Justice Committee
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
Contents |
What the Committee does
The Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, policy and administration of the Ministry of Justice
Relevant inquiries and publications
Below are a selection of the inquiries and reports published by the Committee that relate to the work of Charter 88 and the New Politics Network. For full details of the Committee's work please see its website..
Devolution: A decade on
 Our View Unlock Democracy believes that power should be devolved to the lowest possible level. The devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been a significant achievement. However a decade on governance in the UK remains highly centralised. We believe that devolution must be an ongoing dialogue rather than a one off reform. There should be an open and transparent process for citizens or devolved assemblies to request additional powers and if there is popular support for this proposal it should not be able to be blocked by central government. Citizens should also be given the right to petition for further decentralisation of power using the mechanism that is already in place for elected Mayors. While we welcome devolution it is also important to recognise that it has created an underlying instability within the UK constitution that needs to be addressed. If a government was elected that did not have a majority of MPs in England but passed laws that applied only to England, this could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis. Unlock Democracy is in favour of devolution of power to the English regions but we recognise that there may need to be a wider package of measures to address the English questions and that this could include the creation of an English Grand Committee. England needs to have the same debates about government, power and identity that have already taken place in Scotland and Wales. We believe there should be a constitutional convention to address the issue of governance in the UK at the earliest opportunity. |
2007 marks the tenth anniversary of the devolution referenda which resulted in the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. The impact of devolution on the politics and governance of the constituent parts of the UK where it has been implemented cannot be underestimated, and has been the focus of much political and academic interest. However, asymmetric devolution has also had a considerable impact on the centre, and in particular on the practices and procedures of Westminster and Whitehall. A decade on, the Constitutional Affairs Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into the impact of devolution at the UK level, and its consequences for the United Kingdom’s constitution.
In doing so, the inquiry will focus on some major questions: what problems and issues have arisen? What outstanding issues remain to be addressed? What does the future hold? The inquiry will therefore examine the condition of the UK’s constitution a decade on.
The Terms of Reference for the inquiry are as follows:
1. Westminster: How does Parliament deal with devolution issues, e.g. legislating for Scotland and Wales.
2. What issues remain outstanding, e.g. ‘the English question.’
3. Whitehall: What impact has devolution had on Whitehall? Has there been a change in culture? How have they responded to the divergence in policy making? How have the Concordats developed, and are they working?
4. Intergovernmental relations: How are bodies such as the British Irish Council working? What about representation at the EU level?
5. What is the future of the current Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Are the current arrangements for the Wales and Scotland offices within the DCA appropriate?
6. Devolution and the Courts: have there been legal disputes in the context of devolved/reserved issues and policy divergence?
7. What are the other outstanding issues around reserved and devolved issues? How could these be best resolved? Is the UK’s model of asymmetric devolution sustainable?
8. What are the broader consequences of devolution for the future of the UK’s constitution?
Evidence session on 13th May
Giving evidence during the Justice Committees ninth meeting on Devolution: A decade on was Jack Straw MP, (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State Ministry of Justice) and Jim Gallagher, (Head of Devolution in the Ministry of Justice) made a statement regarding the Government’s position on devolution.
The session was an opportunity to raise the issues and questions that have arisen during the course of the Committee’s inquiry, and to put them to the Secretary of State for Justice and the senior UK official responsible for devolution policy.
Jack Straw opened the meeting, explaining that Cabinet has the co-ordinating role in terms of monitoring the devolution process, but responsibility sits with the Ministry of Justice. Three territorial departments monitor Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Jim Gallagher explained the role of central government in the devolutionary process, providing settlement, which is the responsibility of Secretaries of States and their departments. Strategy of devolution - tied into the functioning of the state as a whole, which the government is involved, is combined with the co-ordination of business in each of the devolved administrations. Primarily the role is that of co-ordinating departmental work.
A key issue raised in the meeting was the role of the Barnett formula, a mechanism used by the Treasury to automatically adjust elements of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to reflect decisions affecting other parts of the country. The committee heard evidence regarding the Barnett Formula, which was has been employed for a decade.
Jack Straw stated that Lord Barnett should be pleased his formula has proven to be extremely durable. The Cabinet intends to publish papers on the operation of the formula by the summer and the Calman Inquiry is looking at issues of expenditure to consider any changes that need be made. A much bigger problem is a needs assessment, which will change each year, such as police grants, and the internal problems they carry. A formula that deals with much larger populations would be much better left to those with devolved responsibilities.
Professor Jefferies criticised the governments “piecemeal approach” to devolution which he clustered into one problem - what is the UK’s new role - what should the role of the centre be how should the centre relate to other nations to come together as a whole?
Jack Straw believed this assessment to be entirely wrong, claiming that it was not a piecemeal approach. In terms of the settlement devolution became encapsulated in the 1998 Act, which was subject of great debate in Scotland over a period of six to seven years. No settlement is perfect and this was thought through very carefully, discussed extensively in parliament, and according to Jack Straw has ‘stood the test of time but may need to be amended in the future’. The question was, ‘now you have devolution, what is the Union for?’ Many unions where there are coherent entities as countries have degrees of devolution within them and still are able to recognise their common loyalty with their country as a whole and their states within them.
Unlock Democracy submits evidence to devolution inquiry
Unlock Democracy submitted written evidence to the inquiry in May 2007
Unlock Democracy believes that power should be devolved to the lowest possible level. The devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been a significant achievement.
However a decade on governance in the UK remains highly centralised. We believe that devolution must be an ongoing dialogue rather than a one off reform. There should be an open and transparent process for citizens or devolved assemblies to request additional powers and if there is popular support for this proposal it should not be able to be blocked by central government. Citizens should also be given the right to petition for further decentralisation of power using the mechanism that is already in place for elected Mayors.
While we welcome devolution it is also important to recognise that it has created an underlying instability within the UK constitution that needs to be addressed. If a government was elected that did not have a majority of MPs in England but passed laws that applied only to England, this could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis.
Unlock Democracy is in favour of devolution of power to the English regions but we recognise that there may need to be a wider package of measures to address the English questions and that this could include the creation of an English Grand Committee.
England needs to have the same debates about government, power and identity that have already taken place in Scotland and Wales. We believe there should be a constitutional convention to address the issue of governance in the UK at the earliest opportunity.
Party Funding
The Constitutional Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into the system of Funding of Political Parties. Its aim is to establish how well the current system is working and the practicability of any possible reforms.
It will take public evidence from the main stakeholders involved in the operation or review of the current system, including both public funding and private donations or loans, as well as possible changes to the system including an increased element of State funding.
The Committee will take oral evidence from party fundraisers, major donors to political parties and representatives of grassroots activists. It will also take evidence from Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor and Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission.
The Terms of Reference for the inquiry will be as follows:
- To consider the current system and to establish how well it is working and what reforms are required, for example whether a cap should be placed on party funding.
- To consider whether any further safeguards are necessary to ensure transparency and propriety in party funding.
- To consider possible alternative funding methods.
Freedom of Information - One Year On
Committee responds to new fee proposals
Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee criticised the Government proposals to amend the Freedom of Information Fees Regulations to allow public authorities to include reading, consideration and consultation time in calculating the appropriate limit above which requests could be refused on cost grounds. He reiterated the Committee's opinion that they see no need to change the FOI Fees Regulations.
- "This is a measure which is open to abuse by authorities. Authorities would have the discretion to decide how long they needed to consider whether to release information and we are concerned that requesters could be denied access to information whenever authorities considered it would take them too long to provide it. In the same way, if public authorities were permitted to aggregate requests made by any one requester for the purposes of calculating these limits, it could arbitrarily exclude otherwise legitimate requests, just because the requester was seeking other information from that authority at the same time.
- "These changes, if implemented, would fly in the face of the Government's stated desire of encouraging an open culture and have the potential to block important requests where it would be in the public interest to disclose information"
Government responds to CASC report
The Government published its response to the CASC report on the 16th October and welcomed the overall assessment of the Committee that the implementation of the FoI Act has been a significant success.
The Government notes the Committees recommendations and conclusions. It will:
- publish data in the monitoring statistics to show how often and by how much the 20-day response deadline is extended by Government Departments to consider the public interest. Indeed, the first set of statistics on this issue were published by DCA on 29 September 2006;
- examine the viability of publishing in the monitoring statistics central Government Departments target times and success rates for determining internal reviews;
- initiate a review and revision of the code of practice on records management under s.46 of the FOI Act in order to update it for the rapidly changing world of digital records.
Lord Falconer, thee Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, said
- "Freedom of Information has benefited the people - that's what it was intended for and we need to continue to build on its success.:
- "But Freedom of Information has to be balanced with good government. It would be wrong not to make adjustments in light of experience and make sure we get the balance right between the provision of services and the provision of information."
The DCA has also published an independent review of the impact of FoI by economic consultants Frontier Economics. The review examined the cost of delivering FoI across central government and the wider public sector and options for changes to the fees regime.
The Government is considering changes that will allow the inclusion of reading time, consideration time and consultation time in the calculation of the appropriate limit (600) above which requests could be refused on cost grounds; and a greater ability to aggregate requests.
The Government is not minded to introduce a flat rate fee.
Report Published
The Constitutional Affairs Committee published its report into the progress of the new Freedom of Information Act on 26th June, just over a year after it was enacted.
The Committee found that the legislation is effective and has led to the release of significant and valuable information. However, they expressed concern over the time it has taken for some requesters to obtain information, with months taken to assess public interest factors and internal reviews in some organisations being delayed indefinitely .
CASC argues that this is contrary to the spirit of the Act and welcomes a commitment from the Information Commissioner to adopt a firmer approach to enforcement.
The Committee also finds that the complaints resolution provided by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) during 2005 was unsatisfactory, with many requesters and public authorities having to wait months for the Commissioner to even begin investigating their complaints. The quality of some investigations was also found to be inadequate.
The Committee is not convinced the relationship between DCA and the ICO is working effectively. It recommends that the Government consider making the Information Commissioner directly accountable to, and funded by, Parliament.
The Committee also expressed concern that there is apparent complacency in Government about preserving digital records, indicating a lack of leadership in improving records management in public authorities. There is a serious possibility that electronic records over 10 years old will essentially become irretrievable as data degrades and technology moves on, and no satisfactory long term strategy has been implemented to manage this problem.
Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee, said:
- "Our FOI legislation can only be as good as the quality of the records management it gives us access to, and only if people can get access to the information in a timely way. Long delays in accessing information or having complaints resolved go against both the spirit and the letter of the Act, and must be resolved. Records management, and particularly digital records management, must be improved.:
