Property/affairs: Missing Persons

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written statement.

“I am pleased to announce that following its consideration of the responses to the consultation paper published by the Ministry of Justice on 27 August 2014 the Government have decided to create the new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person.

The Government strongly support the creation of the new legal status and will now prepare the necessary primary and secondary legislation and guidance to enable the proposed scheme to be implemented as quickly as possible. In this task we will continue to work with stakeholders to design a scheme that can be implemented at minimum cost and operated with minimum problems.

The timing of the introduction of the legislation will be decided by Ministers in the next Parliament. Nonetheless, given the importance of this measure, the strong support to date from all sides and its own commitment to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, the Government hope that legislation will be brought forward without delay in the new Parliament.

The key features of the proposed scheme will be:

A guardian will be required to act in the best interests of the missing person and in this respect will be subject to duties similar to those of a trustee.

The guardian will be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and will be required to file accounts in much the same way as a deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

A guardian will be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest in the property and affairs of the missing person.

The appointment will be for a period of up to four years with the possibility of applying for an extension for up to another four years.

The replies to the consultation are described and analysed in the response paper published by the Ministry of Justice today.

I have placed a copy of the response paper in the Library of each House of Parliament. It is also is available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk.”

[HCWS449]

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

3. When he next plans to meet representatives from (a) the Law Society and (b) the Bar Council to discuss legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Throughout the development of the “Transforming Legal Aid” package of reform, my officials and I regularly met the Law Society, the Bar Council and other members of the legal profession. Officials from the Department and the Legal Aid Agency continue to be in regular contact with the representative bodies as we implement the reforms.

[Mr Bellingham]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that I represent a number of constituents involved with family law cases, including one young mother who is contesting adoption proceedings? She received legal aid for the substantive hearing, but she is now appealing and, unfortunately, cannot get legal aid. Has he made any assessment of the impact of the cost in respect of litigants in person within the family division? Without increasing the overall legal aid budget, will he consider some reallocation of resources within it to solve this particular problem?

[Mr Vara]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and say to him that we do have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world and we have made sure that we provide legal aid assistance for those who need it.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

In a previous Question Time, I raised the problem of victims of domestic abuse apparently being deterred from going to law because of the cuts in legal aid. Has the Minister discussed the matter with representatives of the law authorities? Does he have any statistics to confirm these reports?

[Mr Vara]

We have paid particular attention to those who have been victims of domestic violence and we are very keen that, wherever possible, we will give legal aid to make sure that people get out of the abusive relationships in which they are caught.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Following on from that, on how many occasions have victims of domestic violence had their legal aid funding stopped because of the rule changes for evidence now being more than two years old? The Minister must have that information to hand.

[Mr Vara]

What I will tell the hon. Gentleman is that this issue has been the subject of a huge amount of misunderstanding among the wider public, not least because of the misinformation imparted by people such as himself. On two occasions we have increased the criteria on the required evidence, once during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and subsequently when we found that more evidence was required.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on reducing the legal aid budget

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

In 2009-10, as this Government took office, £2.2 billion was spent on legal aid. Following our two major reform programmes, spend has fallen to £1.7 billion in 2013-14 and is expected to fall to about £1.5 billion once the reforms have fully worked through the system.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Minister for that answer. A month ago in the High Court, Lord Justice Laws described the Government’s proposal to have two-tier contracting as reasonable, “proportionate” and a “proper way” to proceed. The case has now gone to the Court of Appeal and a decision is expected imminently. Can the Minister confirm that, subject to that decision, he will be proceeding in this Parliament with a tendering process and not be constrained by what appears to be legal time wasting?

[Mr Vara]

Having successfully defended a challenge in the High Court, we robustly defended our position in the Court of Appeal and are awaiting judgment. If the appeal is dismissed, it is our intention to continue the tender that is currently subject to an injunction as soon as possible.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Given the reductions in legal aid, can the Minister say whether there has been a rise or a fall in the number of litigants in person?

[Mr Vara]

I believe there has been a rise in litigants in person, but the Government have also made a huge amount of provision to cater for that. I also say to the hon. Lady and Opposition Front Benchers, who have never said that they are going to reverse the cuts that we have made, that we need a legal aid system that is sustainable, for the people who need it, for the legal providers and for the taxpayers who pay for it.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Has the Minister noted the Justice Committee’s conclusion that although the Government had achieved the cost reduction, there was some transfer of cost to other budgets and far too little availability of the exceptional cases fund, and that mediation, far from increasing, had actually dropped?

[Mr Vara]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question? As far as exceptional funding is concerned, the giveaway is in the title. The fund is meant to be exceptional, but some people have seen it as a discretionary fund. Not surprisingly, therefore, the numbers involved in it have been few.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is retiring at the end of this Parliament. Let me say what a pleasure it has been to work with him. I may not always have agreed with him, but working with him has always been a pleasure, and I wish him well for the future.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister should listen to the Chair of the Justice Committee and read his report that found that the Government had failed in three of their four objectives for legal aid: they have not discouraged unnecessary litigation; they have not targeted legal aid to those who need it the most; and they have not delivered better value for money for the taxpayer. That is what the report says. Does the Minister agree that that abject failure is a fitting epitaph for the least competent Lord Chancellor since the Reformation?

[Mr Vara]

It is always helpful if shadow Ministers do their homework. The proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers were achieved by the previous Lord Chancellor. As far as his comment on the Justice Committee’s report is concerned, I do not hear him or his boss saying that they will be reversing any of the cuts that we have made. If they want to do that, the shadow Chancellor will have plenty of opportunity so to do in due course.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's oversight of claims-handling companies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Tackling bad practices by claims management companies is a priority for the Department’s claims management regulator. Recent measures taken to strengthen the effectiveness regulation include tougher rules to crack down on malpractice and a new power to impose financial penalties on CMCs that break the rules. Since regulation began in 2007, the licences of more than 1,200 CMCs have been removed. Between April and December 2014, we stepped up enforcement action, with 338 CMCs being warned for poor conduct or having their licences removed.

[John Mann]

The whole country is sick of these companies ringing up day and night leaving answerphone messages and harassing pensioners. When it comes to PPI mis-selling, they are taking half the money that is due to decent people purely for writing a letter to a bank asking it to investigate the matter. We need to expose the sham of these companies more effectively, because, across the country, people are losing out and are getting increasingly sick of their behaviour.

[Mr Vara]

I agree that many people are very upset with the behaviour of those companies. In fact, millions of people are upset with what is happening. This is something that requires joined-up activity. The claims management regulator is working closely with the primary enforcement agencies at the Information Commissioner’s office and at Ofcom to investigate practices and take firm enforcement action against rogue companies. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that much work on nuisance calls has already been done and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading on reforms in this area. Last year, for example, the Department published a joint action plan, involving all the relevant regulators, including the Information Commissioner’s office, Ofcom and the claims management regulator.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

7. What his strategy is for supporting victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

9. What steps he plans to take to ensure access to justice regardless of ability to pay.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Government’s reform programme to promote access to justice aims to deliver a justice system that is more accessible to the public. It aims to support people in resolving their disputes through simpler, more informal remedies, and to limit the scope for inappropriate litigation and the involvement of lawyers in issues which do not need legal input.

[Julie Hilling]

Let me give the Minister one more chance to answer a question on last week’s Justice Committee report on the civil legal aid cuts, which revealed that the Government have failed to achieve all three of their targets. Can the Minister confirm that there has been an underspend in the legal aid budget, and that exceptional case funding has failed to achieve the aim of protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable?

[Mr Vara]

For the benefit of the hon. Lady, let me say once again that if it were not for the Government whom she supported causing the mess that they did, we would not have been obliged to make the cuts we have had to make. Despite making them, we still have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell the House how our legal aid budget compares internationally?

[Mr Vara]

As I said, we compare very favourably internationally. We have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, and that is after the cuts have come through.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

It is a fact that the Government’s cuts to legal aid have denied thousands access to legal advice. The Government’s changes to tribunal and court fees are having an additional impact on women and other vulnerable groups. The number of victims of domestic violence receiving legal aid has fallen significantly, and the number of sex discrimination claims is down by 90%. Unless the Government genuinely believe that this is an indication of significant improvements to society—that it indicates less domestic violence and less sex discrimination—women are being denied access to justice. Will the Government agree to an urgent review of the impact of the changes they have made on women and other vulnerable groups?

[Mr Vara]

In that very long contribution from the right hon. Gentleman, it is regrettable that not once did he say that if he were Lord Chancellor, he would reverse the cuts we have made. That sums up where the Opposition are: they are happy to object, they are happy to write articles—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman points to the public. I point to the public as well, and I say that nowhere did the right hon. Gentleman say that Labour would reverse the cuts we have made. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must calm down. The right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is a distinguished ornament of this House, a celebrated figure, a former Minister. Decorum, I remind her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the outcome of the pilots of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Recorded pre-trial cross-examination is designed to help vulnerable witnesses to give their best possible evidence and to spare them the trauma of being cross-examined in front of a jury and the public. The hon. Lady will know that we have been piloting the scheme in Liverpool, Leeds and Kingston upon Thames Crown courts, and that the pilots ended in October 2014. Interim findings from the evaluation of the pilots are awaited, and an announcement of the plans for any future roll-out of the scheme will be made in due course.

[Ann Coffey]

I recently visited the recorder of Liverpool, Judge Goldstone, who said that the section 28 pilot in Liverpool had resulted in a sea change in culture in court: cross-examinations without the aggressive barracking and repetitive questions of defence lawyers, and impressive outcomes in the reduction of stress and anxiety in children. Does the Minister agree that if the pilot was rolled out to every court, it would hugely increase the confidence of child witnesses in the criminal justice system?

[Mr Vara]

As I have said, we are awaiting the results of the pilots. Once we have considered them, we will take the proper action and, if necessary, roll them out further.

[Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

13. How many foreign nationals have been released from prison since May 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

19. How many women who have been victims of domestic violence applied for legal aid in proceedings relating to their children in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

From July to September 2014, there were 3,097 applications for legal aid in relation to private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989. Due to the way in which data are collected, that figure includes applications where there was evidence of child abuse and applications that were made by men. I will write to the right hon. Lady to provide a breakdown of applications by gender.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I asked for the figures because the gateway into legal aid for victims of domestic violence requires them to provide evidence that they have been victims of domestic violence in the last two years. We know that abusers use child custody and access arrangements to further abuse their victims. What is the Minister doing about that?

[Mr Vara]

What the right hon. Lady does not seem to accept is that the Minister is listening. He has increased the criteria that are required. Thousands of people have successfully applied for legal aid in domestic violence cases and many more will doubtless be successful.

[Mr Speaker]

The patience of Pudsey is rewarded. I call Mr Stuart Andrew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

People with asbestos-related diseases not only have to cope with their illness, but often have a difficult court battle to get compensation. With the proposed rise in court fees, which are totally disproportionate—for example, going from £1,300 to £10,000—many claimants will be deterred. Will the Minister look again at the scale of those rises to see if they can be reduced to a more reasonable level?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Some 90% of people will not be affected by the enhanced fees, and we have waivers for people who do not qualify on financial grounds. The fees will apply only to a relatively small number of people, and even for them we have the waivers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

In 2010, the Government put on hold plans to rebuild Sunderland’s court complex, and answers to recent parliamentary questions reveal what we have always feared—that no decision was ever likely to be taken in this Parliament. What would the Minister say to people across Sunderland to explain his Government’s complete failure to make any progress in the last five years?

[Mr Vara]

I would say to the people of Sunderland: look at the record of the Labour party in government—it did absolutely nothing. We have put in place a five-year reform programme that will bring our courts into the 21st century. Her Government did not do that, but we have, and in five years, we will have the best courts in the world.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T10. My plans for the regeneration of the city of Gloucester include a new car park and entrance to Gloucester station, but they depend on a land sale agreement between the Ministry of Justice and the city council and the land’s onward leasing to First Great Western. Ministers have been sympathetic to urban regeneration. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether the MOJ has agreed an independent local valuation so that rapid progress can be made on the sale?

[Mr Vara]

I commend my hon. Friend for his diligence in pursuing this matter. He has met me, and I have corresponded with him, and he will be aware that my officials and the council’s officials are in conversation. Like him, I look forward to seeing the way forward.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary has confirmed that he will plough on with his barmy idea for two-tier contracts for criminal solicitors, so it will fall to either the Court of Appeal or my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) to kick this barmy idea into touch forever after we win the election. How does the Justice Secretary expect criminal firms and solicitors to give up 50% of their client work voluntarily? We have asked that lots of times, but we have never had an answer.

Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My noble friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written ministerial statement:

“The Government have made a priority of addressing the high costs of civil litigation in England and Wales. To that end, Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms the operation of no win no fee conditional fee agreements. Those reforms came into effect generally in April 2013, but were delayed until April 2015 in respect of insolvency proceedings (Official Report, 24 May 2012: column 94 WS). This delay was to give insolvency practitioners and other interested parties time to prepare for and adapt to the changes. However, the Government now agrees that more time is needed.

The Government will therefore delay commencing sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 for insolvency proceedings for the time being. Accordingly, no win no fee agreements in insolvency proceedings will continue for the time being to operate on a pre-LASPO Act basis with any conditional fee agreement success fees and after the event insurance premiums remaining recoverable from the losing party.

We will consider the appropriate way forward for insolvency proceedings and will set out further details later in the year.”

[HCWS303]

Enhanced Court Fees

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I am today publishing the Government response to part two of the consultation “Court Fees: proposals for reform.”

We are rightly proud of our system of justice. We have some of the best lawyers, and finest judges, in the world. That is why so many people and organisations choose to bring their disputes to this country.

The courts play a critical role in our society, providing access to justice for those who need it. It is vital that the principle of access to justice is preserved. I believe that the best way to do so is to ensure that the courts are properly funded.

We cannot have properly funded public services without a strong economy. This Government have therefore made economic recovery its top priority. Public spending must be brought under control, and the courts and justice system must bear their fair share.

I have already announced that we will be investing £375 million in the courts over the next five years to modernise services so that we can realise long-term financial savings worth over £100 million per annum by 2019/20. There is, however, only so much that can be achieved through cost efficiency measures alone. If we are to reduce the costs of the courts to the taxpayer, and protect access to justice, I am convinced that there is no alternative but to look to those who use the courts to contribute more, where they can afford to do so.

I have therefore decided to proceed with most of the proposals relating to enhanced fee charging set out in the consultation. Specifically, I have decided to introduce a fee to commence proceedings for the recovery of money of 5% of the value of the claim on claims for more than £10,000, subject to a maximum fee capped at £10,000. Setting the value of claims subject to fees at this level means that 90% of cases will not be affected by the introduction of this fee. A 10% discount will continue to be available for those issuing claims electronically. These measures will deliver an estimated £120 million in additional income, with every pound retained by the courts to invest in delivering a better service for those who use them.

Some respondents were concerned that this would affect legal services in this country, and impact on London’s position in the face of international competition. I do not accept these concerns, given that the increase in court fees proposed would have only a negligible impact on the overall cost of litigation. However, I have decided at this stage not to proceed with either of the options on which I sought views to charge higher fees for commercial proceedings.

Most respondents were particularly concerned about the proposal to raise the fee for a divorce, and having listened to those concerns, I have decided not to proceed with this proposal for the time being.

However, while I have decided not to proceed with a number of the consultation proposals, this has not changed the financial imperative to increase income to the Courts from fees. Therefore, the Government response also seek views on proposals for raising fee income from possession claims and general applications in civil proceedings. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 27 February 2015.

Increasing court fees will never be welcome. I believe, however, it is right that those who use the services should make a greater contribution towards their running costs, where they can afford to do so. I am also sure that those who choose to litigate in our courts will continue to recognise the outstanding qualities our legal services offer, and the excellent value for money they provide.

[HCWS200]

Property Boundary Disputes

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My noble friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written ministerial statement.

The Government are today publishing an initial scoping study on property boundary disputes. This fulfils a commitment given by the Ministry of Justice in response to a written parliamentary question from Charlie Elphicke MP on 14 February 2013 (Commons Hansard, 14 February 2013, Column 874W).

The scoping study was undertaken because of concern that such disputes are all too often disproportionately bitter, protracted and expensive. The study took the form of interviews with a small number of key stakeholders and the distribution of a questionnaire to 30 organisations with an interest in land law issues including boundary disputes. Input was also received during the period of the study from a number of individuals involved in boundary disputes.

The study reflects the views expressed in the responses received on the nature, frequency and causes of boundary disputes, the effectiveness of current resolution methods, and the problems that currently arise and what could be done to address them. It discusses a number of options for legal or procedural change, and concludes that the Ministry of Justice should carry out further work to assess the feasibility of improvements in a number of areas, including in particular the use of mediation and expert determination, the spreading of best practice and the provision of better information with a view to reaching more definite conclusions in 2015, but that more radical reform is not currently justified.

Copies of the scoping study are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS193]

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill: Carry-over Extension

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I beg to move,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 54 days until 30 March 2015.

As we have just concluded a debate on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, I shall keep my remarks brief. This carry-over Bill was introduced on 5 February 2014, and as set out in Standing Order No. 80A, proceedings on such a Bill will lapse 12 months from the date of its First Reading. That date is fast approaching, and although I am confident that the sensible package of amendments that the Government have offered and the House has today accepted will meet the reservations of the other place, now seems to be a sensible juncture to extend the time that we have available, as a precaution.

As hon. Members are aware, the Bill makes wide-ranging reforms to the justice system and contains targeted provisions designed to protect the public better and to reduce reoffending. The Bill has at its heart a vision of a more robust and fair justice system. With proper progress in both Houses, I am confident that we can reach Royal Assent in the coming weeks, not least by 30 March, so that the important provisions in the Bill make it on to the statute book.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

1. What steps Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is taking to ensure that urgent cases to remove trespassers from land are dealt with as quickly as possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

HMCTS treats such applications with the utmost urgency. Hearing notices are served by hand and hearings before a judge are listed urgently, normally immediately after the two days’ notice period. Warrants are enforced by bailiffs as a matter of priority.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank my hon. Friend for helping me to resolve an urgent constituency case involving a mass trespass in Letchworth, and for doing so speedily. Is it his Department’s policy, and are the courts aware, that it is vital that these cases are dealt with speedily in order to avoid the risk of nuisance to local residents, as happened in Letchworth?

[Mr Vara]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his kind comments. It was a pleasure to be able to help out in his constituency matter. He is right: there are existing processes that enable such cases to be dealt with and I am keen that they are dealt with speedily. I will certainly make sure that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is made well aware of that principle.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I would like to applaud the swift work of Basingstoke and Deane borough council in stopping unauthorised activity this year at Dixon road in my constituency, with the Crown Prosecution Service successfully prosecuting last week those who felled up to 800 trees on that site. Does the Minister agree that tougher fines might also help to deter this sort of criminal activity?

[Mr Vara]

I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating her council. We have a lot of measures to deal with trespassers. On increasing fines, we are always on the lookout for ways of improving the law and I will take that on board.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

2. What proportion of immigration and asylum appeals were made on the grounds of alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the last five years.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

In 2009-10, 10% of recorded appeals, lodged from inside the UK, raised human rights grounds; in 2010-11 the proportion was 28%; in the last three years the proportion has been 34%. Information is not available for appeals lodged from outside of the UK.

[Mr Turner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that incorporating the Human Rights Act into British legislation by the Labour party is rightly seen by the public as a disaster? It should be replaced with a Bill of Rights as soon as possible.

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend’s comments are timely given that next year we will commemorate the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta. The House will be aware that the Government agreed in the coalition agreement that no major changes would be made to the human rights framework in this Parliament, but as he rightly says, the Conservatives believe that we need major reform to the way in which human rights operate in this country. We believe that we need to curtail the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to tell our courts what to do. We have an excellent record in this area, of which we should be proud, but Conservatives believe that a new British Bill of Rights and responsibilities would remain faithful to those basic principles of human rights while restoring much-needed common sense to their application. This is a debate that we will have over the next few months and I look forward to debating it with the Opposition, when they are prepared to listen, as well as with the Lib Dems and the British public.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the Minister’s initial essay, quite a lengthy one, has been completed.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It is obvious that Magna Carta in the 13th century was a great step forward and I am glad the Minister recognises that. Will he also recognise that the European convention on human rights and the universal declaration of human rights were massive steps forward, not just for this country but for humankind? Does he not recognise that the narrative of trying to leave the European convention on human rights and the Court diminishes our human rights, the human rights of everyone in this country and the human rights of people across the continent? Will he please rethink this narrative and be slightly more sensible about the universal need for human rights?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman talks about being sensible. He will be aware that it was only very recently that the convention was amended by the Brighton declaration, which was welcomed by all the countries concerned and made sure that nation states had a greater say in their own cases. That has to be good because it means that Strasbourg can deal with the urgent cases that should be dealt with there rather than having a backlog—there is a huge queue—because nation states cannot deal with a lot of the cases that should be dealt with domestically.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I tell the Minister that my constituents in Dover and Deal feel that the level of immigration and asylum appeals that are being made undermines our border security? They want to see human rights reform to ensure that our borders are safer and more secure.

[Mr Vara]

As I said, that is a debate that we shall have very forcefully with the British people and the other parties in the months ahead.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

In relation to general human rights issues, does the Minister agree with the opinion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that non-compliance with the European convention on human rights calls into question the devolution settlements for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Vara]

My right hon. and learned Friend is a very distinguished Member, and he can speak for himself, so I do not need to comment.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

3. What recent steps he has taken to prevent fraudulent whiplash claims.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

9. What recent steps he has taken to prevent fraudulent whiplash claims; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Government are taking forward a whiplash reform programme that will deter unnecessary, exaggerated or speculative claims. Reforms to control the costs of claims were implemented on 1 October, and on 2 December we announced further plans to have independence and quality safeguards in the system for obtaining expert evidence.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

What evidence does the Minister have to demonstrate that his measures have been effective in cracking down on fraudulent whiplash claims, as it would seem that, as a nation, we are happy to allow both the profits of insurance companies and our reputation for having the weakest necks in the world to go unchallenged?

[Mr Vara]

This Government have made and continue to make major changes to deter fraudsters and reduce the number and cost of whiplash claims. We have already seen an impact from these reforms and industry data show that they have contributed to a 14% reduction in premiums since February 2012.

[Michael Fabricant]

Some years ago, I was shunted up my rear end—by a car on the M1, Mr Speaker—and I was then contacted by a number of companies that all said, “Surely you are suffering from whiplash. You should be making a claim.” Does the Minister agree that such actions are reprehensible?

[Mr Vara]

I very much hope that there are no long-lasting effects from the experience my hon. Friend had. The Government take insurance fraud very seriously and have recently set up a taskforce to tackle this important issue and drive down premiums. The taskforce will consider insurance fraud across the board, and will aim to publish an interim report by March 2015 with a final report issued by the end of 2015.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Fraudulent whiplash claims are criminal activity, plain and simple, and everybody in the House would condemn them. Will the Minister also condemn those insurance companies that created third-party capture, massively contributing to the number of these claims in the first instance? While he is at it, does he have any evidence to suggest that medical practitioners are failing their obligations under civil procedure rules—CPR—35?

[Mr Vara]

For too long, honest drivers have been bearing the cost and, with that, higher insurance premiums because of the whole issue of whiplash. Government reforms have been robust. We have set up a system whereby we hope to deter unnecessary or speculative claims and ensure that those who are genuinely injured can claim. We have clamped down hard on the insurance companies. We have been working with them, along with the medical profession and the lawyers, to try to make the system a lot better. Medical reports from now on will cost £180 and lawyers will carry out previous claims checks on potential claimants in order to combat fraudulent claims. That will, of course, impact on the insurance companies.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on the disposal of former prisons; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to improve the regulation of claims management companies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

A number of reforms have been made or are being made, including a new set of toughened rules to crack down on abuses, a new power to impose financial penalties on CMCs from later this month and extending the legal ombudsman’s remit to consumer complaints against CMCs from January 2015.

[Mr Ward]

Among other things, the bad behaviour of CMCs has contributed to car insurance premiums that are not only unacceptable, but unaffordable, particularly for many young people. Many have argued that the regulatory oversight of CMCs is simply too light. Does the Minister agree that, as the British Insurance Brokers Association has suggested, there is a strong argument that if the regulation were overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority, CMCs would have to abide by the FCA’s 11 principles of business, which would provide a more effective way of bringing down car insurance premiums?

[Mr Vara]

It is important that the hon. Gentleman bears it in mind that since 2007, when regulation began, licences of over 1,200 CMCs have been removed across sectors, and others have left the industry after the commencement of enforcement action. We have introduced tough measures. From later this month the regulator will reinforce its enforcement tools with a new power to impose financial penalties of up to 20% of a CMC’s turnover. Next month, from 28 January, we will extend the legal ombudsman’s jurisdiction to deal with complaints from clients dissatisfied with the service provided to them by authorised CMC’s. The legal ombudsman will provide a new avenue of redress for clients of CMC’s and will assist the claims management regulator in driving up poor standards and practices in the market.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps the material can be placed in the Library of the House, where it can be devoured by colleagues at their leisure in the long winter evenings that lie ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T9. Since the Government introduced employment tribunal fees, there has been a drop of 84% in the number of women who have been able to bring discrimination claims. Does the Minister accept that, because of the up-front fees of £1,200, many women are being denied justice under his Government?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The situation is a lot more complex than the hon. Lady makes out. First and foremost, anyone who does not meet the financial criteria has a waiver and can go to court. Secondly, there have been a lot of pre-determinations by ACAS. Employment is going up and there are fewer applications. There are a lot of factors and she does herself no credit by simplifying matters.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T5. Following the introduction of my private Member’s Bill, which calls for a tougher stance on repeat driving offences, will the Minister confirm that those matters are being reviewed fully, and will he clarify when the Government will respond to the review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T8. The Minister is aware of my request that the former Keighley magistrates court in Bingley be sold off as soon as possible. The failure to do so is wasting taxpayers’ money and preventing an important town centre building in Bingley from being regenerated and brought into use. There seems to have been a lot of faffing about between the Ministry of Justice and West Yorkshire police. I urge the Minister to get on with it and get the building up for sale to allow this regeneration to take place in Bingley and to save the taxpayer some money.

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is as forthright as ever. He is well aware that I wrote to him last week. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the court is sold and that the proceeds are put into the Exchequer.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) regards “faffing around” to be a technical expression.

Courts and Tribunal Service Trust

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has prepared a trust statement providing an account of the collection of revenues which are due to be paid to HM Treasury. The statement includes the value of fines and confiscation orders imposed by the judiciary; fixed penalties imposed by the police; the value of collections; the balances paid over to third parties including victims of crime, the Home Office and HM Treasury; and the balance of outstanding impositions.

I am delighted that, for the first time, the Comptroller and Auditor General has been able to provide an unqualified audit opinion on the trust statement which recognises the quality and thoroughness of the work we have completed to address financial reporting issues previously identified by the National Audit Office (NAO).

The trust statement demonstrates that we have continued to maintain strong collection performance levels with more than £518 million in financial impositions collected from offenders during 2013-14. Victim surcharge receipts have increased by £28 million from 2012-13 to 2013-14—to around £38.5 million in 2013-14—providing additional funds to help support the victims of rape, domestic violence and families bereaved by murder and fatal road traffic crimes. To aid in the provision of these vital services a proportion of the additional victim surcharge receipts has been allocated to police and crime commissioners for innovative local projects to support victims.

HMCTS recognises the importance of the recommendations made by the NAO value for money study on confiscation orders and we are working with our partner enforcement agencies to address those recommendations and ensure that criminals continue to be deprived of the proceeds of crime. The agencies involved in the enforcement of confiscation orders, which includes the Home Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, take every action available to them to tackle outstanding debt including the addition of interest and imprisonment for those who do not pay.

The robust application of sanctions in relation to outstanding fine debt has resulted in a 13% reduction in gross debt relating to fine impositions since April 2012. The amount collected has increased in both 2013-14 and 2012-13 compared to 2011-12. Legislation introduced in December 2013 allows HMCTS to obtain data from HM Revenue and Customs and Department for Work and Pensions for the purposes of enforcing outstanding fines in a more efficient and effective way.

To build on improvements made in recent years in the collection of criminal financial penalties, HMCTS is in the final stages of a procurement exercise to determine whether an external partner can bring the innovation and investment in technology that HMCTS needs to further improve performance and efficiency. The continuing improvement the agencies are making, combined with our future plans, will ensure that more criminals pay and that taxpayers get better value for money.

Civil Legal Advice

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

During the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 the Ministry of Justice committed to report to Parliament on the operation of the Civil Legal Advice (CLA) mandatory gateway within two years of its implementation.

This review is being published today and consists of four research reports and, separately, the Government’s response. The research is in four parts:

Civil Legal Advice mandatory gateway: Overarching research summary,

Findings from interviews with users,

Findings from interviews with service providers,

Analysis of management information.

These reports, and the separate Government response, when taken together constitute the review of the Civil Legal Advice mandatory gateway. I have placed copies of these reports in the Library of the House. They are also available online at, http://www.parliament.uk/ writtenstatements

Mesothelioma Claims

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My noble friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written ministerial statement:

The Government have made a priority of addressing the high costs of civil litigation in England and Wales. To that end, part two of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms the operation of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements (CFAs). Those reforms came into effect generally in April 2013, but were deferred for mesothelioma cases pending a review under section 48 of the Act. The Government undertook a review in 2013 with the issuing of the “Reforming Mesothelioma Claims” consultation paper on 24 July 2013. The Government announced their decision following that consultation on 4 December 2013 (column 56WS). In particular, it announced that, following the review, the Government have decided to implement the no win, no fee reforms for mesothelioma cases. Full reasons for that decision were given in the response paper published on 6 March 2014. However, that decision was challenged by judicial review and on 2 October the High Court quashed it. CFAs in mesothelioma cases therefore continue to operate on a pre-LASPO Act basis for the time being. The decision was also investigated by the Justice Committee which published its report on 1 August. The Government’s response to that report will be published shortly.

The Government intend to undertake a review under section 48 in due course; further details on the format and timing of that review will be set out at a later date. The Court’s judgment and the committee’s report will be considered as part of that process.

Mesothelioma is a terrible disease and the Government are determined to do what it can to help sufferers and their families. Changes in the law over recent years, including the Mesothelioma Act 2014, have made it easier for victims to obtain compensation. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to take forward reforms where we can improve the mesothelioma claims process further:

Provisions in the Deregulation Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable HM Revenue and Customs to restore its practice of disclosing the work records of deceased victims to their personal representatives or dependants for the purposes of claiming compensation without the need for a court order; and

We are working with the National Cancer Registration Service and others to secure resources for the implementation of expedited receipt of pathology records and imaging reports.”