| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
18 Jun 2009 : Column WS73
18 Jun 2009 : Column WS73
18 Jun 2009 : Column WS73
Thursday 18 June 2009
Armed Forces: Recruitment
Statement
The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bill Rammell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
Today I welcome publication of the first report by Ofsted on the quality of welfare and duty of care for recruits and trainees in the Armed Forces. Following up on the work previously undertaken by the Adult Learning Inspectorate, Ofsted has been engaged in inspecting the recruit journey from Armed Forces recruitment and careers offices through the selection process and into training.
Having implemented a number of policy and process changes designed to improve the training environment and the support provided to individuals and reduce the risk to recruits and trainees, the Armed Forces are committed to a programme of continuous improvement which is supported by external inspection. This report, the first by Ofsted, draws on the evidence gathered by inspectors over a 15-month period of visits. It includes judgments on the provision of welfare and duty of care; on the capacity to improve; and on how well the Armed Forces are undertaking self-assessment activity. Self-assessment is a relatively new concept for much of the Armed Forces and, while the majority of units visited are progressing well, there remains more work to be done.
I am pleased that Ofsted concludes the overall effectiveness of the welfare and duty-of-care provision for recruits and trainees is satisfactory. The report is largely positive and shows progress on a wide range of issues. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is further room for development in a number of areas in terms of the pace of improvement and the application of consistent practice. We should not be surprised that the pressures of conducting challenging and sustained operations at a level of intensity and commitment we have not experienced for some time are manifest in some of our training establishments. We are not complacent however and remain committed to continuing to improve the way in which our recruits are trained.
The initial training environment is dynamic and we must be sure that the impact of change is fully understood, which is why we will continue to place emphasis on self-assessment. Ofsted makes a number of recommendations which, together with the findings from internal audit work, will feed into the overall continuous improvement programme.
I have today placed copies of the report, The quality of welfare and duty of care for recruits and trainees in the Armed Forces, in the Library of the House.
External inspection provides the Armed Forces with the opportunity to consider good practice from outside of the Ministry of Defence and I am grateful to the Chief Inspector of Ofsted for this report and the contribution it makes to ensure the care and welfare of recruits and trainees in the Armed Forces continue to improve.
18 Jun 2009 : Column WS74
Asset Freezing
Statement
The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners): My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ian Pearson) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The Foreign Secretary has previously provided figures for the total frozen assets in the UK under the sanctions against Burma and Zimbabwe. An aggregate figure for frozen assets is given in relation to a sanctions regime in order to ensure that principles of data protection and confidentiality are observed and the amount relating to any one individual or entity is not identifiable.
Total assets frozen in the UK under the sanctions against Iran
The total assets frozen in the UK under the EU and UN sanctions against Iran are approximately £976,110,000. This figure is the total reported frozen assets at the time sanctions were imposed and has been converted to sterling from the currencies in which it was reported using the appropriate exchange rate for the day on which it was reported.
Courts Fees
Statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bridget Prentice) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
I am today announcing the outcome of the recent consultation oncivil court fees.
The consultation paper published on 10 December 2008 proposed a package of fee increases designed to raise an additional £38 million a year in fee income. The consultation closed on 4 March 2009. Fifty-two responses were received from law professionals, local authorities, the judiciary, individuals and other stakeholder bodies.
After careful consideration of these, my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State has decided to proceed with the increases, subject to a number of adjustments to reflect particular points raised by respondents.
These changes to the charging regime in the civil courts are to be introduced in order to target taxpayers’ money more effectively while continuing to help those in financial difficulty.
They are being introduced so that fees reflect the true cost of the work done by the courts—currently subsidised by the taxpayer and fee-payers in other types of cases.
This is in the best interests of people on low incomes and of taxpayers. Those who cannot afford to pay a court fee deserve the taxpayer’s help. But court fees need to reflect the true cost of court proceedings. Together with a system that waives or reduces fees for those who cannot afford them, that is the right balance to ensure fair access to justice, fairness to the taxpayer and proper funding of courts’ running costs now and in the future.
18 Jun 2009 : Column WS75
There are changes to 30 types of civil court fee, out of the 200-plus fees in operation. Most of the changes relate to applications to enforce judgments that have already been made in debt claims between private parties, and which are recoverable from defaulters who can but will not pay their debts.
For example, the fee for sending a bailiff visit to collect a debt or seize the debtor’s goods to pay it rises to £100 (currently there are two fees of £35 and £55). The creditor pays the fee but it is then automatically added to the debt.
Fees are waived automatically for people on means-tested benefits (such as income support) or on low incomes (eg £13,000 for a single person with no children and £29,720 for a couple with four children).
People who do not meet either of those criteria can still apply to the court for a full or partial fee waiver based on an assessment of their disposable income (ie taking account of rent and other key household expenditure).
The scheme granted £23 million in full or part waivers in over 160,000 civil or family court cases in the year to October 2008 alone.
The civil and family courts are principally concerned with resolving private disputes between individuals or companies. These are not criminal cases. The Government do not believe that it is right for the taxpayer at large to continue to provide a general untargeted subsidy for resolution of these disputes in courts.
However, there currently remains a large general subsidy from the taxpayer in some areas of court business, from which all court users in those areas benefit regardless of their ability to pay. For example, magistrates’ court civil fees currently cover only 55 per cent of the cost of doing the work. The changes made will mean that fees in this area of business will in future reflect the full cost.
At the moment, fees for enforcement processes do not reflect the full cost of those processes. This means that they are effectively subsidised by the fees paid in cases where enforcement is not required. This is unfair on the creditors and debtors in those cases. It is therefore right, particularly in the current economic climate, that enforcement fees should be set to reflect the true cost.
While we are keen to ensure that those who can but will not pay are pursued effectively through the courts, we are keen to help people with debt problems to avoid court in the first place, especially in the current economic climate.
The legal process provides ample opportunity, both before and during court proceedings, for debtors to come to payment agreements with those to whom they owe money. The Government have introduced a number of initiatives to encourage and facilitate this, and in particular to ensure that debtors receive timely information about the availability of free debt and legal advice. These include:
a new requirement, introduced this April, that any business wanting to take an individual debtor to court must first write to them, including details about how to find free debt advice;18 Jun 2009 : Column WS76
If taken to court, defendants can complete an admission form and make a proposal for payment; if the claimant refuses to accept the proposal, the court will then step in and make an assessment for repayment based on the debtor’s income and expenditure. If ultimately enforcement action is required, it is right that debtors who can, but will not, pay face the full cost of their decision to let things get that far.
Equally, creditors should be discouraged from taking enforcement measures against vulnerable debtors who genuinely cannot afford to pay. Charging the true full cost for enforcement processes (for example, warrants or charging orders) will encourage creditors to consider more carefully whether they are throwing good money after bad. These fee changes are therefore a further measure to help those in financial difficulties by discouraging inappropriate or premature enforcement process against them.
In light of the responses to consultation, my right honourable friend has decided to make a number of changes to the proposals on which we consulted. The details of all these are set out in the two Explanatory Memoranda accompanying the statutory instruments. There are two main changes.
First, the Lord Chancellor has decided not to align the fee payable for a detailed assessment of costs in a legally aided case with the banded fees payable in private cases. Respondents argued that this was inappropriate because legal aid assessments were simpler and significantly less time-consuming for the courts than other assessments.
Secondly, we have listened to concerns expressed about the proposal to replace the three existing fees payable in general civil proceedings in magistrates’ courts by a single up-front fee. Responses suggested that a significant proportion of these cases never required a contested hearing, and should not have to pay a fee that reflected the costs incurred by those that did. We are therefore introducing a two-stage structure, with a single application fee equal to the existing three fees, and a second fee payable only once there is a contested hearing.
Three statutory instruments containing the new civil, family, magistrates’ court fees were laid before Parliament today and will come into effect on 13 July 2009. A report summarising the responses to the consultation paper in more detail is also being published today.
18 Jun 2009 : Column WS77
Diplomatic Immunity: Serious Offences
Statement
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
In 2008, 10 serious offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Serious offences are defined as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment. Some 25,000 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom.
The table below lists those foreign missions whose diplomats allegedly committed serious offences and the type of offence from 2004-08.
- * Details have been withheld because the number of diplomatic personnel in the mission(s) concerned is/are so small that disclosure would lead to the identification of the individual concerned. This would breach the data protection rights of that individual, in particular, the first data protection principle, namely, that personal data should be processed fairly. This is because the offences are only alleged to have been committed and have not been proven in a court of law. In these circumstances, Section 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act confer an absolute exemption on disclosure of this information.
Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Unpaid Congestion Charge and Fines
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |