Prisons and Courts Bill

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and others will look at ways of ensuring that we put the safety of our prison officers first, and on a par with the safety of police officers. Overcrowding, violence and failure to reform are all challenges that the Bill must confront and surmount.

The Bill sets out proposals to modernise the way in which our courts and tribunals operate, which is welcome. I can testify from my decade as an employment tribunal lawyer that when Dickens complained in “Bleak House” about the turgid pace with which courts dealt with cases, he could have been speaking for our age, too. However, technology has begun to appear in courtrooms, from which it was previously glaringly absent.

It is vital that such innovations do not come at the expense of access to justice, because in recent years, when the Conservatives have released documents with the word “transforming” in the title, that has usually been shorthand for cutting, diminishing and failing—think of “Transforming Legal Aid” and “Transforming Rehabilitation.” “Transforming our Justice System,” which is one of the papers that has influenced this Bill, must not result in the same.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, was certainly correct when he said last year:

“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most.”

I was glad that the Secretary of State praised Lord Thomas in her speech, but I would welcome it if she went beyond praising him and agreed with his analysis of the barriers to access to justice.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Lord Thomas certainly said that, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Lord Thomas also supports all the Bill’s measures on reforming the courts, particularly on using technology to allow the access to courts that so many people were saying was going to be denied. Lord Thomas supports all the measures.

[Richard Burgon]

I made it clear at the outset of my speech that we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We welcome a number of the Bill’s measures, but the Government should go further. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that reform should not come at the expense of access to justice, and if Lord Thomas, whom we all hold in high esteem, is saying that our system of justice has become unaffordable to most, Members on both sides of the House must take that seriously.

Nothing more poignantly demonstrates what Lord Thomas said about the barriers to access to justice than the 70% reduction in employment tribunal cases following the coalition Government’s introduction of employment tribunal fees. The Bill must provide answers to such problems. Technology alone is not a panacea, nor must it be utilised to mask further cuts to public funding.

A key feature of the Bill that has received much coverage in recent weeks is the proposed reform of whiplash claims. When the Bill was published, many people were pleased that it did not raise the small claims limit for all personal injuries, so the Government can be congratulated on listening—or listening a little—but we should be clear that the reform of whiplash claims is based on a false premise. The Secretary of State said today that there is a “rampant compensation culture”, but there is no epidemic of fraudulent claims. The British people are not on the fiddle or on the make in the way the Government so disparagingly suggest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The shadow Minister’s tone suggests that he agrees with much of the Bill—that is welcome—but how does he explain the fact that while the number of accidents is going down enormously, the number of whiplash claims has nevertheless increased by 50%? Does that have something to do with fraud?

[Richard Burgon]

The number of whiplash claims in recent years has reduced—[Interruption.] In recent years it has. I should also point out that there is a duty upon insurers to defend claims and not to pay out when claims are fraudulent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who had a distinguished ministerial career and speaks with considerable authority in this House. I also refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which it is stated that I am a non-practising solicitor.

I welcome the Bill. I firmly believe that we have one of the finest, if not the finest, legal systems in the world, and the measures in this Bill will ensure that we can maintain our pre-eminent position in the global legal system.

I shall begin by making some comments on the court reform proposals. It is important to recognise that when we talk about access to justice we do not mean access to, and being in, a physical building called a court. I had that argument with many colleagues when I was the Minister in charge of courts and had to convey the bad news that many courts were to close—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) had to do likewise a few years beforehand. Effectively, this Bill fulfils what we said then—that there are different ways of accessing justice and courts.

I always remember what an African Justice Minister once said to me. He said that he wanted a justice system in his country whereby the people living in the villages outside the capital city could access justice through their smartphones. The world is moving on, and it is good to see that we are keeping pace with the technology that goes with that.

I particularly welcome parts 2 and 4 of the Bill, which deal with the court reform measures. In the past, the legal system has concentrated rather too much on process and procedure, but I am very pleased that this Bill puts the court user centre-stage and ensures that we have a system that is good for them. The changes will mean that the public who use the courts will not necessarily have to spend huge amounts of time, at huge cost, or indeed have to spend their time physically waiting and hanging around in a court.

The Bill provides for court dealings to be carried out by audio and video links, and to have virtual hearings, where no parties are present in a courtroom, but instead attend by telephone or through video-conferencing facilities. The provision for evidence to be given by video links is good for victims and witnesses, particularly vulnerable witnesses, and it has to be right that prisoners can give video evidence while staying in prison, rather than expending the time, effort and cost of transporting them to and from courts—which, incidentally, often leads to delays when they get caught up in traffic. This modern way of using video-conferencing facilities also means that witnesses can easily give evidence when overseas, and that lawyers do not have to hang around outside the courtroom waiting forever and a day until they get their 10 minutes before the judge, for instance for a bail application. The barristers and judges can now stay in their chambers and the solicitors in their offices, and they can simply book a time when they can all speak and have their 10-minute conversation and the bail application can go through.

The Bill proposes that where there are low-level offences—and the majority of offences are low level—and offenders are charged with summary-only, non-imprisonable offences, such as fare evasion or not having a TV licence, and where there is a guilty plea, they can be convicted and given standard penalties by use of an online procedure. Effectively, this means that people have the luxury of being able to use their smartphones from their sitting rooms to get access to justice. Of course, it is important to recognise that for people who plead not guilty the majesty of the court remains; they can have their court cases in the usual way.

I welcome the proposal that in civil cases for claims up to £25,000 there will be simple online hearings, although it is important to recognise that some of those cases might need to go offline and to follow the usual process. I am pleased that the Bill provides for that, and I very much hope that, despite the surge towards technological advances, we keep that option, and that where, for whatever reason, a case needs to be dealt with in the usual way, that will be done. We also at present have very complex forms full of legal language that are very difficult for the lay person to deal with. I hope that as we use new forms and go online, the justice system will take the opportunity to make those forms easier and far more user-friendly.

I also hope that the Minister will recognise that not everyone uses modern technology. Some people cannot use it—for example, the elderly or some people who are disabled. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that those people will retain the opportunity to speak by phone to a person or indeed have a meeting, as is necessary, because otherwise we will be denying some people access to justice.

I also urge the Minister to ensure that the technological advances that we employ are not rendered redundant very soon. Advances in technology are so fast that millions of pounds can be spent on a system that becomes outdated in a year or two. I hope he will ensure that his civil servants try to introduce a technological system that allows for easy adaptation to more modern systems as and when they arise, and at a cheap cost.

Part 4, along with schedule 15, deals with the judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission, and there are various references to senior judicial appointments. I wish to make a general point on appointments. To be absolutely clear, I believe, as do most people, that all judicial appointments should be made on merit. That is crucial, but, that being said, it is also fair to say that we still need to make serious advances in the numbers of women, disabled people, people from ethnic minorities and people from a variety of backgrounds who hold senior judicial positions. I hope that the Ministry of Justice, the judiciary and the JAC will ensure that we continue to have a judicial system that is reflective of the country at large.

Sadly, there are still people who believe that the old boy network is the way for people to get promoted to senior levels. For them, it is about whether someone belongs to the right dining club or golf club, and whether they went to the right school and university. Some people simply do not put their names forward for senior positions for that reason. Of course advances have been made, and I hope that we will continue to persuade good candidates to put themselves forward even if they believe that they will not get through because of the old boy network.

I particularly welcome clause 21, which will allow public communications providers to block the use of unauthorised mobile phones in prisons. Frankly, it is absurd that this has not been done earlier; it is high time that it was done. I also welcome the provisions in clause 22, which will allow more powers to test for psychoactive substances in prisons, so that prison authorities will be able to respond more quickly to new drugs.

People are sent to prison because they have to be punished, but we all recognise the importance of a regime of education and training to enable those individuals to play a useful role in society when they come out. We rightly talk about education and training, but we should talk just as much about the health of those prisoners, and particularly about their mental health. Colleagues on both sides of the House have made reference to mental illness, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will look into that issue and ensure that people in prison suffering from mental illnesses and who are genuinely unwell get the treatment they require. I welcome the Bill, and I am particularly pleased that—notwithstanding our differences across the political divide—we agree on a great deal. I wish the Bill well as it progresses through to receiving Royal Assent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We learn a lot more about the opinions of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on a vast miscellany of matters—of that he can rest assured.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary will be aware that in the past couple of years considerable progress has been made in allowing UK lawyers to practise in India. Will she update the House on progress so far, particularly given that the Prime Minister will be visiting India in the next few days?

Draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016.

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Nuttall? The purpose of the draft order is to make changes to the fees payable in proceedings in the civil courts and tribunals. Specifically, the order will uplift a number of fees charged in the civil and magistrates courts by 10%.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the fees are being increased by 10%. How does he justify such a large increase over and above inflation? Does that not put at risk the process of, and access to, justice?

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question, but he will be aware that running the courts and tribunals system costs a lot of money. Given the economic difficulties that the country is in, we have found it necessary to impose fees that will contribute towards the cost of keeping Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service operating.

As I was saying, the order will uplift a number of fees charged in the civil and magistrates courts by 10%. That will include all the fees that are currently at full cost recovery levels including, for example, the fees for judicial review proceedings, but the uplift will not apply to fees in civil proceedings that are already set above cost. The uplift will also apply to judicial review proceedings heard in the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal to ensure that the fees in judicial review proceedings are consistent across jurisdictions.

The order also introduces a new, consistent fee-charging approach across the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal. The current structure that operates in the tribunal is complex and inconsistent, with a range of different fees charged for some application types and no fees charged for others. Our changes will simplify and standardise the approach, reducing the burden on the general taxpayer by raising the overall recovery rate in the tribunal from about 4% to about 10% and sharing that burden more equally between all those who use the tribunal.

As we announced in our consultation response last December, the target is to recover about 25% of cost from fees in the property chamber. Achieving that aim will require us to revisit our specific proposals relating to leasehold enfranchisement cases, and we will make an announcement on our plans for fees in those proceedings in due course.

Finally, the order will change the default classification of two new appeal rights that have been created in the employment tribunals from a type B claim, which attracts the higher fee, to a type A claim, for which the fee is lower. The normal rule is that when those who use a public service are charged a fee to access them, the fee should be set at a level designed to cover the full costs of the service. The civil and family courts have operated on that basis for a number of years.

Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to prescribe fees above cost, but requires that those fees are used to

“finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals”.

That power was used for the first time in March last year to increase the fees for money claims, and again earlier this year to increase the fees for possession claims, general applications in civil proceedings and applications for a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. The power will be exercised again in this order to increase the fees in a range of civil proceedings by 10%, which will take those fees above cost recovery levels.

The fee changes that affect the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal and employment tribunals will be made under section 42 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, given that even after these changes, the fees will remain well below cost recovery levels.

The case for revisiting the fees that we charge in courts and tribunals is based firmly on the need to ensure that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is properly funded to protect the vital principle of access to justice.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Can the Minister confirm that the fees recovered in the last year were about 12.5% of Ministry of Justice income?

[Mr Vara]

I am not familiar with the precise figure and I am keen to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets it, so I am happy to write to him with the details of whether the figure is 12.5% or more or less than that.

A fully functioning and properly funded justice system is the cornerstone of our democratic society. It should provide everyone with the ability to redress their problems in an efficient and effective forum, and it should also underpin our economy. The Government have committed to an historic, once-in-a-generation investment of more than £700 million to transform our courts and tribunals system. The scale of that investment and the ambition of our reform plan will enable us to build a justice system that is simpler, swifter and more efficient, using modern technology.

In a tough financial climate, there is only so much that can be delivered through spending cuts and efficiencies. That is why we have had to look again at the balance between what users pay towards the overall cost of court and tribunal services and the financial burden that falls on the taxpayer. We estimate that the measures set out in the order will generate about £6 million per annum in additional income, with every pound collected being spent on providing our system of courts and tribunals. I recognise that no one will ever welcome an increase in fees, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that increases are required so that we can ensure that the courts and tribunals are properly funded and access to justice is protected.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East on his appointment as shadow Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice? I look forward to having debates with him on many occasions, and I hope that the debates will be constructive for the benefit of all those who need access to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I start by thanking the hon. Members for Leeds East, for Glasgow South West and for Bassetlaw for their contributions. Much of what was said is not relevant to the debate, because the order is about the narrow confines of the order, but I will take a moment or two to reply to some points that have been raised, for the sake of balance in Hansard.

On the need for fees, which the shadow Lord Chancellor raised, I reiterate that we live in difficult times and it is necessary to take measures to deal with the economic and financial climate in which we are living. The total cost of the courts and tribunals system in 2014-15 was £1.8 billion and the fee income was £700 million, leaving a net cost to the taxpayer of about £1.1 billion. I hear loud and clear the criticisms that have been made about fees, but there is a deafening silence on Opposition Members’ alternative for getting the money to meet the £1.1 billion shortfall. I suppose that the luxury of opposition is the ability to make grand promises and be critical without having to take the tough decisions that government requires.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister would surely concede that the Scottish Government have taken a more enlightened approach, and have indicated that they will abolish employment tribunal fees. At least one part of the United Kingdom is taking a different approach, and the Scottish Government will find that in their budget.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Scottish Government have taken a different approach. However, there has been a distinct lack of any mention of where they will get the money from. From which other budget will they take it? Until that response is given, the promise of scrapping one set of fees is somewhat hollow, commendable though it is. There is an element of balancing budgets here.

It is not unreasonable to charge people who use the courts and tribunals system so that they make a contribution for that use. The order is not about profit—it is simply wrong to say that it is. In fact, it shows a complete lack of understanding of how the courts and tribunals system operates. It is abundantly clear that the fees will be used to help run the courts and tribunals system and will go towards the additional £700 million that the Chancellor has made available to ensure that we have a 21st-century, first-class courts system that is the envy of the world. There is simply not a bottomless pit of money, and we must remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money.

The issue of employment tribunal fees is not relevant to this debate, but I will briefly make one or two comments to rebut some points that have been made. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, the latest figure for the cost of employment tribunals was £71 million a year. It is therefore not unreasonable that the public should contribute towards the use of those tribunals. What has not been taken note of, however, is that some 83,000 people have used the ACAS early conciliation scheme, which is free.

It is ironic that some Members here claim to represent the public, given what they have said today. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that we are not in touch with the public. He is the one who is not in touch with the public, because he is seeking to scrap fees. We are instead encouraging people to use a system that is absolutely free, with no lawyers’ fees, no court fees—no anything. We have the irony that these people are standing up and advocating a system of people going to employment tribunals, which would necessitate cost.

[John Mann]

Irony? The irony is that people are required to go to ACAS. Does the Minister think that in the cases that I take, we do not go to ACAS? The employers, like that Gosport Tory, refuse to answer the phone calls and letters from ACAS. Of course we go through ACAS. These bad employers do not settle in ACAS. I do not suggest that the taxpayer should be funding the service—of course the taxpayer should not be funding it. There should instead be proper fines for employers that break the law. That is how the tribunal system ought to operate, and that—enforcing and strengthening the law—would be easy to do.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman said that he was not a lawyer, but he does not have to be a lawyer to know that people who go to employment tribunals and win are entitled to have their costs repaid, including the cost of the fee.

[Chris Stephens]

As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw indicated, settlement in ACAS relies on the employer also joining ACAS and playing ball. In many cases, rogue employers do not play ball. ACAS is one route, but that relies on the employer going to ACAS and joining the discussion, which does not happen often enough.

[Mr Vara]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that where it is necessary for cases to go to the tribunal, people can recover their costs if they win.

[Richard Burgon]

On the subject of lawyers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned, I have been thinking about what the Minister said earlier. He said that to say that fees were about treating courts as a profit centre showed—I think these were his words, as Hansard will show—“a complete misunderstanding” of the court system. If I remember correctly, the quote to which he was responding was from the Law Society. Is he saying that the Law Society has a complete misunderstanding of the court system?

[Mr Vara]

There are various stakeholders involved in this debate and there are a variety of views. I disagree with the views that have been put forward, and that is why these fees are being introduced. I simply say as far as fees are concerned—this applies to employment tribunal fees as well as all the other fees that are relevant to the order—that a remission process exists. Subject to meeting the right criteria, people can apply for remission of the fees.

The Government estimate that the measures in the order will generate about £6 million per annum in additional income, with every pound that is collected being spent on providing an efficient and effective courts and tribunals system. The purpose of these reforms is to increase fee income and so reduce the costs of the courts to the taxpayer, and to ensure that access to justice and to the Courts and Tribunals Service is protected. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put.

Pension Freedoms

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for setting out her case. She speaks with considerable experience, given that she was the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) also joining us for this debate.

Pension freedoms, which have been widely welcomed, have raised interest and engagement in pensions significantly. The freedoms give people the opportunity to take responsibility for their own retirement. In the first nine months we saw nearly 540,000 pensions being accessed. People are clearly taking control, but, as the hon. Member for Leeds West said, they need to do so after receiving the appropriate information at the right time so that they can make decisions that suit their circumstances.

The Government recognised that in order for people to make the most of the new freedoms they needed to equip them with the tools to make decisions that suit their circumstances, so Pension Wise was launched. This service provides free and impartial guidance to those aged 50 and over to help them to understand what they can do with their defined-contribution pensions following the reforms. I am happy to say that it has been very successful. I hope to give some information to the hon. Lady during the course of this debate that will give her some comfort.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I agree that Pension Wise is providing a good service, but does the Minister acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out, take-up of the service has been very low? In my area there is certainly evidence of skilled advisers sitting around twiddling their thumbs quite a lot of the time because the demand has not yet come through.

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I accept that we have more to do. I hope my comments will give him and the hon. Lady some assurance that we are doing things and we recognise there is more to be done. The hon. Lady referred to the number of appointments—73,000 so far—but 2.7 million visits have been made to the Pension Wise website. It is important to look at the two together, rather than just the appointments, because the information provided in the appointments is all available on the website. Many people are accessing the website and finding that they do not need an appointment. That needs to be borne in mind.

I appreciate that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is concern about take-up. It is important to remember that the service is not compulsory for everyone who wants to access their pension pot. Using Pension Wise is a voluntary option and people should be given the choice to plan for their retirement in the manner they see fit. However—I emphasise this point—it is important that people know the service is there to support them if they wish to use it.

Pension Wise has already run three national marketing campaigns across TV, radio, print and digital media. Those campaigns complement the current requirement for all pension scheme providers to signpost to Pension Wise whenever a wake-up pack is sent out to a member.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. As he said, Pension Wise is a voluntary service. Has he noticed the point made by the Association of British Insurers that guidance for people transacting in the secondary annuity market, where the pitfalls are particularly troubling, should be mandatory?

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman raises another good point. This is something we are looking at, although he will forgive me for not making any instant decisions. The secondary market is a broad market, with a huge amount of rules and regulations. We started with the initial concept of providing access to pension pots. That is now leading to other issues that rightly need to be looked at, but he will forgive me if I do not comment on those right now.

We have had three national awareness campaigns and we are working on a fourth. This is not an area where we feel we have done enough. There is more to do and we recognise that. The subject of pensions is complex and the Government recognise that there is more to be done.

Last year we consulted on how the provision of free, impartial financial guidance could be structured to make it more effective. The review confirmed that the current guidance offer can be confusing to the public. There is also an overlap in some services. That is why we have consulted on our plans to restructure the delivery of public financial guidance to make it more effective, by directing more funding to the frontline and providing more targeted support.

The latest consultation outlined our proposal for a new guidance model, which involves setting up a new pensions guidance body where individuals can get all their queries on private pensions answered in one place. There will also be a new, slimmed down money guidance body, to ensure people can access the debt advice and money guidance they need. The two bodies will work together to ensure that people who need both pensions and wider financial guidance are directed to the right place. The consultation ended last month and we are currently considering all the responses with a view to publishing our response this autumn.

Most people who seek information on pensions do not distinguish between guidance and advice; they simply want help. Regulated advice will be appropriate for some people, so there is still a need to make sure that affordable and accessible financial advice is available for those who want it. That is why the Government intend to consult, over summer 2016, on introducing the pensions advice allowance, whereby individuals will be able to withdraw up to £500 tax-free from their defined-contribution pension pot to redeem against the cost of financial advice before the age of 55.

Employees often look to their employers for help when it comes to pensions. To further encourage employer involvement, the Government will increase the current £150 tax and national insurance contributions relief to £500 for those employers who arrange pension advice for their employees. It is our view that that proposal and the pensions advice allowance could be complementary, so it would be possible for those who are able to use both to access up to £1,000 of tax-advantaged advice. Such initiatives can give people an understanding of their options, but no one knows their customers better than the pension providers themselves, and I know that organisations within the industry are starting to look at new and innovative ways of engaging with their customers. I hope we can work with the industry so that information and guidance is provided in a way that meets the individual’s needs.

The hon. Member for Leeds West spoke eloquently of the need to increase the take-up of Pension Wise. As well as the fourth awareness campaign that we are working on, Pension Wise delivery partners also promote the service locally in businesses and libraries, for example. A concern was also raised about getting proper advice. Pension Wise offers guidance on how to spot a scam, how people can protect themselves and what to do if they think they have been scammed, on its website and in appointments. If someone suspects they have been scammed, the service will signpost them to the Pensions Advisory Service and Action Fraud. In addition, Pension Wise is a member of Project Bloom and works with other members to raise awareness of scams.

The right hon. Member for East Ham spoke about the secondary market. I can tell him that Pension Wise guidance will be available to those selling their annuity, once the market launches in April 2017.

[Stephen Timms]

I thank the Minister for that answer. May I raise one other issue with him? The ABI says that it

“would like to see the new guidance arrangements enhanced so that providers who want to block transfers to protect their customers (because of concern about the receiving scheme) can refer their customers to the new body to receive impartial guidance on the risks from transferring funds to potential scams and fraudulent investments.”

Is that proposal from the ABI also something that he is reflecting on?

[Mr Vara]

Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are keen to make sure that this works. We are not in any way restricting the stakeholders with whom we speak. We are working with all of them, including the ABI and a whole host of other organisations and people, to make sure that whatever guidance and regulations we put in place are right. We want to get it right as best as possible first time round. I assure him that we are very much taking on board the views of others out there.

To conclude, the hon. Lady was right to raise this important issue. I thank and commend her for doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister addressed each of those points in turn, I would be eternally grateful.

The conclusion I would like to draw is that the introduction of fees is a fundamental barrier to access to justice for not only women but all workers. The simple fact is that the time limit could be extended, and that should readily be considered. I hope the Government will do that. Ultimately, I would call for the outright abolition of tribunal fees, because there is no statistical evidence to suggest that they have decreased the number of vexatious or unmeritorious claims; all they have done is limit the number of women, in particular, who can bring claims. If the Government will not commit to abolishing fees, will they at the very least consider the Justice Committee’s recommendation of a significant reduction? However, I and my SNP colleagues would call for them to consider outright abolition. The First Minister said that when this area of law is devolved to Scotland, we will abolish tribunal fees if it is possible to do so. Will this Government make the same commitment for workers across the UK?

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

Where will you get the money?

[Angela Crawley]

The Minister proves my point: budget deficit reduction should never come above access to justice.

With no financial penalty, Scottish women may soon face fewer barriers when they exercise their employment rights and seek access to justice. The same may not be said for other women across the UK. It is time for someone to stand up for hard-working women and other workers across this country and to demand equal access to justice for everyone across the UK. Women have waited three years for the post-implementation review of tribunal fees. Should they have to wait another three years for the Government to clear their debts and to consider this issues seriously? Ultimately, access to justice is the fundamental principle at stake here. I hope the Government will hear my questions and answer them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of planned changes to personal injury law and whiplash claims on access to justice.

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

The Government remain concerned about the number and cost of whiplash claims, particularly their impact on insurance premiums, and have announced robust new measures to tackle the problem. We will consult on the detail in due course, and the consultation will be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment.

[Mary Glindon]

How does the Minister respond to my constituents who have genuine concerns about the evidence base for the proposed reforms, and believe that they are unjust and will not deliver the right and proper compensation for people who were injured through negligence?

[Mr Vara]

The Government’s proposed reforms will ensure that the current cost of £2 billion annually for whiplash claims should be reduced to £1 billion for the insurance industry. They will also ensure that the average person’s insurance premium should go down by up to £50.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

In the UK, 80% of road traffic accidents generate a whiplash claim; in France, 3% of road traffic accidents generate a whiplash claim. In the UK, whiplash claims are increasing as accidents decrease; in France, it is the other way round. Insurance premiums in the UK are 50% higher, meaning that many young people cannot afford insurance. Will the Government act to get this sorted out?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right to say that it is important, to benefit all our constituents, that we deal with this. The way to do so is through our proposed reforms, on which there will be a consultation in the not-too-distant future. That will ensure that premiums go down.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

20. What plans he has to review sentencing guidelines related to stalking offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

T4. With regard to employment tribunals, does the Minister have any plans to include personal independence payments in the calculations for assessing eligibility?

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

As far as employment tribunals are concerned—as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), said earlier—the review will be published shortly. It is a fact that a lot of people who would previously have gone to employment tribunals are now going to the ACAS conciliatory procedure. We will certainly make sure that all the issues referred to are covered in the review.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

T8. At Justice Questions in March, I raised serious concerns about the systematic failure of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in relation to a case in my constituency. From my experience of dealing with this case, it has become clear that the self-governing SRA needs reform both to improve accountability and to restore public confidence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this issue so that, together, we can bring forward proposals to ensure solicitors are regulated properly and independently?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Solicitors Regulation Authority is an independent body. If she wishes to have a meeting, I am certainly happy to arrange one.

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

T7. Will the Secretary of State be good enough to tell us, in the wake of the atrocity in Orlando, what steps he is taking to monitor and address homophobic hate crime against lesbian and gay people in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The former Justice Secretary was warned that cuts in legal aid to domestic violence victims were “grossly unfair” and “harsh”. That is why the Court of Appeal shot them down. In response, the Government decided to do a survey, which had a very limited timeframe for being filled in. Do the Government think that that was a reasonable way to show that they take the situation seriously? Would it not be better to have a full, open, public and transparent consultation?

[Mr Vara]

I say very gently to the hon. Lady that she is completely misinformed and wrong. Following that court judgment, the Government increased the time period for the production of evidence from two years to five years, and have allowed financial abuse to be taken into account. What is more, having made those immediate changes to the system, we are now engaging with the relevant stakeholders to bring in a better system that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

The Home Office has reportedly refused to disclose data on sexual violence towards detainees at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre because the information could damage the commercial interests of the company that runs the facility. Is the Minister able to assure the House that Ministry of Justice policy will not put profit before people in prisons?

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and all those on the Order Paper who support the motion, on securing the debate on this very important subject. For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out a flaw in the motion. It seems to indicate that it is this Government who have introduced the measure, when it states

“will no longer be uprated”

and

“regrets that the Government has taken this action”.

I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that this policy has been consistent for 70 years. It is not something that this Government have done.

[Ian Blackford]

I made it clear in my speech that I recognise that this has been happening since the 1940s. I absolutely acknowledge that. This has happened under all Governments. None the less, we have the opportunity today to respond to it in the correct manner.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Vara]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The House and the Minister will recall that each year a statutory instrument, or equivalent legislation, is brought before the House to continue the policy, so none of us can say we are blameless. The fact that a small minority of us have so far been voting against what the Government propose to Parliament is our fault for not recruiting more people. The best people to recruit would be the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and then the Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions who have to face up for the Government and will be able to pass the responsibility on to those who carry the responsibility—the most senior Ministers in Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to both hon. Members for clarifying that point. I was simply pointing out an inconsistency on the Order Paper. For the sake of good order, I wanted to make clear that although yearly decisions have been taken by the Government, they are consistent with the policy undertaken by successive Governments from both sides of the House.

The UK state pension is exportable worldwide, regardless of recipients’ countries of residence or nationality. Successive Governments have taken the view that all those who have worked in the UK and built up an entitlement to state pension should be able to receive it. We have no plans to change this arrangement. However, the state pension is only increased, or uprated, each year where the recipient is resident in the European Economic Area or a country with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating.

The policy on this issue has been consistent for 70 years, including under the Governments of Attlee, Wilson, Blair, Macmillan, Thatcher and Major. To uprate all state pension payments, regardless of a recipient’s country of residence, to the rate currently paid in the UK would cost in excess of an extra half a billion pounds a year. This amount would increase significantly over time. If arrears were to be included, the cost would be in the billions of pounds. Some have suggested partial uprating, but while this may cost tens of millions of pounds in the short term, the annual cost of the policy would converge to that of full uprating in the long term.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It might help if the Minister, either today or in the next Session, could tell us the last time the Government voluntarily negotiated a reciprocal agreement with another nation or territory. Secondly, since the last negotiation on a voluntary reciprocal agreement, how many other countries have been brought into the uprating for other reasons, such as accession to the EU?

[Mr Vara]

I can certainly partly address my hon. Friend’s question. No new commitments allowing for uprating have been made since the 1980s. As far as the other information he seeks, I am more than happy to write to him.

We have to recognise that resources are limited. The Government have to make judgments and take difficult decisions about how best to use limited resources. The majority of pensioners abroad live in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The rules in those countries vary. Some have largely means-tested pension systems, whereby a significant proportion of any increase in the amount of the UK state pension would go to the Treasuries of those countries, rather than the pensioner. I should add that many people who voluntarily move abroad do so before they have reached pensionable age. As such, many of them may well have been able to build up some pension provision in the countries they have emigrated to.

We should remember that the decision to move abroad is a voluntary one. It remains a personal choice dependent on the circumstances of the individual, which will differ from person to person. The implications for their state pension is just one factor in that decision. There is no evidence of a proven behavioural link between the uprating policy for the state pension and pensioner migration.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time. Will he not accept that every other OECD country allows their pensioners who live abroad to collect their pension? Why are we standing against this? We are not talking about people getting something they are not entitled to, whether they have moved abroad before they have retired. We are talking about them getting something they are entitled to because they have made national insurance contributions. That is what we are denying them.

[Mr Vara]

It is important that we do not just look at this from one narrow perspective. The hon. Gentleman says that people have paid national insurance and are therefore entitled to this. As I say, there are other aspects involved. For example, there is the element of individual choice. When people think about going abroad, it is not purely this issue that will determine whether they will live here or abroad.

Over the years, the UK has entered into a number of reciprocal agreements with other countries. Although most provide for payment of upratings, that is not the primary purpose of reciprocal social security agreements. They are intended mainly to provide a measure of co-ordination between social security schemes to protect the social security of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from needing to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time to get access to social security benefits. Of course, social security agreements vary to some extent from country to country, depending on the nature and scope of the other country’s social security scheme. It should also be noted that the UK is not alone in applying restrictions on payment of state pensions abroad. In some respects, the UK arrangements are less restrictive than those that apply in other countries.

The crux of the issue is individual choice. Those who have contributed to the UK state pension scheme are free to draw their entitlement from wherever they choose to live. The rules governing the uprating of pensions are straightforward and widely publicised. If a person chooses to live in country A their pension will be uprated, but if the choice is to live in country B their pension will not be uprated. In the final analysis, it is for the individual to weigh the benefits of living in country B, where her or his pension will not be uprated, against the benefits afforded by country A—or, indeed, remaining in the UK.

I am mindful that there are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber who wish to speak in the debate. It is a Backbench Business debate and I am mindful to give Back Benchers the freedom and opportunity to speak for a longer time than those on the Front Benches. So I congratulate again the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and those who have supported him, on securing the debate. I am very pleased to have been able to set out the Government’s position, which remains unchanged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

With leave of the House I would like to make some brief comments. I am mindful that this is a Backbench Business Committee debate, and that it is not normal for Front Benchers to have a second go. I do not want to set a precedent, so I will just make one or two concluding comments about issues that have been raised.

Bilateral agreements were mentioned, and those are normally negotiated on the basis of compatibility of systems. That reciprocity is achieved between the two nations, and respective costs are broadly balanced. Canada has more than 150,000 recipients of the UK state pension, but any new bilateral agreement would not achieve reciprocity and would be disadvantageous to the UK taxpayer.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for all the work that he has done consistently over a number of years on this issue.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Vara]

I will not take any interventions, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The logic, I think, is that if a reciprocal agreement may be done at no cost, there would be no reciprocal agreements anywhere.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot answer that because it is not a point of order. It is a point of debate, and the Minister is being brief because he has the leave of the House to speak again.

[Mr Vara]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not wish to abuse the leave of the House.

I simply conclude by referring to the issue raised by the International Consortium of British Pensioners, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet mentioned. He was right to say that it has come up with proposals, but it was felt that they were not sufficiently developed. The ICBP is working on more proposals and we look forward to having sight of them.

I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber on securing the debate.

Draft Crown Court (Recording) Order 2016

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Crown Court (Recording) Order 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. The order removes the prohibition on recording court proceedings to the extent necessary to enable a judge’s sentencing remarks in the Crown court to be recorded, on a not-for-broadcast basis, for the purposes of a test.

The present position is that the recording and broadcast of proceedings in courts other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal is prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent in April 2013, enables the Lord Chancellor, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, to make an order specifying circumstances in which the prohibitions on recording and broadcasting may be lifted. The order before us is the second order to be made under that power.

There is evidence to suggest that the more informed people are about the justice system, the more confidence they will have in it. Few people have direct experience of court proceedings, and public understanding of how the justice system works is very limited. In principle, our courts are open to all members of the public who wish to attend, but in practice very few people have the time or opportunity to attend and see what happens in person. We believe that we should make our courts more accessible and make it easier for the public to understand court proceedings.

Increasingly, people rely on television and the internet for access to news and current affairs. It is therefore right to respond to changes in technology and society and allow cameras into our courts. However, although it is important for justice to be seen to be done, that cannot be at the expense of the proper administration of justice, the integrity of the trial process or the reputation of the courts. The courts deal with very serious matters that can affect the liberty, livelihood and reputation of all the parties involved. The proposed test period provides an opportunity to examine how we can film in our courts in a way that protects the individuals involved and preserves the dignity of the courts and the trial process.

I am conscious that there will be concerns about the welfare of victims and witnesses and the potential for court broadcasting to have a detrimental effect on their experiences in court. In the event that a victim or witness is present in court during the recording of a judge’s sentencing remarks, there are in place a number of safeguards designed to minimise any potential impact that recording might have.

I emphasise that the order does not permit the filming of victims or witnesses, or indeed any other court user, including staff, members of the public, defendants and advocates. It will be for the judge to decide whether filming of a particular case should not be allowed, and they will take into account the interests of victims and witnesses when considering that. In addition, existing reporting restrictions will continue to apply, and section 32(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides that the court may stop or suspend filming in the interests of justice or to prevent prejudice to any person. Any breach of the terms of the order may amount to a contempt of court. None of the cases recorded during the test will be available for broadcast to the public. Recorded material will be used only by the judiciary, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice for the purposes of the test, including assessing whether it has been successful.

The Government are committed to increasing transparency and providing the public with information on the operation of public services, and the justice system is no exception. To many people, the law remains mysterious. Public understanding of how the courts work, and sentencing in particular, is critical to maintaining confidence in the system and ensuring that justice is seen to be done. We believe that the order before us today is an appropriate step forward in testing how we can allow for greater visibility of what goes on in our courts without undermining the quality and reputation of our justice system.

At the end of the test period, the lessons learned will be considered by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to help inform their decision on whether broadcasting of judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown court should be permitted in future. If they agree, we will return to the House with a third order to allow broadcasting of recorded material to commence. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the measure and am happy to give her the assurances she seeks. Let me make it absolutely clear to the Committee that we are legislating for a test. The idea is that the test will last for some three months. The intention is that filming will commence around June. At the end of that three-month period, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will consider whether we should put the filming into practice, effectively moving on from the test period. Before that happens, much consideration will be given.

I emphasise that we are simply talking about filming the sentencing remarks of a Crown court judge. There is no intention of filming victims, witnesses, counsel, solicitors, lawyers, court staff, audience members, members of the public or anyone else. It is confined to the judge and only to the sentencing remarks that she or he makes. Were there to be a debate in future on whether victims, witnesses and others should be filmed, that decision would clearly need to come before a Committee.

As far as the criteria that the hon. Lady seeks are concerned, this is just a test, so we have not yet decided on what the full criteria will be because we have not decided whether filming will progress beyond the test. We are doing the test to see whether this is feasible, and then decisions will be taken and criteria will be set. Filming processes have existed in the Supreme Court since 2009 and in the Court of Appeal since 2013. The Court of Appeal allows for the filming of the concluding comments of counsel and judges, but nothing else.

The hon. Lady raised a concern that allowing cameras in court would discourage victims and witnesses from giving evidence. As I say, victims and witnesses will not be filmed. Hopefully, that gives her the assurance she seeks. I emphasise that there is no intention of moving the filming beyond the judges. We would need to come back to Committee for parliamentary approval for that.

I trust that hon. Members will agree that this is a proportionate and sensible approach that will enable us to develop further the safeguards introduced in the Court of Appeal and ensure that any future footage recorded in the Crown court will be presented in a fair and accurate way.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

7. What progress has been made on the modernisation programme to upgrade technology in the courts and tribunal estate.

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

I assure the hon. Lady that significant progress has been made to upgrade technology in the courts and tribunal estate. The vast majority of our criminal courts are now equipped to work digitally, and we are reducing reliance on paper bundles. New digital services such as in-court presentation, shared drives and wi-fi are enabling professional users, the judiciary and court staff to work digitally.

[Holly Lynch]

As the Minister knows, the magistrates court and the family and county court in Halifax are due to close. An answer to a recent written question revealed that overall investment plans for the courts and tribunal estate have not changed or been updated following the announcement that 86 courts were to close across the country. What plans are there to update the digitalisation programme to include measures that ensure that justice is accessible in areas that are soon to be without a court?

[Mr Vara]

I know the hon. Lady takes this issue very seriously, and I want to assure her that it is at the top of the agenda in my regular meetings with the senior management of the Courts and Tribunals Service. A lot is happening, however, not all of which gets into the public domain. For example, we are reducing reliance on paper bundles in the criminal courts, and the digital case system in Southwark Crown court now holds over 94,000 pages of information that would otherwise have been printed in triplicate. Also, the new national automated rota system for magistrates, which is now live for 2,500 magistrates, has eliminated a complex and error-prone manual process.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I welcome the upgrading of technology in the traditional court setting—for example, for civil claims, the Rolls Building now takes claims on line—but will the Secretary of State also be implementing the more radical proposals of the Civil Justice Council to include an online dispute resolution service for low-value claims?

[Mr Vara]

We are keen to have the most up-to-date and modern courts system in the world—one fit for the 21st century—and we are ruling nothing out.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The National Audit Office warned against focusing all our attention on technology, and not users, so what is being done to encourage buy-in from the legal profession and to help with training?

[Mr Vara]

First, we need to recognise the world we live in, which is technologically advanced, and we are working closely with users, lawyers and everyone else involved in the legal process. I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the buy-in from the judiciary, the lawyers and the public is very optimistic.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with G4S on its proposal to sell its contracts for the operation of secure training centres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

9. What steps the Government plan to take to improve access to justice.

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

The Government are determined to deliver a swifter and more certain justice system that is more accessible to the public. We are investing £700 million in our courts and tribunals, and our reforms will digitise the justice system to speed up processes and provide services online; remove unnecessary hearings, paper forms and duplication; cut costs for litigants; and make justice more accessible. Moreover, they will remove hearings from the courtroom that do not need to be there; ensure we make full use of judges, courtrooms and legal teams only where necessary; and support people in resolving their disputes by means of more informal and less costly remedies.

[Drew Hendry]

The UK Government are proposing fee increases of up to £800 for a full hearing in asylum and immigration tribunals. This means that applicants seeking to challenge decisions on their right to enter or remain in the UK will struggle to afford this, despite the Home Office’s often getting the decision wrong. Does the Minister agree with me that access to justice should never depend on an individual’s ability to pay?

[Mr Vara]

It is important that we have a court and tribunal system that either pays for itself or goes towards paying for itself. In many cases, there is a remission system to which people can apply, as appropriate under the circumstances.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Citizens advice bureaux, including those in Havant, play an important role in helping people to access justice and to understand the legal system. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them on their work and in encouraging more people to use them?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Citizens Advice service provides invaluable advice to the population. I wholeheartedly congratulate citizens advice bureaux, and I suspect I speak for the whole House in commending them for all the wonderful work they do.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

15. The Supreme Court has found that the Justice Secretary acted without moral authority and in a legal vacuum. Will he now ensure that there will be access to justice for those who do not meet the residence test?

[Mr Vara]

The Government are disappointed with the findings of the Supreme Court on the residence test, particularly when the last Government listened to Parliament and the public, and we made exceptions to that test. I am minded to say that there are millions of people across the country who take the view that it is right that there should be some sort of connection with Britain for people who seek to have their legal aid funds paid for by the British public.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. Claudia Lawrence from York was last seen on 18 March 2009; she is still missing, as are around 2,500 people in the UK. In the midst of their grief, families have to battle to deal with financial and property affairs, and they need access to justice. There is a simple solution: guardianship on behalf of the missing person. The Government promised this over a year ago. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting it in this year’s Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a very good example of what I call “shoe-horning”. The hon. Lady shoe-horned in a later question into this one, and was just about in order. She is very ingenious.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady raises a very good point. There is a huge amount of sympathy across the political divide for the individual about whom she spoke. She will appreciate, however, that it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt what will appear in the Queen’s Speech.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

In order to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities, will the Minister confirm that personal independence payments will not be used in calculations that determine whether or not someone is entitled to help with employment tribunal cases?

[Mr Vara]

Much consideration is given when assessing the criteria to be taken into account. The Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions and others are involved, and it would be inappropriate for me to make a decision right now from the Dispatch Box in the way the hon. Lady asks me to do.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s previous answer, but I still find it very difficult to understand that while this Conservative Government voted not to take in 3,000 refugee children, the Ministry of Justice is proposing to raise written first-tier immigration and asylum tribunal fees by a massive 512%. How on earth are vulnerable people going to be able to challenge what are quite often errors by the Home Office? Will the Minister please tell me where the justice is in this?

[Mr Vara]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that there are a series of exemptions for vulnerable people. We need to recognise that the court system has to be paid for, and it is perfectly reasonable for the British taxpayer to expect those who use our court system to make a contribution towards its running.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

12. What progress he has made on reducing the cost to the public purse of legal aid.

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

Before the process of legal aid reform began in 2010, our legal aid system cost the taxpayer over £2 billion each year. During the period 2014-15, the legal aid spend was £1.64 billion.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Ours is still the only country in the world that pays foreign nationals to sue our own soldiers, and last week the Supreme Court told us that the Government did not have the power to curtail legal aid for that purpose. The only solution, apparently, is primary legislation. Will the Minister tell us how he intends to make progress on this matter?

[Mr Vara]

I refer my hon. Friend to some of the comments that I made earlier. However, he has made a good point about the residence test. He will appreciate that, while I have enormous sympathy with his view—as do many other people, including, in particular, millions in the country outside—we for our part await the written judgment of the Court, and will reflect on it.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Every solicitor who practises in England and Wales, as I did, has a client account. In some jurisdictions in north America, the interest earned on moneys held in client accounts is devoted to legal aid. Would the Government consider introducing such an arrangement in England and Wales?

[Mr Vara]

We already have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world. As for what solicitors’ firms do with the interest on client accounts, the regulation of the legal profession is independent of the Government.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

When it comes to legal aid, I wonder what help will be given to the family of Lance Corporal Young. They have been refused legal aid and therefore cannot take civil action against John Downey, the republican bomber who is believed to have been behind the Hyde Park bomb, and who was let off as a result of the “on the run” letters.

[Mr Vara]

All decisions on whether or not legal aid is paid are made independently of Ministers. They are made by the Legal Aid Agency, on the basis of individual cases and individual facts. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot comment in the House on a specific case.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

13. When he plans to publish a consultation on a British Bill of Rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T3. In view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association’s campaign concerning certain cases relating to taxi and private hire drivers refusing carriage to guide dog owners, will the Minister tell the House what the Government’s position is on this important issue?

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

I am happy to set out the Government’s position on this important issue. It is an offence under section 168 of the Equality Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The penalty is a maximum of £1,000. As far as sentencing is concerned, my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for the judiciary, which of course acts independently.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T2. Last week, the Justice Committee was at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the judges praised the UK for incorporating the Court’s principles into our law to provide effective redress. However, the Lord Chancellor wants to tear up the Human Rights Act and it now looks as though the Home Secretary wants to leave the convention altogether. I know that an attempt was made to get an answer to this question earlier, but can we actually have some clarity on this? To the outside world, it looks as though the Conservatives have a blind spot in relation to anything containing the words “European” and “human rights”.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T7. A report by Citizens Advice states that“nine out of 10 people who have gone through the family courts, under new rules that heavily restrict access to legal aid, suffer strain in their mental and physical health, working lives and finances”,which is surely unacceptable. What will the Minister do to put that right?

[Mr Vara]

As was said earlier, much is being done for people who need legal aid, particularly in the family courts. Our judges are aware of the difficulties of the people before them and are trained to help and assist them. The Government have also provided much money and support for litigants in person. People talk about more legal aid, but it is important to remember that it is taxpayers’ money and to recognise that we spend £1.6 billion on legal aid, which is one of the largest such budgets in the world.

Civil Legal Aid

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2016 Written Statements

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

On 18 February the Court of Appeal handed down judgment on an appeal in a judicial review challenge to the domestic violence evidence requirements under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). I would now like to inform the House of the steps the Government are taking to respond to the Court’s concerns.

Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. Our overriding approach to legal aid reform is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of paying for legal aid, while ensuring that it is targeted at the highest priorities. In line with this approach, LASPO removed legal aid from most private family matters while making a clear exception for victims of domestic violence. In such cases, the applicant is required to supply specific evidence of domestic violence, which is set out in regulations.

In this judicial review, the Court of Appeal found that the regulations frustrated LASPO’s purpose in two specific areas. First, in that they required evidence to have been obtained within a two-year period before the application for legal aid. Secondly, because they lacked provision for victims of financial abuse.

We continue to believe that victims of domestic violence in private family disputes should receive legal aid where evidence is provided, and the Court of Appeal has agreed that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make arrangements in regulations to allow this. But there are areas where we need further information—for example, the number of individuals who have evidence over two years old. We also need to more fully appreciate the issues in play in cases of financial abuse, on which there is only limited research available.

We have begun work with domestic violence support groups, legal representative bodies and colleagues across Government to gather data and develop our understanding of these issues. Our findings will be used to inform an evidence-based solution to the Court’s concerns, with the aim of drawing up replacement regulations.

In the meantime we are taking immediate action, through interim regulations laid before Parliament today, to change our arrangements. We are more than doubling the original time limit for evidence—increasing it from two to five years, and we are introducing a provision for the assessment of evidence concerning financial abuse. We are expediting implementation of these changes so they will come into effect on Monday 25 April in order to make sure that victims of domestic violence can receive the support they need as soon as possible, and to give certainty to those considering applications for legal aid. We believe that these arrangements address the Court’s concerns while work continues to find a sustainable longer-term solution.

[HCWS690]