the most deprived communities in the country. The Olympics project provides a real opportunity to concentrate the regeneration ambitions of the Thames Gateway in the Lower Lea Valley and accommodate the growth of London as a world city in a sustainable way.
Following the announcement of the revised budget for the Games in March 2007, the Exchequer—funded by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom - is meeting 64% of the costs, the Lottery 23%, the London council tax payers 7%, and the London Development Agency 6%.
The Olympics attracts broad cross-party support. It is welcomed across London and the UK. In a recent survey over 80% of Londoners were enthusiastic towards the Games, and thought that it would have a positive effect on London.
The revised funding package announced on March 2007 included a provision of over £2 billion for contingency.
| Index | Home Page |