Court Closures
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bingham
I am not sure how to respond to that without sounding big-headed. I do not know the ins and outs of the courts in Durham, but I felt I put forward a coherent argument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My hon. Friend is making a very passionate speech. I just want to put on the record that decisions on changes, closures and keeping courts open have been made about courts represented by Members on all sides of the House. There has been no preferential treatment for Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) sits on the Labour Benches. I listened to her eagerly, as she said, and the proposals were changed. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Stockport constituency is held by a Labour Member.
Andrew Bingham
I argued against the closure of the Buxton court. It will be closed, so I was only partially successful.
The response to the consultation states:
“move the workload to Chesterfield justice centre and Stockport magistrates and county courts”.
My concern, which I want to flag up today, is how much work will be going to where. I do not want only the odd case going to Stockport just to placate one awkward Member of Parliament.
I want to raise the response to the proposals and the consultation. My judgment is coloured by my views about the way the consultation was carried out and by its content. Yet again, I think there is a hidden agenda and that the officials are letting the Minister down. The response document, which I have here, contains serious flaws. For example, nowhere in the response are the comments made by High Peak Borough Council. The council has 43 elected members from across the political spectrum and they discussed this issue. They made representations, but they have not been referred to anywhere in the official response to the consultation. It seems as though the officials did not like what the council said, so they did not put it in. They have either ignored it or treated it with disdain. This happens at a time when, across the political parties, we are seeking people to stand for public office in councils. Councillors go to meetings, make their opinions well known and then they are ignored. If we are not careful, this will increase the feeling of “What’s the point?” I am very, very disappointed by that. I may be a little cynical, but were councillors’ representations not mentioned because they did not fit in with what Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service wanted?
The decision has been made and it will be implemented. In the official documents, Buxton court is earmarked to close in the first tranche. It is therefore scheduled to take place as we speak today, between February and June this year. The argument was made that the court could not be moved to Stockport because it is in Cheshire and Buxton is in Derbyshire. After discussions, the Minister said the system could work across counties, which I can accept. However, I am told that for the work of a Derbyshire court to be sent out of county, further administrative action needs to take place. I urge the Minister to ensure that that action is taken. I do not stand here as member of the Minister’s fan club, but he is a decent chap and he has been very fair with me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on giving colleagues the opportunity to debate this very important issue one more time. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I will try to mention them as best I can in the few minutes available. May I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box? I look forward to debating with her in the weeks and months ahead.
I am keenly aware that hon. Members hold strong views about the importance of courts in their constituencies and about the impact that their closure may have on the delivery of justice. That has been made abundantly clear today, as it has in numerous parliamentary debates and questions, as well as at the many meetings I have had with hon. Members and in the correspondence—I have written letters to them in response—in which they have engaged.
I very much understand the sincerity of those concerns. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the decision to close a court is not one that I take lightly, but it is a decision that I am prepared to make when it is necessary to do so to support essential reform of our courts and tribunals system and to bring it up to modern-day standards. We need to create a modern and flexible Courts and Tribunals Service that is fit for the 21st century.
Court staff and the judiciary work hard, but they face challenges in delivering an efficient service when the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. Some of the technology that supports services is decades old, and few of the services we offer can be accessed online. We continue to use paper forms, and when court users need to make a payment, we often accept only cash or cheques. We need urgently to modernise the way the courts and tribunals operate to reduce inefficiencies, and to open up new ways for the public to access justice.
The Government are supporting this reform with very significant investment. Investment of £700 million over the next four years will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with courts and tribunals. We will provide new services and deliver better, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system. These reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier to use and more efficient.
I appreciate that some hon. Members have concerns about the consultation exercise we conducted. I have apologised at the Dispatch Box for errors that have occurred in some of the individual courts concerned. However, I assure the House that, although there have been some inaccuracies, the final decisions were taken on the basis of correct information and after consideration of all the well over 2,100 submissions that were made.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as I was unable, owing to other parliamentary business, to be in the Chamber for much of the debate, for which I apologise. I do not like having to intervene in this way on so kindly a Minister. Frankly, however, the closures, particularly for Chichester, are not a policy, but a negation of a policy. Everyone understands the need for financial stringency, but no economic rationale for these closures has been provided, despite repeated requests. Until such a rationale is provided, people will continue to be deeply concerned about the closures. Chichester’s court use is above the national average, and the travel times analysis is seriously flawed. Is the Minister now prepared at least to reconsider the closures, for which no economic case at all has been provided?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
In view of that speech, you may have some injury time.
Mr Vara
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend speaks with passion. He and I have corresponded much, and we have met on many occasions. In fact, it is fair to say that I dreaded entering the Tea Room when I knew he was there, because I knew he would come and speak to me about his court. I think he will agree that I have tried to give him the best information I can, but on the final conclusion he wants, we will have to agree to disagree.
The Government have listened carefully, which is why, in addition to the five court buildings we have retained, we have modified our initial plans for a further 22 sites. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be mindful of that, because the court work that was initially going to be transferred to a court at Wandsworth, 6 miles away from Lambeth, will now be transferred to one at Camberwell Green, just 2 miles away. That was a consequence of our meeting and engagement with the local community.
In eight of the 22 sites where changes have been made, we will not close the court until suitable local alternative provision is in place. Work is under way to determine the specific provision to be provided at each of those locations, and to evaluate a number of options for holding hearings away from traditional court buildings. I expect further testing to take place over the coming months.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister clarify whether what he has just said is accurate? He seems to indicate that all the cases that were to be heard in Putney instead of Lambeth county court will now be held in Camberwell, but that is not the impression delivered previously. How much of the £700 million budget being made available will go to police or council facilities to ensure that a video link is possible?
Mr Vara
This four-year reform programme is worth more than £700 million, and the intention is to ensure that we have one of the best justice systems in the world. I will not give the hon. Gentleman details now about the precise minutiae and breakdown of a four-year programme involving so much money.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, but if he had a little experience of business, he would know that in a four-year programme with such a huge sum of money involved, the figures might not be as precise as he would like them to be at the initial stage.
An important aspect of testing and evaluation will be to ensure that any hearings held outside a traditional court offer appropriate levels of security for members of the public, the judiciary, and court staff. Travel time was mentioned by a number of people, and there must be a fundamental recognition that far fewer people will have to travel to courts in the first place. We intend to use modern technology, and video conferencing facilities are already available. The hon. Member for Neath asked whether those have been tested in any way, but we already have such facilities—for example, there is a community centre in Wales that is used to give evidence.
We already have alternative places to use as courts, and employment tribunal cases have been conducted on oil rigs in the North sea. Only yesterday, a lawyer colleague of ours who joined the House after the election last year told me about probation cases that she had been involved in that were held in public houses.
Mr Kevan Jones
I note what the Minister is saying about new technology and I do not disagree with him, but will he look again at my North Durham constituency, because it is nonsense when people can travel to Gateshead or Newcastle in 10 or 15 minutes, as opposed to travelling to Peterlee? I have raised the issue previously with the Minister and asked him to reconsider, because it makes no sense whatsoever.
Mr Vara
There comes a point when we have to start taking decisions and agree to disagree. This whole programme started before last year’s summer recess, and we had a lengthy consultation period. I have had numerous debates and met more people in the House than I can remember. There has been a huge dialogue, but there must be some recognition that we have listened and made changes in a huge number of cases. That may not be the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about the effectiveness of the administration process that will see this programme through. I will be keeping a sharp eye on proceedings, and if he has any concerns about his local area, I will be more than happy to try to arrange a meeting with senior people at local level, so that he has the comfort he wants.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke of the wonderful work that magistrates do in our courts. I can only echo those comments and say that many magistrates recognise the need for reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about the very useful work of the Justice Committee and brought his own expertise to the House. He also questioned the reliability of the IT projects we will be undertaking. I emphasise that we are taking a staged approach. We will not be putting all our eggs in one basket and we are bringing in expert advice from outside to assist us.
Robert Neill
Will the Minister also deal with the question I raised about what happened to the 10 courts closed under the previous programme that remain unsold? If he does not have that information to hand today, will he at least write and place it in the Library?
Mr Vara
What I can say is that the 10 has now been reduced to nine, and there are offers in place for some of the remaining courts. Others have had genuine difficulties because of joint occupation with other parties. We hope to transfer the remaining courts to the Homes and Communities Agency, which is dealt with by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about her personal experience. I was sorry, as I am sure were other colleagues, to hear about the assault that had taken place on her. I very much take on board the points she makes about domestic violence. I emphasise that we are improving the system by which witnesses and victims give evidence. At the moment, they have to go to court and go through a terrifying experience. With a video conferencing facility, they can go to a place that is closer to their home and in much more pleasant surroundings, rather than the awesome and austere environment of a court.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for his comments confirming that this has been a genuine consultation. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a very powerful speech, raising an important point about digital infrastructure. I take on board what he says. We will certainly be making sure that the infrastructure is in place to support the court reform programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about low-level offences, such as TV licence offences. He sought assurances that perhaps they could be dealt with in courts that are closer to the area. Our thinking is that such low-level offences can probably be dealt with online where people plead guilty, which is the majority of cases.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd gave a very powerful speech, raising concerns about access to justice. I assure her that we are very mindful of rural areas and want to make sure we get this right. My constituency has a rural element to it, so I know where she is coming from.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Minister mentioned alternative arrangements for eight courts. Can he provide more detail on that?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not provide detail on the provisions for eight separate courts at the Dispatch Box now, as time is pressing. I am happy to write to her later in more detail and I will certainly do that.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), a very good friend of mine, made a passionate speech. He wanted an assurance that justice would not become more stressful. As I said in relation to the comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield, we hope the experience will be a lot better for people. We hope they will not have to travel as far and that modern technology will assist them in giving evidence in a closer and more convenient location.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) made a heartfelt speech, in which she referred to technology. I assure her we will deal with the £700 million in a very careful way and make sure we get it right.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) raised concerns, in particular in relation to his local court. He has been passionate in defending his local court, but the consultation received only three responses about it from his local community. I give him credit for wanting to keep the court open, but the fact that there were three responses speaks for itself. I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) welcomed the need for reform, and I take on board what he said, but we will have to agree to disagree, as I said.
In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members, particularly the two who secured this debate. This is a major undertaking by the MOJ, and we will do our best to ensure we have a fit-for-purpose justice system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, hon. Members, the Clerks and, most importantly, all the people who ensure that this place continues to operate, especially the security services, a happy Easter.
draft Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and modification) Regulations 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Ryan.
The draft regulations were laid before both Houses on 8 February this year. They enable the Department to waive collection and enforcement fees on the 2012 child maintenance scheme for a specific group of cases for a limited period of time. That is to allow non-resident parents with a poor history of meeting their child maintenance obligations the chance to demonstrate a change in behaviour. Some minor technical amendments are made to enforce the orders.
A comprehensive reform of the child maintenance system began in 2012 with three express aims: to incentivise parents to collaborate in the best interests of their children; to move away from the idea that applying to a statutory scheme should be the default option for separated parents; and to offer an improved statutory scheme. Alongside that, an ongoing programme to close all existing Child Support Agency cases is giving parents a fresh chance to consider what arrangement for providing financial support for their children best suits their circumstances.
When approaching case closure, we are taking careful steps to minimise the risk of child maintenance payments being disrupted, in particular with those cases in which money is only flowing as a result of enforcement being undertaken on the CSA case, addressing key concerns raised at consultation. We will close cases in which money is flowing as a result of enforcement action last, and we will introduce a new positive test of compliant behaviour for such non-resident parents, which is to be known as a compliance opportunity.
The compliance opportunity will last for six months, provided the non-resident parent pays maintenance in full and on time. During that period, the non-resident parent will be required to pay half the maintenance liability via the collect and pay service through a voluntary method of payment. Where case circumstances allow, an enforced method of payment will be put in place to collect the rest of the liability. That payment safeguard is intended to minimise the risk of payment disruption for the parent with care during the compliance opportunity.
The non-resident parent will be expected to make all payments on time and in full, and if they miss one payment they will fail. Only in exceptional circumstances, when the non-resident parent is not at fault, will an exception be made. If all payments are made, the parent will pass. The outcome of the compliance opportunity will inform a decision on whether the parent’s 2012 scheme case should be a voluntary, direct pay arrangement or a collect and pay arrangement in which the Child Maintenance Service manages collections and charges apply.
Following consultation with stakeholders, we now propose to offer the compliance opportunity in the first six months of the new 2012 scheme case, rather than the final six months of the CSA case. That avoids unnecessary disruption to clients who do not wish to apply to the new scheme, and it can be delivered at a lower overall cost to the public purse.
We will still use enforced methods of payment as a payment safeguard for the duration of the compliance opportunity, when case circumstances allow. Ordinarily, that would attract collection and enforcement fees, so introducing a waiver for those clients during the compliance opportunity will ensure that they are not required to pay until we know it is absolutely necessary.
The draft regulations will also make minor technical amendments to the rules governing regular deduction orders and lump sum deduction orders. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Mr Vara
I thank the hon. Lady for that huge series of questions. I will try to address as many as I can. She raised several points, one of which was to ask why the transfer is not automatic for all cases. If the cases were transitioned into the 2012 scheme automatically without requiring a new application, it would lead to excessive complexity and confusion and undermine the Government’s fundamental commitment to offering a fresh choice to all parents regarding their child maintenance arrangements.
The hon. Lady asked when the transfer can be completed. We do not publish information on the timetable for individual segments, but I can assure her that we are on course to have ended the liabilities for all segments by 31 December 2017.
The hon. Lady asked how long the arrears cleansing process takes. It can take up to six months from the point at which CSA liability ends. In most cases the process takes less than six months, but the time can vary based on the complexity of the case. As for how CSA arrears cases are dealt with in the context of a compliance opportunity, if CSA arrears are transitioned to the 2012 scheme during the compliance opportunity, they will be included in the payment schedule. Failure to comply with the schedule will mean that the non-resident parent fails the compliance opportunity.
The hon. Lady asked whether the transitions arrears in the 2012 scheme will be dealt with in the same enforced way as they were in the CSA. If the non-resident parent complies with the schedule, the historical arrears will be recovered, so nothing will be gained by enforcing collection. If the non-resident parent does not comply with any element of the schedule, that will be taken as evidence that they are unlikely to pay and action will be taken to enforce payment of the arrears and the ongoing liability.
The hon. Lady asked whether the letter asking parents whether they want to write off their debt is to be sent to all parents with care. The answer is yes. She also discussed regulation 2. It makes minor consequential amendments to powers we already have to deduct fees from a person’s bank account, alongside maintenance by regular and lump-sum deduction orders. Regular deduction orders may also be varied to include legacy scheme arrears that have been transitioned to the 2012 scheme. The measures are tidying-up provisions to ensure that the legislation in this area is consistent. There is no change to the policy as a result. In a nutshell, we are introducing new powers that make minor consequential amendments to make the process easier.
As for what would happen in cases in which we are unable to use a DEO as a payment safeguard, the parent would be required to pay 100% of their liability by an enforced method of payment. When a payment is missed, swift action will be taken to enforce the resulting arrears.
The hon. Lady asked about statutory maintenance arrangements. All cases covered by the regulations will be managed in the statutory scheme. She asked several questions and I have given several answers. I hope that she is satisfied with them and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I trust that the order will not be contentious, and I hope the Committee will not be detained for long. The order, which was laid before the House on 8 February 2016, reflects the conclusions of this year’s annual review of the automatic enrolment earnings thresholds, which was required by the Pensions Act 2008. The review considered both the automatic enrolment earnings trigger, which determines the point when someone becomes eligible to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension, and the qualifying earnings band, which determines those earnings of which the enrolled employee and their employer have to pay a proportion into a workplace pension.
The order sets a new upper limit for the qualifying earnings band and is effective from 6 April 2016. The earnings trigger and the lower earnings limit are not changed. The lower earnings limit remains that set in the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2015, and the earnings trigger remains that set in the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2014.
Automatic enrolment is in its fifth year and has been very successful in reversing the decade-long downward trend in pension saving. Since its launch, more than 100,000 employers have complied with their automatic enrolment duties, and more than 6 million eligible employees have been successfully enrolled in a workplace pension. Last year saw the successful staging of the first tranche of small and micro employers and it is projected that by March 2017, more than 700,000 small or micro employers will have enrolled their employees into a workplace pension.
It is therefore more important than ever that, when deciding the thresholds for joining and contributing to a workplace pension, we strike the correct balance between minimising the administrative burden on employers and ensuring that as many people as possible save in a workplace pension.
The qualifying earnings band sets the earnings levels within which an automatically enrolled employee and their employer have to pay a proportion of the employee’s income into a workplace pension. Past reviews have generally linked that to the national insurance bands. As the Minister for Pensions signalled in her written statement on 15 December 2015, the lower limit for the qualifying earnings band will remain unchanged and aligned with the national insurance lower earnings limit of £5,824. However, the order will align the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band with the new national insurance upper earnings limit of £43,000.
Maintaining the alignment with the national insurance thresholds at the points where contributions start for low earners and are capped for higher earners keeps the overall changes to existing payroll systems to a minimum. The decision, therefore, both ensures simplicity and minimises the administrative burden of compliance for employers in 2016-17.
The order does not change the earnings trigger, which remains at the value set in the 2014 order. That trigger is the level of earnings at which individuals are eligible to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme by their employer. We have decided to maintain the automatic enrolment earnings trigger for 2016-17, so it will remain at £10,000.
Owing to anticipated wage growth and the maintenance of the existing trigger, we expect an additional 130,000 individuals to meet the earnings criteria and be brought into the automatic enrolment population. Individuals earning below the £10,000 earnings trigger, but above the lower earnings threshold will still have the option to opt in to a workplace pension and benefit from employer contributions, should they so wish.
The decision to maintain the earnings trigger at £10,000 will increase the number of low earners who meet the earnings criteria and are therefore automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. It will increase the total number of people saving into a pension and total savings. The decision to maintain the alignment of the lower and upper earnings qualifying bands with the national insurance contribution thresholds maintains simplicity and ensures that there are no new potential administrative burdens on employers at a crucial stage of the programme’s wider roll-out.
The order ensures that automatic enrolment will continue to provide greater access and opportunity for individuals to save into a workplace pension, while making sure that, once enrolled, they build up meaningful pension savings. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr Vara
I am grateful for the various comments that have been made this morning and the general support for the order from the Opposition and hon. Members.
I was asked about the impact of freezing the trigger, particularly on women and minorities. It is estimated that the decision to freeze the trigger will make an additional 130,000 individuals eligible for automatic enrolment into a workplace pension in the course of next year, of whom 71%—or 91,000—are expected to be women. I think that that is good news.
As for the self-employed, if they wish to make retirement plans and save into a personal pension scheme, they will, of course, receive tax relief from the Government. However, I trust that the Committee will appreciate that the existing framework for auto-enrolment is not suitable for the self-employed because, by definition, the employer and the worker are the same person. It does not make sense to require a person to take action to enrol themselves and then have to opt out if they do not want to be in the pension scheme.
On the opt-in rate, the “Employers’ Pension Provision survey 2015” suggests that 5% of ineligible workers whose employers have staged choose to opt in to saving in a workplace pension, to which their employer contributes too.
The point about multiple part-time jobs is important, as are the other issues that have been raised. When an individual does not earn more than £10,000 in a single job, but earns more than the lower limit of the automatic enrolment qualifying earnings band of £5,824 in that job, they can choose to opt in to a scheme with a mandatory contribution from their employer for earnings over that level.
More than 90% of members who have been automatically enrolled into master trusts have been enrolled into schemes that have signed up to the master trust assurance framework. That provides additional protections, where appropriate. The immediate-term risks are lower in such schemes than elsewhere.
We urge employers to think carefully about which pension scheme is suitable for them and their staff. The Pensions Regulator has recently updated its guidance to employers and advisers to highlight which schemes operate a net pay arrangement versus a relief-at-source method of tax relief.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for his efforts to tempt me to say what will be in the Budget. My answer is the one he perhaps knew deep down that I would give: it would be premature for me to do so some three hours before the Chancellor stands up and says what he wants to say.
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy, and I wish you well in your new post. This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship and I look forward to doing so again.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on legal services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that on 19 February, the Prime Minister set out the Government position on remaining in the European Union.
Bill Esterson
The former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, says that leaving the European Union would increase the risk of terrorism and would mean that Britain would become a safe haven for criminals. I am sure that the Minister agrees with Sir Hugh, but will he explain why the Justice Secretary is so keen to ignore this advice from such a well-respected authority and to take such a risk with public safety?
Mr Vara
May I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s position is that we would be better off in the European Union and that we would be safer and more secure in it? It is also the case that the deal struck by the Prime Minister in Brussels very much achieves those objectives.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
England and Wales have by far the largest law firms in Europe and provide by far the largest legal services market in Europe, which is 1.5% of UK gross domestic product. Does the Minister not agree with most commercial law firms and the Law Society that up to £1.7 billion of annual legal services output could be lost following a Brexit?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Given that an assessment of the impact on legal services will have been made by the civil servants in the Department, does the Minister think it fair, right and proper that his colleague, the Justice Secretary, is denied the opportunity to see the paperwork?
Mr Vara
As I said earlier, the Government’s position is very clear—that we will be better off in the European Union. As for any potential disagreements, let me gently say to Opposition Members that it is a bit rich for them to be engaging in this sort of conversation in view of the level of unity in their own party. I am prepared to bet a substantial amount with any Labour Member that tomorrow, in 24 hours’ time, when we have Prime Minister’s Questions, the cheer for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be a lot louder than the cheer that the leader of the Labour party will receive.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I invite my hon. Friend to think about how he would choose to spend part of the £350 million that we will save every week when we leave the European Union? Will he also confirm that there will be a big saving in translation services currently expended on foreign national offenders?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes his point as robustly as he always does. I simply say that the Government position is that we would be better off in the European Union; he might wish to reflect on the 3 million-odd jobs that we have secured that are linked to our being in the European Union.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It must have been tricky choosing who should answer this question. According to The Spectator, the Secretary of State has three Ministers for in, three Ministers for out—a perfect miniature of the Conservative party. Given that the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims is away, perhaps we should take the departmental vote today because there would be a majority for in.
We were promised a British human rights Bill last year, a consultation on the repeal of the Human Rights Act in the new year and then a sovereignty Bill last week. Are we going to get anything before the Secretary of State moves on or by the end of June, whichever comes sooner?
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
5. What progress his Department is making on plans to ensure that more prisoners obtain employment after release.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of using other venues in Torbay for magistrates court hearings after the closure of Torquay magistrates court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My officials are engaging with the local authority and will evaluate the suitability of any proposed venue. The majority of the work, however, will transfer to Newton Abbot, seven miles away. In addition, video link facilities are available in Newton Abbot for any victims or witnesses who are unable to attend court where cases are listed in Plymouth.
Kevin Foster
As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, there is disappointment in Torbay that justice may no longer be local after the closure of our magistrates court. Will he look again at options for holding some criminal cases at the town hall and county court buildings in Torquay?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have had a lengthy and thorough consultation, where there were more than 2,000 responses. We have had to make some difficult decisions. I am afraid that Torquay magistrates court is in a poor condition, with inadequate facilities, and the majority of work will be transferred to Newton Abbot, seven miles away. We are, however, evaluating options to continue to provide access to services locally. My officials in the region have written to the council inviting alternative solutions for the provision of services.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
15. What steps he plans to take to ensure access to justice does not depend on the ability to pay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government’s programme of reform aims to deliver faster and fairer justice for all citizens, by speeding up decision-making, giving parties the ability to submit and consider information online, and considering issues far more proportionately. We have committed to invest in the technology that will underpin that.
Yvonne Fovargue
The introduction of employment tribunal fees has caused the number of new cases to plummet. Sex discrimination cases are down by 80% and equal pay cases by 84%. Will the recently announced review publish an impact assessment on the introduction of those fees, and say whether it has disproportionately affected the number of women bringing forward cases to tribunal?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady raises some important points. On the employment tribunal, she should consider the alternative facilities that are available. For example, the early conciliation service has reported that, in the first 12 months, 83,000 people used its services, and that the vast majority were happy with the services that they received.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
A total of 3,600 barristers, including a third of all Queen’s counsel, contribute voluntarily to the Bar Pro Bono Unit. I am honoured that, as a barrister, I was one of those statistics. Does the Minister welcome the significant contribution that the Bar Pro Bono Unit is providing to free access to justice?
Mr Vara
I certainly commend not only my hon. and learned Friend’s contributions, but the contribution of the Bar and the legal profession generally. Pro bono work benefits many people, and I am pleased to see that our engagement with the legal sector is fruitful, and that it is considering other ways of helping the community.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
17. Today is International Women’s Day, which gives us the opportunity to reflect on the fact that financial abuse is not just a crime in itself, but also a way for domestic abusers to control victims and to prevent them from leaving abusive relationships. Following the recent Appeal Court decision on legal aid in cases of domestic violence, how is the Ministry of Justice intending to make access to justice a reality for victims of financial abuse?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady refers to a recent case. She will be aware that the court did confirm that the Lord Chancellor has the power to set domestic violence evidence requirements. As for the other issues, we are considering the outcome of the case and will clarify our decision on the way forward in due course.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
In his latest annual report, the Lord Chief Justice makes an astonishing admission. He said:
“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most.”
Does the Minister accept that that is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs?
Mr Vara
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we work very closely with the senior judiciary? On access to justice, he knows only too well that, despite the reductions that we made to the legal aid budget, it remains, at £1.6 billion, one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
16. What discussions his Department has had with the Home Office on steps to reduce the level of violence against women.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
19. What progress his Department is making on implementation of its strategy on estate requirements and disposals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We keep our estate office under review to make sure that it delivers and supports business transformation, operates efficiently and effectively, and delivers best value for the taxpayer. By closing less efficient, poor-quality court buildings, for example, we will raise £40 million to reinvest in the justice system, and have saved hard-working taxpayers £27 million per year.
Richard Graham
The Ministry of Justice kindly agreed a year ago to dispose of an unused car park in Gloucester to provide more parking and an additional entrance to our railway station—a very good regeneration cause. The Justice Minister assured me that this would be resolved before the end of the financial year. However, we are almost there and there is still no resolution. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the time has come to lock the Courts and Tribunals Service real estate representatives in a room with representatives of Gloucester City Council and Great Western Railway, and to leave them there until they have reached agreement?
Mr Vara
That may be a little drastic as a negotiating procedure, but my officials are engaged in conversations with Gloucester City Council. Those are at an advanced stage. My hon. Friend will not expect me to make commercial comments at the Dispatch Box, but I hope that a final decision will be arrived at very shortly. He and I are due to meet shortly, when we will discuss the matter further.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Can the Minister provide any further update on his plans for the Victorian prison estate and, in particular, any information regarding HMP Norwich in my constituency?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Before the legal aid restrictions were introduced, 78,000 disabled people a year were able to challenge social security decisions, 80% successfully. How can withdrawal of legal aid to disabled people, who are twice as likely to live in poverty, be fair or just?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is important that the hon. Lady appreciates that we have not withdrawn or abolished legal aid. Legal aid still exists for the most vulnerable and the most needy. We do have certain criteria. However, in terms of the decisions that are coming to the courts, the officials who take the decisions in the first instance are looking at the decisions of the courts, so that they do not have to come to the court by way of appeal in the first place.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
In 2009, Walter Scott and Ross, a solicitors firm in my constituency, was closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority due to financial irregularities. Since then, the SRA has systematically failed in its duty of care to former clients of the firm, leading to at least one bankruptcy. Will the Minister agree to investigate that case as a matter of urgency so that we can at last secure some closure for my constituents?
Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
As always, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 1 February, respond to stakeholders and interested parties and clarify the Government’s requirements to ensure that regulations work as intended. From April 2015, new governance requirements were introduced in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Charges and Governance) Regulations 2015 for occupational pension schemes providing money purchase benefits. They include: annual statements regarding governance; certain requirements for processing financial transactions; appointing a chair of trustees responsible for signing the annual statement; and further requirements relating to the default arrangement. Additional requirements were imposed on relevant multi-employer schemes to strengthen the independent oversight of schemes used by multiple employers.
Relevant multi-employer schemes must have at least three trustees and a majority of all trustees, including the chair, must be independent of providers of services to the scheme. Trustees must be appointed for limited terms through open and transparent recruitment processes. Those requirements do not apply when the employers are part of the same corporate group, as we consider such schemes to be closer in nature to single employer schemes and thus less likely to require such additional member protections.
We also made a temporary exemption from the additional requirements, until April this year, for schemes set up by statute. That was to enable us to carry out further work on their existing governance requirements before deciding whether the exemption should continue. The National Employment Savings Trust, known as NEST, is also exempt from the additional requirements as it already has rigorous governance requirements set by law.
The governance measures cover occupational schemes offering money purchase benefits regardless of whether they are used for automatic enrolment or not. They also exclude schemes where the only money purchase benefits offered are additional voluntary contributions.
Since those regulations came into force last April, we have received representations that the definition of “relevant multi-employer scheme” had unintended consequences by bringing some corporate group schemes within the scope of the additional governance requirements. The draft regulations will amend the definition of a multi-employer scheme to ensure that normal corporate activity does not bring a corporate group scheme within the additional requirements unless it promotes itself as open to unconnected employers.
The draft regulations will not extend the temporary exemption for multi-employer schemes set up by statute. On balance, we considered that there was no significant reason to provide a further exemption from good governance standards. However, we will give such schemes up to six months to comply with the requirements for the appointment of independent trustees.
The draft regulations will make other minor changes to ease the practical application of the governance standards. They will remove the requirement for the chair of NEST to be appointed within a three-month timeframe, as that appointment is already covered by other statutory requirements. NEST has to comply with the public appointments process. The draft regulations also allow a person or deputy chair appointed by the trustees to sign the annual statement if there is no chair in place—for example, if the chair resigns or is removed.
For some schemes, certain provisions governing the appointment of trustees are set out in their trust deeds and rules, which may conflict with the governance requirements regarding the appointment of independent trustees. To make it easier for those schemes to comply, the draft regulations will apply a statutory override where provisions in trust deeds and rules conflict with the requirements for the appointment of independent trustees in multi-employment schemes. The draft regulations also correct a typographical error in the definition of “default arrangement” in the 2015 regulations, which were inserted into the Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005.
Consideration has also been given to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, so the regulations include a review clause. The review’s conclusions will be set out in a report, to be published within five years after the regulations come into force. Subsequent reports will be published at intervals not exceeding five years. The review will cover both the original governance requirements and the amendments in this instrument. The draft regulations will make important changes to clarify the scope of the governance requirements and will ensure that they are practicable for occupational pension schemes.
Mr Vara
Those who take the trouble to look at the regulations before us will find that they are specific and narrow. I intend to address the issue before us, rather than go into a general debate on pensions.
The revisions proposed today are a specific response to stakeholders and interested parties, and they are intended to improve the system that exists at the moment. I like to think that the public will welcome them, given that we are responding to the points made by them.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
A relevant point was brought up by the Opposition spokesman in relation to a “fit and proper person”. Although I appreciate that the Minister wants to go on to a specific area, it would be useful for the Committee to be aware of some of the potential concerns. I suspect that whatever the Government are doing in this regard will be rather more robust than it is for the Football Association, for whom “fit and proper person” seems an almost meaningless phrase. None the less, given the large sums of money being held on trust for many of our constituents, it is important that at least some thought is put into that, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the matter.
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I did intend to touch briefly on the governance of master trusts and fit and proper individuals. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke at length about master trusts and raised several concerns, so I assure her that master trusts already have to meet a number of governance requirements under the current law. A voluntary master trust assurance framework has been developed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in partnership with the Pensions Regulator. It is designed to help trustees to assess the quality of their scheme against an industry-wide quality benchmark. It also helps employers to find a well run pension scheme that can be used to comply with their automatic enrolment duties. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator are exploring whether additional protections would be appropriate for the future regulation of this part of the market.
Well run master trusts can and do offer good deals for consumers and employers, and we are keen that the market develops in the right way. We are aware that potential issues have been suggested and we are working with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that the right protection is in place. Once the measures are firmed up, we will inform the public.
Angela Rayner
Does the Minister know how many master trusts have signed up to the voluntary arrangement and how many are yet to do so?
Mr Vara
I do not have a specific figure to hand. The hon. Lady suggested a number of figures, but I want to be careful before I commit myself to any specific number—[Interruption]—although it is my understanding that it may be five. That is my present assumption.
The Government agree that it is important that members’ interests are represented and their views considered. Requirements from April 2015 ensure that independent governance committees and multi-employer scheme boards have arrangements in place to ensure that members’ views are directly represented. Annual chair statements must also include the details of those arrangements. As for contributions paid, the Pensions Regulator works with the industry to monitor the ongoing payment of contributions.
I am grateful for Members’ contributions this morning. The regulations that we have put forward will improve the management of the pensions industry generally. Good governance is fundamental in securing good outcomes for members, and the regulations will help ensure that schemes are well run in members’ interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Lambeth County Court
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I say what a pleasure it is, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate—we have met about the matter—and I take the opportunity to put on record that she is an extraordinarily diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament who has spoken up very effectively for her constituents in the short time that she has been an MP. I am pleased to see that we also have the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) here today, because both of them have written to me and we have corresponded on this issue.
It is absolutely clear from today’s debate that the hon. Lady cares deeply about our courts and the delivery of justice. I want to assure her that I do, too. Before I speak about Lambeth county court, I will mention some general points. The consultation that we have just concluded ran last year and had more than 2,100 responses, all of which were carefully reviewed and analysed. I care about reforming our courts—about moving from places that have changed little since Victorian times to a modern, responsive and flexible system fit for the 21st century.
Neil Coyle
I echo the Minister’s kind words about my colleagues. I am sure that many of those respondents contacted the Minister and the Department to demonstrate their commitment to justice and modernising justice, but how many of the 2,100 responses agreed that it was sensible to close the court?
Mr Vara
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise number regarding the 2,100 responses that we received, but it is fair to say that a number of them objected to closures. As I said, we carefully looked at all the responses that were given. If he gives me some time, I will say that we did actually listen to many of the points that were made—if he bears with me, I will come to that.
Despite the best efforts of our staff and the judiciary, the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. It uses technology that is now decades old. We offer very few services online and rely on paper forms. We key in data and pass bundles of documents between agencies. When we need to take payment, we can often only accept cash or cheques. We convene physical hearings to discuss matters of process. We need to end the old-fashioned ways of working that create inefficiencies and which make it hard for the public to access justice.
That is why the Government have a significant reform programme in which there will be an investment of some £700 million over the next four years. That will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with the courts and tribunals. New services and new, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system will require a modern infrastructure to support them. The reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier and more efficient.
To achieve those benefits, however, we must make difficult decisions, and deciding to close a court is undoubtedly one of the most difficult. I want to emphasise that we have listened to the responses to the consultation. We have retained four courts and in one further case, we have retained one of the jurisdictions along with the building following the responses that we received. In 22 courts, we have modified the proposal in some way to reduce the impact of the closure on court users—indeed, Lambeth is one of those courts, and I will refer to specific points on that shortly.
In the case of Lambeth county court, the court is poorly used; it is only used for around 40% of its available sitting time. The building is in need of considerable maintenance, including the replacement of air conditioning, lighting and aspects of the heating and hot water system. In many respects, it is simply not fit for purpose as a modern and flexible court building.
As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned in her speech, she and I had a meeting—I thought it was very productive—following which we were able to engage in conversation with my officials and she was able to liaise with the local council, Southwark council, and there was a very productive dialogue. Unfortunately, after Southwark council had carried out a feasibility study, it came to the conclusion that county court work could not be transferred to its premises, which we were open to considering. I am, however, pleased that following the representations that she and others made, and recognising the enormous number of housing possession cases that are at Lambeth county court, we have managed to shift the work two miles down the road to Camberwell Green magistrates court. I think that is not unreasonable, in that we have listened, and I would like to think that two miles is not a huge distance.
I understand that the closure of a court has a very real impact on the court’s users, staff and judiciary, but I want to make it clear that in England and Wales, the closure of 86 courts will only reduce the proportion of citizens who will be able to reach their nearest civil or family court within an hour by car by 1% and by public transport by 5%. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of the population will never have to attend a court, and for those who do, it is likely to be a rare occurrence.
The issue of access to justice featured prominently in the hon. Lady’s speech. Being able to access courts and tribunals when required is, of course, essential, but effective access to justice is not defined simply by the proximity to a court or tribunal building. It should be defined by how easy it is for court users to access the service they need, however they choose to do that. We want to take advantage of the choice and flexibility that digital technology offers. We will move towards a system in which face-to-face hearings are required only for sensitive and complex cases. Online plea, claims and evidence systems with much wider adoption of video conferencing into court will reduce the need for people to travel to court.
Helen Hayes
It is not clear to me what the timescale is for the investment of £700 million in new technology, or whether there will be a time lag following the closure of Lambeth county court, the move to Wandsworth and the introduction of the advantages that new technology may be able to bring. Will the Minister set out the timescale and process is a little more detail?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady raises a good point. She will appreciate that I cannot, off the cuff, give her the timetable for Lambeth court, but I can say that it is clearly very important that there is synchronisation between the closure, the transfer of work and the new digital process coming in. Otherwise, there will be an extraordinarily chaotic justice system, which is the last thing any of us want. I assure her that we will be working at pace to ensure the modernisation will work alongside any closures and transfers. She was right to raise the point and I hope I have given her some comfort.
It cannot be right that people are able to transact important aspects of their lives online—for example, completing their tax returns or doing bank transactions—but when interacting with the court having to revert to paper forms and photocopying evidence. I am keenly aware that many people who encounter our justice system do so when they are at their most vulnerable. They may be a victim or witness in a criminal case, or individuals, businesses and families trying to resolve disputes. They may have been recently bereaved or experienced family problems. Whatever the circumstances we need to make better use of technology to provide them with easier access to a more responsive system. This will benefit vulnerable users, with swifter processes and more proportionate services in many cases, which will reduce the need for potentially stressful attendances at court.
Indeed, we have a duty to offer more convenient, less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system while maintaining the authority of the court for serious cases.
Mr Vara
I am mindful that the hon. Member for Streatham spoke about security and if he wanted to intervene on that, I propose to deal with it now. He raised an important point. At present, we have a system whereby witnesses, victims and defendants can all end up on the same public transport going to the same court. Under the new and reformed court system that we envisage, we hope that evidence can be given from a video conferencing suite, perhaps in a civic building or a local police station. That would be done at an appointed time so the victim and the witness would turn up at a given time. It is likely that that suite would be much closer than the court that is dealing with the case. That must be a better and safer system.
Travel time is mentioned regularly, but given that we are moving to a system with video links, travel times will not be longer and in many cases may be shorter because people will be going to a civic centre or police station to give their evidence. That will reduce cost and time, and will be a lot more convenient.
Mr Umunna
One problem—there are several—is that the Minister cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) a timeframe for the introduction of the technologies. In his answer just now he used words such as “likely” and “may” do this or that. The problem is that the absence of the technology will create all sorts of problems for our constituents.
My second point is about the data that were collected and formed the background to the consultation. Clearly, they were collected when one of the judges was absent so were not reflective of just how busy Lambeth county court is.
Mr Vara
On the data, I assure hon. Members that the decision was based on the correct information. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, with the best will in the world, consultation on 91 courts requires human beings to put a huge amount of data into documentation. I assure him that the decision was taken on the correct information.
On my use of the words “may” and “will”, the hon. Gentleman should look at our track record. During the consultation, I met the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Following our meeting, there was instant dialogue between my officials and Southwark council. While the consultation was still proceeding, the council came to the conclusion that it was unable to accommodate what we wanted.
It would be unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to give a specific time, date or month. All I can say is that when we are putting in place a £700 million-plus programme of court reform throughout England and Wales, he must take it on trust that we will do our damnedest to make sure everything fits in and is timely and orderly because, if it is not, there will be one massive chaotic justice system, which is the last thing I want.
Neil Coyle
I note the absence of a specific timeframe, which is unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister will write to my hon. Friends about that. Where is the assessment of the new costs to the police and councils of providing space for the video conferencing that the Minister mentioned?
On journey times, can the Minister tell us what percentage of cases he expects members of the public will still have to attend? In my constituency, there is a growing number of controlled parking zones. Thousands of people are not allowed to own a car where they live so a massive number of people will still be expected to use public transport and, as I have said, a round trip from Rotherhithe in the rush hour will take around four hours.
Mr Vara
I am mindful that I have about two and a half minutes and I am keen for the hon. Lady to have a few minutes to sum up.
In response to the hon. Gentleman, 20 years ago it was unthinkable that people would be accessing banking services from the comfort of their kitchen table or their sitting room. They did not know they would be able to access the Inland Revenue and file their tax return from the comfort of their home. It is important to recognise that proximity to justice does not mean being in a physical building called a court. We already have online transactions taking place. We will do our best to ensure that the £700 million-plus programme works apace and that we deliver the service that we want for a 21st-century justice system that is fit for purpose.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this debate and I hope I have given her some comfort. I conclude by saying that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our court system and that is precisely what we seek to do.
Helen Hayes
I thank the Minister for his response and for taking the time to respond in detail. On video links, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) suggested, there is serious concern about the context in which police stations are closing. I met one of my borough commanders this morning who said Brixton police station is full and there is no capacity. I am not sure the Government have a plan for that. Southwark and Camberwell councils are rationalising a number of their premises, which is probably why they have difficulties in accommodating the Court Service. It is not clear that facilities for video links will be available.
Helen Hayes
My point is about the absence of a detailed plan in the context of a very big decision. The Minister has not responded to my detailed questions about the way in which provision will work at Camberwell and I would be grateful for a written response.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the justice system. At the moment, it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity without a plan.
State Pension Age
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) has made the following written statement.
I am pleased to announce, under section 27(5) of the Pensions Act 2014, the appointment of John Cridland as the independent lead of the state pension age review, which the Government will report on by May 2017.
John Cridland was most recently director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). He is currently chair of the board of Transport for the North. He has previously helped to negotiate the UK’s first national minimum wage, spent 10 years on the Low Pay Commission and he was also a member of the Council of ACAS. He was awarded a CBE for services to business in 2006.
The purpose of the independent review is to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on factors to consider in arriving at future state pension age arrangements. The recommendations should be affordable in the long term, fair to current and future generations of pensioners and consistent with supporting fuller working lives. The review will be forward looking and focused on the longer term. It will not cover the existing state pension age timetable up to April 2028 which is already legislated for.
The terms of reference for the review to this statement are available on the gov.uk website.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-01/HCWS562/.
[HCWS562]
Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has just made a speech more of politics than of substance. Given that he has declared himself a contender in the event of a Labour leadership contest, it is clear that his choice of audience was more about getting nominated as a contender than about dealing with the substance of the matter at hand. [Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers are chuntering, “What about the women?” Precisely—what about the women? What about focusing the debate on the women? What about some substance? I will move on to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Vara
I will give way, but I first wish to make a little progress.
Hon. Members will be aware that the women’s state pension age was changed in 1995 to equalise it with the state pension age for men. Equalisation was then accelerated in the Pensions Act 2011, following extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. Those changes were about bringing gender equality to pensions for the first time, about reflecting rises in life expectancy—it continues to rise for both men and women—and about taking spending on pensions to more sustainable levels.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I wanted to point out to him that the audience today is the huge number of women across the country who are adversely affected by the changes. One of them wrote to me:
“When equalization for pensions was first introduced in 1995 I was informed I could collect my State Pension at 64…however this was changed again in 2011 to…66. This is very unfair to me and the many other women it affects bearing the brunt of the changes twice”.
Labour has recognised that, which is why we have tabled a motion calling for transitional arrangements. Why is the Minister not backing us and the WASPI women on this?
Mr Vara
As far as the hon. Lady’s question—or her speech, which had a question at the end of it—is concerned, I will address those issues later in my speech. However, she is absolutely right that the audience for this debate is the women concerned. In my speech, I intend to address the substance of the subject, rather than the politics of it, which we heard earlier.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Was the Minister struck, as I was, by the fact that the shadow Secretary of State, during the 30 minutes he took to set out the challenges we face, did not actually tell us what the Labour party would do, which of the six changes he would commit to, or whether he would commit to all six of them?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State’s speech was full of bluster and specified no options. He failed to recognise or to speak about the cost, and to explain why the issue was not in the Labour party manifesto. The luxury for the Opposition is the ability to spend money for which they are not accountable and for which they have no responsibility. The difficulty for the Government is to deal with taxpayers’ money and to take the hard decisions that are necessary.
Alison McGovern
The Minister is speaking as though we did nothing to bring this issue to the Government’s attention during the last Parliament. That is straightforwardly not true. I participated in debate after debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who brought it to the Government’s attention time and again. As we have had so many debates about it, can we not just get on with talking about what we are going to do about it?
Mr Vara
I will come on to the debate we had in 2011 later in my speech. If the hon. Lady wants to talk about previous Governments, may I gently remind her of the 13 years of Labour Government, with the 10 Pensions Ministers—one Minister had the job twice—and the nine Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions? In the interests of fairness, she, along with everyone else, might wish to acknowledge the limited work, if any, that was done during the 13 years of the Labour Government to put matters right, as they put it.
Owen Smith
The Minister says that the Labour Government did limited work. May I point out that, following a freedom of information request to the Government just a couple of weeks ago, it was conceded that Labour spent more than £5 million advertising the changes and sent out 800,000 letters? That was in stark contrast to the previous Tory Government, which, frankly, did damn all.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When it comes to equalisation, how much leeway do the UK Government have under EU law?
Mr Vara
EU law does require us to equalise pension ages. Later in my speech, I will mention countries that have already achieved what we are still endeavouring to achieve. Incidentally, the shadow Secretary of State was wrong in what he said about Germany. Germany has already achieved equalisation.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that although EU law requires the equalisation of pension ages, it also allows for transitional arrangements while reaching that stage. Frankly, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
There are women in Northumberland who are likely to be in serious financial difficulty as a result of these changes. It will not be most of those affected, but it will be a few. My concern is for that small number of women. I would be most grateful if the Minister would agree to meet me and other Government Members to look at the small group of women who face such financial pressures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Peter Bottomley
My hon. Friend is saying some fair things about the Opposition and they do not like it. Will he turn his mind to a fair thing that I want to say about the women who are directly affected? The issue is that people who were born within 12 months of each other can have retirement ages nearly three years apart. That is where better transitional arrangements are needed. We all know that this Government have had to put right many things that previous Governments have got wrong, but this is something we need to get right for ourselves.
Mr Vara
I will give way later, but I wish to make some progress.
There has been much debate about this issue, and we have had several debates about it in recent weeks. It comes down to two fundamental issues. First, there have been calls to undo the 2011 pension changes. The cost of that would be more than £30 billion. Secondly, there are calls by some to go even further and unravel the 1995 pension reforms.
Mr Vara
Yes, there are many people, including people in WASPI, who want to unravel the 1995 reforms. It is out there on the internet for people to see, so let us not try to deny the two options that are being debated out there. I said at the outset that I was going to talk about the substance of the matter, and I will talk about both those options.
Owen Smith
The Minister repeats the calumny that the WASPI women are saying, “Do not equalise pensions, and get rid of the 1995 Act.” That is exactly what the Whips’ crib sheet says, but he knows it is not true. That was one comment made by one woman among the hundreds of thousands on Facebook. It is not what WASPI said to the Work and Pensions Committee, and it is not what it said in its petition. It is not true. Will he withdraw it?
Mr Vara
I am simply speaking from my personal experience of speaking to women. There are women who have said to me that they want the restoration of the 1995 rules. Colleagues in this House have had people in their surgeries speaking of 1995. The hon. Gentleman may not have had that—he may be out of touch, but the rest of us are not. When we talk of £77 billion or even £30 billion, we are not talking about a few million pounds or a few billion pounds. In both contexts, we are talking of tens of billions of pounds. That situation is simply not sustainable.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
When the hon. Gentleman says that £30 billion was saved as a result of the 2011 changes, what he is saying is that there was a transfer from one of the poorest groups in our society, which is women in their 50s. That group of women saw the largest growth in unemployment under the coalition Government and are more likely to have to work after retirement than men. When they do so, two thirds of them work on the lowest wage levels, unlike men who work after retirement, two thirds of whom work on the highest wage levels. What does he have to say about picking the pockets of the poorest women in our society?
Mr Vara
I will address some of the points that the right hon. Lady makes, because there is a broader context to this debate, rather than simply the issue of the pension age. Given the opportunity, I would like to make some progress.
People are living longer and leading healthier lives. Of course, that is to be welcomed, but it does increase the pressure on the state pension scheme. As a Government, we have a responsibility to keep it affordable and sustainable for future generations.
Mr Vara
I would like to make some progress.
The changes that have been made are important in making the state pension scheme affordable and sustainable. They also reflect the way in which men and women lead their lives now, rather than the way they led them in the 1940s. I will come back to that point later.
First, I want to tackle one issue head-on. Many hon. Members have talked about the need for transitional arrangements. I point them towards the extensive debates and discussions that took place when the legislation passed through Parliament. Let me quote Hansard from the day on which the Pensions Bill received its Second Reading in June 2011. The Secretary of State made it very clear that equalisation of the state pension age would take place in 2018. He said that
“we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]
Yes, he said,
“we will consider transitional arrangements.”
Four months after the Secretary of State said those words, and after he had considered the matter further, a concession or a transitional arrangement—call it what you will—was indeed considered by this House and included on Report. That transitional arrangement was worth over £1 billion and reduced the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension from two years to 18 months. So when people say that transitional arrangements should have been made, I simply ask them to look back at the record, to consider what was said and to consider what was subsequently done four months later. There were transitional arrangements. They passed through the House, there was extensive debate, there was extensive engagement with the relevant stakeholders and it was done.
Neil Gray
I think that this is the fourth debate I have attended in which the Minister has responded on these issues, and his answers on this injustice are still woefully inadequate. Talking of injustice, will he answer my constituent, Shiona Airlie, who is four months outside this measure and was only notified in 2012 that she would have to wait a further four years—less than a year before her 60th birthday? Where is the justice in that? How is it fair after she has paid into the system for all of her working life?
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Minister’s description of Hansard and the discussions that took place in this House was extensive, but the ladies concerned do not know about that. It is surely unreasonable to expect them to read Hansard to understand what their pension arrangements should be. Women in my constituency are coming to my surgery to tell me of the significant changes that they and their families will experience because of this policy. It is not good enough and the Minister must listen and act.
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the public are uninterested in Hansard. My point was that people in this House who are speaking in this debate should read Hansard. Rather than simply saying, “Where are the transitional arrangements?”, they should recognise that transitional arrangements were made.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Is it not a fact that people were not aware of the Pensions Act 1995? We had 13 years of a Labour Government that spent £5 million on communication. Is it not the complete failure of the previous Labour Government that failed the women involved?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is right. In 13 years of government, Labour—with 10 Pensions Ministers and nine Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions— completely failed these women and now refuses to accept any responsibility or to acknowledge the arithmetic of the pensions budget. Labour Members seek to put the blame on those at this Dispatch Box without making any contrary proposals. They refuse to commit themselves. As I said earlier, the luxury of opposition is being able to speak about spending huge sums of money without having the responsibility of taking the political decisions that we have to take.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Vara
I have given way many times and I am afraid that we are now getting to a stage at which MPs are simply repeating points that have already been raised. I am mindful that many hon. Members wish to speak. Nobody can accuse me of not being generous in giving way, but I wish to make progress.
The changes that were made, and the transitional arrangements made in 2011, benefited a quarter of a million women who would have otherwise have had a delay of up to two years. For more than 80% of those affected, the increase in the time period will be no more than 12 months. The House voted for this amendment to the Bill and a concession was called for. A concession was considered by the Government, proposed by the Government and accepted and voted for by this House. The Government promised to consider transitional arrangements in 2011 when the legislation was going through, and that is exactly what the Government delivered—a reduction in the time period from two years to 18 months at a cost of £1.1 billion. That shows that the Government were listening to the concerns of Members and responded to them at the time.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Exactly how much of that money went to the women concerned?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. There is a lot of shouting out now. If the Minister wants to take an intervention, he will, but if we could stop shouting it would help us proceed with the debate.
Mr Vara
I will not give way, as I wish to make progress.
Following the 2011 Act, we wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age. About 5 million letters were sent by the DWP and the sending of the letters to those affected was completed between January 2012 and November 2013. Letters to those whose state pension age was set by the 1995 Act only were sent between April 2009, when Labour was still in government, and March 2011, when that process was finished by the coalition Government. As a result of those efforts, in 2012 a survey by the DWP found that only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60.
The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary mentioned several surveys and was somewhat selective in those to which he referred. The one done by the DWP, which runs and is in charge of the pension scheme, has a fair amount of validity and, as I say, only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60. As for the original 1995 changes to the state pension age, in 2004 nearly three quarters of those between 45 and 54 were aware of changes to women’s state pensions. Our communications campaign has focused on raising general awareness of the changes and encouraging those closest to the state pension age to get a personalised state pension statement.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and, despite the chuntering from those on the Labour Front Bench, I can assure him and everyone else that this is my question. We heard earlier from the shadow Secretary of State that he believed that the communication on this been absolutely appalling. He overlooked the fact that his own Government estimated that 75% of women had been informed. He also overlooked the fact that according to evidence to the Select Committee there were 600 mentions of the 1995 Act found in the media at that time. According to the briefing on the state pension legislation, 17 million automatic forecasts were issued by the Labour Government between 2004 and 2006—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] Does my hon. Friend agree that although undoubtedly some women were not informed, many were?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those facts on the record. I am, however, sorry that as he was making those points of substance, all he got was the yah-boo politics that we can expect from the Opposition. I am afraid that the truth, as anyone watching this debate at home can see for themselves, is that the Opposition do not want to know the substance or the facts. All they are interested in is the politics, but this is far too important an issue to be treated with the political naivety with which some Opposition Members are treating it. This is an important subject and the Government are dealing with it and treating it with the seriousness it deserves.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for giving way, and he is clearly in a difficult corner, but I wondered whether he could clarify whether the Government now accept that women—well, anybody—need at least 10 years’ notification of a pension change in order to plan and prepare. If the Government now accept that, will he explain why that does not apply to this group of women?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady will be aware that Governments have to take difficult decisions at times. Considering the state of the economy and the financial position that this Government came into—she will be aware that one of her own colleagues said that there was no money left—and considering the longevity of both men and women, the Government had to take difficult decisions, as all Governments of both shades have to. This Government had to take difficult decisions and we took them because they needed to be taken.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The women of this country will be watching this debate and listening to the Minister’s comments with a mixture of concern and disappointment. He is giving us history lessons and is trying to apportion blame. We have a material problem now that the Government need to address, so he should stop looking backwards and start looking forwards, and start caring for the women of this country. This House has already said by an overwhelming majority that it wants the Government to look again at the transitional arrangements: has the Minister looked again at them, has his position changed since the last time this House debated the subject and will he tell us what his change of position is?
Mr Vara
If hon. Members did not give mini speeches in the middle of my speech, I could reach my conclusions. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in due course. We cannot look at the changes to women’s state pension age in isolation without acknowledging the significant changes in life expectancy in recent years, the huge progress made in opening up employment opportunities for women and the wider package of reforms. First, on life expectancy, the reason for all these significant reforms is that people are not just living longer but are staying healthy for longer. In just a decade, the length of time for which 65-year-olds will live in good health has surged by more than a year. That is welcome news, but it puts increasing pressure on the state pension scheme, and the Government—any Government—have a duty to ensure the sustainability of the state pension system. It would have been irresponsible for this Government, or the then coalition Government, to have ignored those developments.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that all Governments have the responsibility to be fair to the people of this country? Women are affected by the goal posts moving, and the benefits that they would get at retirement age have gone as well. This is a double whammy for that group of women who have worked hard all their lives.
Mr Vara
The Government have a duty to all their citizens, and they have to take difficult decisions and perform a balancing act. It is important to bear that in mind when people are talking about spending £30 billion-plus, or £77 billion. Those are serious sums of money, and difficult decisions have to be taken to achieve that balancing act.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Vara
I will make progress. The landscape for women and employment has completely changed since the 1940s. Female employment is now at record levels, with more than 14 million women in work—a record rate of nearly 70%. The number of older women aged 50 to 64 in work is also at a record high, with over 100,000 more older women in work than this time last year. Indeed, over the past decade, women have on average stopped working later than 60. In 2015, the average age was 63, and we know that more women than men would prefer to work flexibly or part-time before retiring.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) just said to the Minister that we need at least 10 years for these notifications to be brought in. Is he confirming that this group of women, some of the poorest people in the country, are paying for the planned deficit reduction? What does he say to my constituent, Jayne Manners, who is disabled and cannot make up the six years that she has lost from this scheme? What transitional help can he give her?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman in part repeated a question that was asked earlier, and I refer him to my previous answer. I will turn to other issues later, given the opportunity to make progress with my speech.
We need a pensions system that recognises the changes that have been made, in the same way that we have responded to the need to support older workers in the labour market. We have abolished the default retirement age and extended the right to request flexible working to all employees, and we are working with businesses to encourage the employment and retention of older workers.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
On transitional funding, is it about time that the Government started tackling rich corporate tax dodgers and stopped dodging poor women pensioners?
Mr Vara
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is delighted that he was able to score his cheap political point.
Let me turn to our wider reforms. We inherited one of the most complex state pension systems in the world, and too many people did not understand what they could expect upon retiring. From April this year, we are introducing a simpler state pension that will give people a clear picture of what the state will provide so that they can build their own savings. We have a triple lock, so that pensioners will see their basic state pension go up by at least 2.5% every year, as it has since 2011. That means that from this April, pensioners will receive a basic state pension that is more than £1,100 higher a year than at the start of the last Parliament. It is important for people to look at matters in a broader context, rather than in the single-issue context that many colleagues seem to be speaking about.
Lady Hermon
I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for at long last allowing me to intervene. In response to an earlier intervention by a Conservative Member who has now left the Chamber, the Minister replied that Ministers are always happy to meet party colleagues to discuss difficult cases. Unlike the Minister for Pensions, who sits in the other place, this Minister has refused to come to Northern Ireland and meet women who were born in the 1950s and who are adversely affected by this change. Will he please have the good grace to agree to come to Northern Ireland and meet my constituents in North Down, and other women affected by this issue, and explain why the Government will not introduce transitional measures?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before the Minister replies, 25 Members wish to catch my eye and we are hoping to have a Division at about 4:50 pm. We still have another Front-Bench opening speech, and we are getting tight on time. Interventions have been very long, but if the Minister could start concluding his remarks, we might be able to get everybody in.
Mr Vara
I take on board what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am coming to a conclusion. I am more than happy to meet colleagues, but I am afraid the venue would have to be negotiated. It is not every day that I go to Northern Ireland, but if the hon. Lady wants a meeting with me I am more than happy to meet her here in London.
We have ensured that more people are saving for their retirement by requiring employers to enrol their staff on to a pension with our auto-enrolment scheme. In addition to those reforms, we have continued to protect and build on a range of other pensioner benefits, including a permanent increase to cold weather payments, protection of winter fuel payments, and protection of free bus passes.
Mr Vara
I will not give way. Hopefully the hon. Lady heard what Madam Deputy Speaker directed.
We are providing greater security and choice for people in retirement, while also ensuring that the system is sustainable for the future. That is a record on pensions and pensioners of which Conservative Members can be proud. Parliament has extensively debated accelerating the changes to the state pension age. We listened to all arguments for and against at the time of the Pensions Act 2011, and we made transitional arrangements.
We are far behind other countries in Europe on equalisation—Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Greece have already equalised the pension age for men and women. We must look to the future, not persist in looking backwards. These changes are about putting our pensions system on a secure financial footing, rather than continuous confusion for those affected and further debate. We should build on the high levels of awareness that we already have, and continue to promote flexibility, choice and security for older people. There are no plans on the part of the Government to make policy changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grants of Probate
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
On 18 February, the Government published a consultation paper proposing new fees for applications for grants of probate.
In the spending review the Ministry of Justice was allocated £700 million investment in Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (‘HMCTS’). This will transform our courts and tribunals, reducing complexity in language, processes and systems; helping people reach the best resolution for them; minimising the steps that people need to go through to obtain justice; and improving access to justice. We will invest in better facilities and use technology to reduce paperwork, so that we create a courts and tribunals service fit for the modern age.
At the same time, we must reduce the burden on the taxpayer of running our courts and tribunals. In meeting our spending review settlement, all parts of the Ministry of Justice must contribute to the national effort to reduce the deficit and restore the Government’s finances to surplus. The courts and tribunals service cost £1.8 billion in 2014/15, but only £700 million was received in income. This leaves a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1.1 billion in one year alone.
Our consultation on probate applications sets out reforms designed to increase income for a more sustainable courts and tribunals service and to introduce a more progressive fees regime. Probate applications are currently charged a fee of £155 if made by a solicitor and £215 if paid by an individual (“personal applications”). These fees apply to estates worth £5,000 or more. We propose raising this threshold from £5,000 to £50,000, lifting 30,000 estates out of the need to pay a probate fee altogether. The proportion of estates paying no fee would rise to 57%.
Above that threshold, we propose that the probate fee increases in line with the value of the estate. Estates worth over £50,000 but below £300,000 would see their fee rise to £300, a modest increase of £85 on the current maximum fee of £215. 84% of estates would pay £300 or nothing and 94% of estates would pay £1000 or less. The maximum fee of £20,000 would only be paid by the very wealthiest estates, worth more than £2 million. The fee would never exceed 1% of the value of the estate and in many cases it would be considerably less.
We also want to see a simpler, more streamlined process for probate applications, moving from a paper-based to an online system. This will make the probate service much easier to navigate so the experience of the bereaved is as simple and hassle-free as possible, reducing worry for executors at what is often a very difficult and distressing time, and enabling most applications to be completed online and, we hope, without expensive professional advice.
These proposals are progressive, with lower value estates lifted out of paying any fee at all and other estates only paying more as the value of the estate increases. They are also necessary, making a significant contribution to reducing the deficit and enabling investment which will transform the courts and tribunals service.
Court fees are never popular but they are necessary if we are, as a nation, to live within our means. These proposals would raise around an additional £250 million a year, which is a critical contribution to cutting the deficit and reducing the burden on the taxpayer of running the courts tribunals.
Full details of the Government’s proposals are set out in the consultation document which has published on the website at: www.gov.uk.
[HCWS541]
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
On 19 February the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor wrote to the Chair of the Justice Select Committee to inform him of two issues concerning Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’): one relating to Form E1 and the other relating to community penalty breach warrant processing errors.
As a result of further extensive investigations to establish the cause of the Form E error, my officials have alerted me to a further calculator problem in a past version of another form, Form E1.
Form E1 is the form that parties must use to disclose financial information in certain kinds of financial proceedings, including proceedings for financial provision for children that fall outside the statutory maintenance scheme. Form E1 is used in a much smaller number of proceedings than Form E.
This fault meant that the automatic calculator in the form calculated the wrong total for an individual’s net assets by failing to deduct certain liabilities.
The investigation found the faulty formula was present in the version of Form E1 that was available on the HMCTS Form Finder website between April 2011 and March 2012.
HMCTS has conducted a search on a set of 459 cases that have a record of a financial application or a reference to Form E1 having been filed during this period. Where Form E1s were found, they were checked to see if they were the HMCTS version containing the calculator error, and if so whether the error was present. Three Form E1s have been identified as containing the calculation error.
While we are confident that the trawl has captured the vast majority of cases that could have been affected by the error, anyone concerned about their case can write to us and their case will be checked. Following the Form E error coming to light, HMCTS established a dedicated email address which people could use if they were concerned about their own case: formE@hmcts. gsi.gov.uk. Those who wish to contact us about Form E1 should use this same email address.
Although the faulty form was used in these cases, it will not necessarily have had any effect on the ultimate outcome. Form E1 is only a part of the material used by the parties and the court and is used at an early stage, so the information is often disputed or superseded by further information introduced during proceedings.
We have instructed HMCTS to write to all parties in the three cases identified. The letter will express our sincere regret, set out what happened and explain that, although Form E1 is just one part of the evidence used in their case, there remains a possibility that the error affected the final outcome.
The letter will set out options available to people involved in these cases. They may wish to do nothing, if, for example, they know that the error was corrected during the proceedings or they do not wish to re-open their cases. If they think they have been affected by this error then they can apply to the court to vary or set aside their order. My officials consulted the president of the Family Division about the court rules and procedures that would apply to such applications or for any other proceedings that might be open to the parties. My officials are also consulting the president on the development of a specific form for such applications. We will provide a link to the new form in our letter to the parties, as well as guidance on how to complete the form.
We have instructed that no court fee will be charged for making this application, and this will also be made clear in the letter from HMCTS.
The current version of Form E1 has the correct calculator functionality and we will also consider the future of Form E1 as part of our broader court reforms.
With regard to community penalty breach warrants, on Tuesday 26 January, I was alerted to an error in the processing of an individual breach warrant by HMCTS.
A community penalty breach warrant is issued when an individual has failed to attend court to answer why they have not complied with the conditions of, for example, a community or suspended sentence. In some circumstances, individuals may be remanded in custody following a breach of their order.
The effect of a breach warrant not being processed properly can be that notification that a warrant has been issued to arrest an individual is either sent late to the arresting authority or not sent at all.
Following this individual case, HMCTS immediately began an urgent investigation into whether this was an isolated incident or more widespread. Initial local checks into all 725 ‘live’ breach warrants in the Greater Manchester area discovered that a further 51 breach warrants had been processed incorrectly. Those errors were due to processes being disapplied or ignored by specific members of HMCTS staff in the Greater Manchester area. Immediate steps have been taken to ensure that proper procedures are now being followed in Greater Manchester and action has been taken against all members of staff identified as responsible for these errors. All of the 52 warrants have since been processed correctly and have either been actioned or are in the process of being actioned by the enforcing authority.
Given the potentially serious repercussions of breach warrants not being properly processed, HMCTS then instigated detailed and thorough investigations across the whole of England and Wales to see if the problems in Greater Manchester had also occurred elsewhere. A total of 4,054 live warrants (including those in Greater Manchester) have been checked in 200 issuing courts across the country—including every warrant issued over the last month. Those checks have identified a further 69 errors nationally, including 47 in the London region.
Investigations are now examining the reasons for error in all 69 cases outside of Greater Manchester, and are particularly focused on why a disproportionate number appear to have occurred in London.
Early findings have already made clear that the majority of the errors in London were due to a change in process and personnel that had been addressed by the end of January 2016.
Immediate detailed assurance is being carried out of local processes to ensure that all community penalty breach warrants are sent to the appropriate enforcement authority, and an in-depth audit is being carried out in London and Greater Manchester to assure their processes independently. The relevant standard operating procedures are being strengthened as a matter of urgency, and best practice that has been identified through the investigations undertaken will be shared and implemented across the country. Appropriate action will be taken in respect of all staff members who have made errors, consistent with the approach taken in Greater Manchester.
HMCTS will report to me as soon as possible on the reasons for each individual error across the country and will also recommend whether more action should be taken to the steps outlined above in order to eliminate the possibility of further errors occurring in future. These mistakes are deeply regrettably and I sincerely apologise to anyone who may have been affected.
[HCWS540]