State Pension Age (Women)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mhairi Black
It is noticeable, and a pity, how few Conservatives have turned out.
It is important to highlight that the Government did not send out a single letter to women. There was no official correspondence between the Government and the individuals affected, alerting them to the changes that were going to happen to them. Even the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recognised that not everybody knew that the changes had happened in the 1995 Act.
A response to a freedom of information request states that the Department eventually wrote to individuals affected and that
“Mail campaigns took place between 2009 and 2013.”
That is 14 years after the 1995 Act. Women were not personally notified by anybody official until 14 years after the changes came in. That is 14 fewer years that women have had to prepare and to try to make alternative arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on managing to secure this debate, which has attracted many Members on both sides of the House. I also commend all the colleagues who have taken the trouble to come here and speak today. I will try to address as many of their points as I can in the limited time available to me.
I should like to begin by reminding the House of the rationale for reforming the timetable. For our state pension system to function effectively, it has to be fair, affordable and sustainable. The changes made to the state pension age under the Pensions Act 2011 make an important contribution to achieving those aims. Gender equality is one of the main purposes of the changes to the state pension age. Under the previous system, women reaching state pension age in 2010 would spend on average 41% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension. For men, the figure was only 31%, owing to the longer life expectancy and earlier state pension age of women.
It makes little sense for women to work to a pension age originally set in 1940 which does not reflect the employment opportunities open to them in a modern society. Changes were needed to take account of increased life expectancy and to ensure fairness for working-age people who would otherwise bear the cost of this longevity. Following sharp rises in life expectancy, the previous Government acted to address this and brought forward the timetable for rises in the state pension age. This was vital if we were to continue to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision and to ensure that the state pension remained affordable and sustainable. It is also important to look at the changes in the context of our wider pension reforms and what these mean for women.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister cannot have been listening to what I said earlier. A substantial proportion of what I said showed that that is not the case, although he and his colleagues are hiding behind that argument. We were not required to do that. Some EU countries are not equalising until 2040 or 2044, and some are maintaining a difference. Will he please stop hiding behind something that is not true?
Mr Vara
I will not give way. I am mindful of the limited time that I have, and I am keen to ensure that the proposer of the motion, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, has time to make her concluding comments at the end of the debate.
The introduction of the new state pension will benefit many women who would have lost out under the current two-tier system, largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. All those affected by the 2011 changes will reach pension age after the introduction of the new state pension. Around 650,000 women reaching state pension age in the first 10 years will receive an average of £8 per week more under the new state pension than they would have done under the previous system. The majority of households reaching state pension age up to 2030 will receive a higher total income over retirement under the new system.
The solution to ensuring that people have a comfortable later life is encouraging and enabling them to work longer. This benefits individuals through the social and financial rewards of employment, it benefits employers through the skills and experiences that older workers bring to the workplace, and it benefits the wider economy. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that adding just one year to people’s working lives would add 1% to UK GDP per year.
Support is in place to provide extra help for people who cannot work owing to caring responsibilities, ill health or disability. Women affected would be eligible for the same in-work, out-of-work or disability benefits as men of their age, and carer’s allowance may be available, for which national insurance credits are awarded automatically. In 2011, credits were introduced to help adult family members looking after a child under 12 in order to assist the parents who were working, with these credits being able to count towards state pension entitlements.
Much has been made of the comments made by the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, and it is important to recognise that even he was not seeking a restoration that would cost £30 billion. Indeed, he said that he was only looking for a 10% clawback. It is also worth remembering that he does recognise that the £1.1 billion concession that was made was generous. His exact words were:
“and we got £1 billion back in the end, and a billion quid is a serious amount of money.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. He read out the quote about £1 billion being a “serious amount of money”, but he really should have quoted the whole sentence, which begins:
“this was a measure to save 30 billion quid over how many years, and we wanted 10% of that back to soften the blow”.
Steve Webb wanted £3 billion back but got only £1 billion.
Mr Vara
If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to listen while he was preparing his question, he would know that that is what I said, except that I used different words. He might want to check the Hansard record tomorrow morning. In this place, it always helps to listen before speaking.
The Government listened to the concerns expressed during the passing of the 2011 Act, and shortened the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension, relative to the 1995 timetable, to 18 months. That concession benefited almost a quarter of a million women, who would otherwise have experienced delays of up to two years. A similar number of men also benefited from a reduced increase. The concession was worth £1.1 billion in total, and as a result 81% of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less.
Mhairi Black
To me, the concessions that were given show that the Government recognise that the transition was not appropriate. Given that the wording of today’s motion is clear in asking the Government to reassess the transitional arrangements, will the Minister confirm that he will do so if the motion is passed, be it unanimously or with a vote—yes or no?
Mr Vara
I have only a short time left and I must press on.
As for people being aware of the 1995 changes, I should add that research carried out in 2004 by the Department for Work and Pensions found that 73% of people aged 45 to 54 were aware of the changes to women’s state pension age. It is regrettable that people have sought to put this on a political basis and have conveniently forgotten that after 1995 we had 13 years of Labour government. I have here a list of some 10 Labour Pensions Ministers who totally failed to do anything, yet Labour Members conveniently seek to put the blame on the things that have happened post-2010. The shadow Home Secretary made comments earlier, but he was a Labour Cabinet Minister, and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who also made comments today, was also in the Labour Administration. He is a former Pensions Minister, yet he did nothing then.
Alan Johnson
Indeed, I was the Work and Pensions Secretary, but we introduced measures that did not include this anomaly—it was introduced in 2011.
Mr Vara
The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier of being lobbied, but he took no action on that. Furthermore, big issues arise as to whether notice was given in respect of the changes in 1995, and when he was Work and Pensions Secretary he did nothing to make sure that those women were informed. All the blame has been put on Conservative Members.
I wind up simply by saying that this matter was debated thoroughly and properly in 2011. A concession was made then—by way of time period and financially—which was worth more than £1 billion, and it was thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. I very much hope that I have put the Government’s position on the record. I simply say to some people that they, too, should learn to take responsibility, given that they were in government for 13 years. With that, I shall allow time for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South to speak.
HMCTS
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I will today publish the Government response to the consultation on proposals to increase court and tribunal fees. The consultation paper was published on 22 July 2015 and the consultation closed on 15 September 2015.
The Government announced in the spending review that it will be investing £700 million in reforming the courts and tribunals during the next five years. This crucial investment will allow us to modernise and improve the service we provide to the public.
There remains a need to ensure the courts are not placing too great a burden on the taxpayer. Courts and tribunals in England and Wales cost £1.7 billion in 2014-15, but we only recovered £700 million in income. That is a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1 billion.
It is therefore right that we ask for a greater contribution from court users who can afford to pay more. We have balanced this need alongside the responses we received to our consultation and decided to:
Implement fee increases of 10% across the range of civil proceedings, including enforcement proceedings, determination of costs proceedings, and civil business in the magistrates courts.
Introduce fees for the first time in the General Regulatory Chamber and the tax chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and in the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber.
Keep the maximum fee cap in money claims at £10,000. A number of consultees were concerned about the proposal to raise the cap to £20,000. We accept that it is too soon to understand the full impact of the first round of fee increases introduced in March this year. We will therefore not implement the further increase at this stage, but keep this option under review.
Introduce a fee of £20 for an appeal against a financial penalty in the tax chamber. Some respondents felt that it was unfair to charge an issue fee of £100 for an appeal against a financial penalty of £100 or less imposed by HM Revenue and Customs, so we have decided to introduce a lower fee than initially proposed.
Introduce fees of £100 to issue proceedings in the Property Chamber and £200 for a hearing. There will be an exception for proceedings relating to rent levels and pitch fee applications, where a lower fee of £20 will apply. This will mean fees are more proportionate to the amount in dispute. We will not implement the higher fees for leasehold enfranchisement proceedings that were proposed in the consultation paper at this stage, so these proceedings will be subject to the standard fees in the chamber.
Defer any decision on whether to introduce a fee for bringing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner until the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information reports next year.
HMCTS’s remissions scheme will apply to all of the new and increased fees, with the exception of those in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal where there is a separate exemptions policy to protect vulnerable users. As proposed in the consultation document, we will introduce an additional exemption for those whose humanitarian protection or refugee status is at risk of being revoked.
Fees are never popular, but they are necessary if we are to reduce the burden of the courts and tribunals on the taxpayer.
We have sought to protect the vulnerable at every stage. We have also listened very carefully to concerns raised during the consultation and modified our proposals accordingly.
This balanced package will put the courts and tribunals on a more sustainable footing as we create a modern efficient service, fit for the 21st century.
Full details of how the Government intend to take forward these proposals are set out in the consultation response document which has been published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS438]
Sale of Ministry of Justice Land: Gloucester
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 10 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)
As always, Mr Nuttall, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate on a subject that is vital for the residents of Gloucester. I also take this opportunity to put on the record the huge amount of work that he has done for the people of Gloucester, not only regarding this particular piece of land but more generally. As far as this issue is concerned, he has engaged with me on a regular and active basis, and he has also been instrumental in ensuring that the many other stakeholders and key players involved in the whole of this transaction have been engaged with one another. He has been instrumental in ensuring that all the threads are woven together to make one canvas, so that hopefully in the new year we will be able to arrive at an agreeable solution.
Of course, my hon. Friend and I have met on a number of occasions to discuss this issue and we have also corresponded about it. He has a terrific vision for Gloucester. My officials have engaged extensively with representatives from the many other interested parties on how the land owned by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in Great Western Road can form part of the wider regeneration of the city.
Let me explain at the outset that the piece of land in question was purchased quite some time ago with the intention of building a new Gloucester court. The freehold interest in the site was one of a number of magistrates courts and other properties transferred to the Courts and Tribunals Service under the Transfer of Property (Abolition of Magistrates’ Courts Committees) Scheme 2005. Since that time, the site was used temporarily as a car park by the national health service and was later used as a store to facilitate works to the adjacent railway. As my hon. Friend indicated, for quite some time it has not been in use.
Following an approach by Gloucester City Council, the Courts and Tribunals Service considered a request to transfer the land. In support of its request, the council asked that we take into account the wider economic development of the area and its importance for the city as a whole. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Ministry of Justice and Gloucester City Council have a duty to achieve best value for the taxpayer at large and for the citizens of Gloucester. As part of that duty, the Ministry of Justice is obliged to work within Her Majesty’s Treasury guidelines for managing public money. That means that, when disposing of surplus property assets, we must always seek best value for the taxpayer. The council, for its part, has to consider the potential return on its investment in a future lease arrangement.
After careful consideration of the representations made by my hon. Friend, the council and others, it was decided that the land was no longer required for a court or tribunal building. That cleared the way for the Courts and Tribunal Service to move towards a sale of the land, at market value, to Gloucester City Council.
I understand that the council intends to enter into an agreement that would see the site being used as a car park, which, as my hon. Friend highlighted in his speech, would improve access to the nearby railway station. The redevelopment of the land is an important part of the vision to regenerate the city. Of course, the use of the site as a car park also has broader implications for the highways and traffic management within the area. This is not a simple issue but one that is complex and that involves a number of other agencies.
The Ministry of Justice has been in regular and constructive dialogue with the council, and I am pleased to say that much progress has been made. However, both parties have produced their own valuations of what the property is worth. Nevertheless, we may now be nearing some sort of agreement. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I cannot divulge the final details of the valuations or the negotiations. He will understand that, as is the case in almost every transaction of this kind, there are many aspects of the proposal to discuss, including the future development potential of the site; the current and future planning status; whether there should be any conditions attached to the completion of the sale; the timing of any such conditions; whether any overage or clawback should be applied, and if so, how much and over what time; what price should be paid; and whether that price should be paid in one lump sum or in staged payments.
While there remain technical details to resolve, I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for seeing the matter settled, and both parties continue to work towards achieving a deal that is acceptable to all concerned. I emphasise that there is no lack of willingness on our side to achieve a mutually beneficial sale.
I turn briefly to the wider changes that we are making to courts and tribunals in England and Wales as part of our court reform programme. We have conducted a consultation on the possible closure of 91 courts and tribunals across England and Wales. The HMCTS estate is a major asset, but many buildings are underused. Indeed, around a third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. Our proposal is to close the less efficient buildings and to transform the way that courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public in the future.
Those improvements cannot be secured without some difficult decisions having to be made, but I genuinely believe that the court reform programme offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient Courts and Tribunals Service.
Richard Graham
The Minister is kind to give way. I promised him that I would not extend this debate to cover the issue of the future of the courts, but I just thought it would be helpful to him if I were to put on the record the offer that Gloucester has made to the Ministry of Justice. Effectively, it is to provide land free of charge in the wonderful central area of Blackfriars, very close to the current Crown court, the families courts and the magistrates courts, to create a single justice centre for all the courts and tribunals in the city, which will provide justice for the people of Gloucestershire. I hope he will consider that offer.
Mr Vara
In his usual eloquent way, my hon. Friend has managed to sneak into this debate another angle, which obviously also involves his speaking up for constituents in Gloucester. I commend him for that. I am mindful of the submission that he and the people of Gloucester have made, and we are reflecting on it. No decisions have been made so far regarding the wider consultation.
As far as the court reform programme is concerned, we must recognise that the world outside the courts is changing rapidly. In the 21st century, we expect to be able to transact our business online, quickly, efficiently and at a time that suits us. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smartphone apps. The Courts and Tribunals Service has already established alternative ways users can interact with its services, such as the use of video links, and it is looking to expand the provisions to provide more choice than is currently available. That includes exploring whether appropriate use can be made of civic and other buildings for certain types of hearings. My hon. Friend is aware that Gloucester magistrates court is included in the consultation. The proposal is for criminal work from the court to be transferred to Cheltenham magistrates court. As he is aware, we are analysing all the responses to the consultation, and we have not made up our mind or made any decisions so far.
For the sake of good order, I assure my hon. Friend that the sale of the land at Great Western Road does not impact in any way on the decisions that will need to be made following the consultation. He will understand that I cannot give him notice of the finalised transaction, for the reasons I have given. I very much hope, however, that he and his constituents will be in no doubt that I support the positive vision that is regeneration in Gloucester—a matter that he has so forcefully put across. The Ministry of Justice is keen to be a part of that vision, and we are taking steps to ensure that we do not stand in the way of progress. At the same time, he will appreciate the importance of my Department faithfully discharging its duties to taxpayers and ensuring that we deal with valuable assets responsibly.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I very much hope that, in the new year, there will be some resolution to all the hard work that he has put in on behalf of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Welfare Cap
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Summer Budget 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 resulting from the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits, as laid out in the Autumn Statement 2015, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
The motion is about the Government accounting to Parliament and the public for decisions about welfare spending. It is something we on this side of the House take very seriously. That is why in 2013 the Chancellor announced we would be bringing forward a welfare cap to control welfare spending in a way that has never been done before. The cap would be set shortly after each new Parliament and assessed each year by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Any breach of the cap requires my Department to come to the House to set out one of three courses of action. The first would be to propose measures to reduce welfare spending to within the level of the cap. The second would be to seek the approval of the House to increase the level of the cap. The third would be to explain why a breach of the cap was justified. The House will be aware that, following the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the cap is forecast not to be met in the short term. The motion seeks agreement that this is justified.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Even this early in the debate, the Minister is saying that he is going to justify breaching the cap. Is he not somewhat embarrassed about that?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman obviously did.
In making our case, I want to set out the circumstances that have led to this forecast. The cap was initially set in line with the OBR’s March 2014 forecast. In the summer Budget, the Chancellor set a lower welfare cap to help to reflect our move to a lower tax, lower welfare and higher-wage economy. Since then, as part of the autumn statement, the Chancellor took the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits. This will give families longer to adjust as we make work pay and provide better support for people in work.
This change has been possible partly because of improvements in the nation’s finances, including improved tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. These are not free choices, however, and as a result of this change, we will be spending more in the shorter term than had been forecast in the summer Budget. That means that, based on current forecasts, the cap will not be met for the next three years: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am not embarrassed or concerned. The Minister might be, but I am not.
Mr Vara
If we are talking about embarrassment, perhaps it is the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), along with those on the Opposition Front Bench, who ought to be embarrassed. They ought to be embarrassed about the millions of people who lived in misery because they were forced to become unemployed. They ought to be embarrassed because, under Labour, the welfare cap was out of control. They ought to be pleased that this Government have the guts to take the difficult decisions to bring the welfare cap back under control.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is Christmas, and I think the Minister would like to know that his Government have won first prize for being the first Government ever to breach £1 trillion in welfare spending over five years. That is £130 billion more than the Labour Government spent in their last five years. You have won the prize!
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman speaks of Christmas spirit. In that spirit, perhaps he would like to apologise to the House on behalf of his party for the mess that it left us. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the people out there—yes, the public—who endured misery and ended up being unemployed under Labour’s policies. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the taxpayers for letting the welfare budget get completely out of control. As a result, we are having to take the tough decisions. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) if he would like to apologise. [Interruption.] I have given him the opportunity to apologise but he would rather not do so.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On the subject of Christmas, I would just encourage all of us, please, to remember that there are people at the heart of these decisions, and this should not be the moment for political footballs. We are here to say that things have changed and that our view, policies and outlook have changed. I implore every Member in this House to remember that we are speaking on behalf of people, not our own personal political agendas.
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and let me put on the record the fact that it is our welfare programme that is improving people’s lives. It is no bad thing occasionally to ask the people who created the mess to apologise. I think the public outside would welcome an apology, because they have had to endure quite a lot of misery as a consequence of the people who took the decisions earlier on. She makes a good point when she says that people are watching, but I would also say to her that those people want an apology. I make no apology to the House for requesting that apology from the Opposition.
Owen Smith
I rise in the spirit of the intervention made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and to say that I absolutely welcome the decision by the Government today to breach the welfare cap in order to reverse-ferret on the cut for 3 million recipients of tax credits—low-wage workers right across Britain. It is an excellent thing the Government have done and we will be fully supportive of it. I hope that she will be supportive of us when we call for a similar reversal on universal credit work allowances.
Mr Vara
The House will have noted, as will the people who are watching at home, that still we have no apology.
The Government are determined to continue the work that we have done to date and to honour the mandate from the British people at the general election, so that we can tackle welfare dependency and fix the nation’s finances. Despite this short-term additional spending, we have made sure that, through our welfare reforms, the cap will be met later in this Parliament—by 2019-20. Let me be clear: the Government are committed to the welfare cap, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the cap is met in the medium term. The OBR also forecasts that welfare spending within the cap will fall as a proportion of GDP from 6% to 5% over the welfare cap period. That is a fall of 1%, in line with the 1% fall forecast at the summer Budget. By 2019-20, therefore, we will still achieve the £12 billion a year welfare savings that we said we would achieve—
Mr Vara
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given him plenty of opportunity to apologise, and he is not doing what the nation wants. If he is not going to do that, he needs to sit quietly and contemplate what policies his party is going to produce. On policies, it is worth noting that he, along with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually supported the measure that introduced this cap, as did several other welfare Cabinet Ministers when Labour was in government, so it is ironic that they now seek to make cheap political points. As I say, by 2019-20 we will have achieved our £12 billion welfare savings. That is what we pledged at the election, that is what the public gave us a mandate for and that is exactly what we will deliver. We can do this because of the permanent savings that we have already made and the long-term reforms that we are making.
The simple fact is that Labour completely overspent on welfare during its 13 years in power. Under Labour, welfare spending went up by almost 60% and the benefits system cost every household an extra £3,000 a year. Spending on tax credits increased by 330%. That is £24 billion—
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
You are still spending more than us.
Mr Vara
The Labour party is a little slow in hearing, so I will repeat the figure for the Opposition’s benefit: £24 billion. We had a welfare system that did not incentivise work and left some people getting more in benefits than they would in work. That was not fair to the hard-working taxpayers who paid for it and it certainly was not fair to those who had become dependent on the state, with no hope for a brighter future. What did Labour have to show after all that spending? Nearly one in five households had no one working. The number of households in which no one had ever worked had nearly doubled. Some 1.4 million people had been on benefits for most of the previous decade, and close to half of all households in the social rented sector had no one in work. Ever more spending on welfare just is not the answer.
We were right to bear down and get a grip on a welfare bill that was simply out of control. The introduction of the cap has brought greater scrutiny and challenge around welfare spending, and that is the way forward. The Chancellor said that he would listen on tax credits, and he has. This one-nation Government are determined to move to a lower tax, lower welfare and higher wage economy. We are doing so in a way that ensures families have more time to adjust to the changes. I commend the motion to the House.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Let me start by wishing a very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and all the Ministers on the replete Front Bench, especially the Secretary of State who I had hoped would lead the debate today. Indeed, I had hoped that it might be the Chancellor, because I seem to recall—
Owen Smith
I will certainly give way. I had not really started, but the hon. Gentleman can carry on.
Owen Smith
I was here in the Chamber, and I saw the Secretary of State arrive just before the Minister rose to speak. While we are on the subject, perhaps the Minister can clear up this matter. He said to us on Monday at Department for Work and Pensions questions that the Secretary of State had visited a food bank. We submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister asking when that had taken place. The interesting answer—in truth it was a slightly slippery answer—was that Ministers, not the Secretary of State, have attended lots of things, including food banks. I gather there is another question. Perhaps he could tell us when the Secretary of State went to a food bank. [Interruption.] Clearly, he does not want to say.
As I was saying before the Minister intervened on me, it was a year ago when, to a packed House, the Chancellor unveiled his latest wheeze, the welfare cap. He had a mile-wide smirk on his face like one of the famous cats from his Cheshire constituency. He was positively purring as he laid down what he thought would be a trap for a future Labour Chancellor. He said:
“The welfare cap marks an important moment in the development of the British welfare state…and ensures that never again can the costs spiral out of control”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 374 and 381.]
He wanted Labour Members to stand up
“and say exactly what they think of the welfare cap, and tell us that they support it, and that they should have introduced it when they were in office. They look such a cheery bunch.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.]
Well, we are cheery this afternoon, as we look for the soles of the feet of the Cheshire cat Chancellor who has carelessly and ignominiously fallen into his own welfare cat trap. It is less a case of being hoist by his own petard, as slipping on his own smirk. Where is he today to answer these questions? A year ago, he was insistent that it would be he who would be called to account in this House for the breach in the welfare cap. He said in the same debate:
“The charter makes clear what will happen if the welfare cap is breached. The Chancellor—
not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or one of his Ministers, but the Chancellor—
“must come to Parliament, account for the failure of public expenditure control, and set out the action that will be taken to address the breach.” —[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.]
But cometh the hour, there is no sign of the cat. He has disappeared. Even the smirk has disappeared.
Owen Smith
I would trust my shadow Ministers with my life. However, I thought that this was a very important subject. I thought that the welfare cap was one of those things that—what did I say earlier on?—was a great step forward in the British welfare state. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should respond, and I cannot understand for a minute why the right hon. Gentleman wanted his junior Minister to do this belittling debate. The shadow Chancellor is not here. He has disappeared, much like the Cheshire cat—better than that, like Macavity the cat.
Owen Smith
I know, okay, the Chancellor: the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), in Cheshire—the Cheshire cat—and given that he is rather like Macavity, rather than the Cheshire cat, I thought that I would give the House a treat. I read that there were no Etonians on the Front Bench among the new intake, and I was worried that the lack of classical education from which the Treasury Bench normally benefits might mean that the Macavity reference went over Ministers’ heads, so I brought a little book with me, and I shall read a section from it. [Interruption.] It is not Mao; it is T.S. Eliot’s collected poems. It gives us Macavity the mystery cat, who is, of course, the Chancellor:
there’s no one like Macavity…
he’s very tall and thin;
You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in—
I think that is the 5:2 diet—
He’s outwardly respectable
although
(They say he cheats at cards.)—
I bet he does—
And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled…
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatever time the deed took place—MACAVITY WASN’T THERE!
Macavity is not here today, is he? And the deed that he is ducking, of course, is this embarrassing, humiliating U-turn. The cap has been breached, and the Government have done it, of course, because of the spectacular, screeching U-turn on tax credits.
Automatic Enrolment Annual Thresholds Review
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (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 today announcing the proposed automatic enrolment thresholds for next year.
It is intended to lay an Order before Parliament in the new year which will include the following: £43,000 for the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band.
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will be frozen at £10,000. The lower limit of the qualifying earnings band will also remain frozen at £5,824.
I will also be placing a copy of the analysis supporting the proposed revised thresholds in the Library of the House and a copy can be found online at: www.gov.uk
[HCWS392]
Access to Justice: Wales
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 10 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)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Moon. I commend you on having managed to get through so many speakers in such a short time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate. I also thank the many colleagues who have turned out for this debate; that demonstrates its importance. Individuals have spoken with passion, both on constituency matters and more generally. Several points have been raised, and I intend to address as many as I can. I ask Members to be patient if I do not instantly respond to their issue in the first minute or two. I will make one thing absolutely clear at the outset: the Government share the hon. Lady’s passion for a justice system that works for everyone.
The hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor’s eloquent comment that the Government’s commitment to one nation justice was fundamental to the rule of law. At the heart of one nation justice is equality, and a justice system that safeguards and protects the vulnerable and works better for victims and witnesses. Our justice system does not always do that, despite the fantastic efforts of those who work in it. That is why the Ministry of Justice is leading a major reform programme. As the hon. Member for Swansea East will know, the MOJ has secured more than £700 million in funding to invest in courts and tribunals in England and Wales. We are working closely with the senior judiciary to deliver a justice system for everyone, at a lower cost for all those who need to access the courts.
There is much agreement that our courts and tribunals need urgent reform, and a high degree of consensus that the current system is not only too slow, but unsustainable. Despite the best efforts of front-line staff, the infrastructure supporting the administration of the service is inefficient and disjointed, and based on technology that is, in some cases, decades old. I hope Members agree that that has to change. That means using up-to-date technology, which I will discuss later in my speech, and modernised working practices, and having a more appropriate and efficient estate. It will also mean victims and witnesses being able to attend some hearings remotely, and not having to experience the stress and strain of a personal visit to a court, or, indeed, having to take a day off work.
Mention has been made of victims and witnesses travelling together. Clearly, that is a situation that none of us would want. The beauty of a remote system is that there is no danger of meeting people on the bus to court. The victims will not be travelling with the witnesses and the defendants. They may well be in a local civic building of some kind, in a video-conferencing suite to which people go by appointment at a specific time. They will be far more comfortable there, and will not have the stress and strain of going to court, which would be a strenuous and stressful experience for most people.
We are replacing paper forms, automating much of the administrative process, and allowing defendants to indicate their plea online. The use of telephones was mentioned. Let me make it clear that we are piloting a scheme in Manchester in which pleas can be made online, using either computers or smartphones. That is happening right now, as we speak.
Mr Vara
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, but I will address his point. He rightly said earlier that there will be some cases where digitalisation is clearly not appropriate; that is why we will maintain courts. Nevertheless, for many cases, court will not be necessary. The majesty of the court will remain for appropriate cases that deserve to go to court, but it is important to remember that access to justice does not always mean access to a court, with all the time and expense that that entails. Nor does it mean that people should always turn to taxpayer-funded lawyers. Where suitable alternatives are available, we want to see more cases diverted from the courts.
There is no doubt that in many cases court should be the last resort, not the first. Encouraging greater use of mediation has been a key part of our wider reforms to the justice system. Mediation can be quicker, cheaper and certainly less stressful than protracted litigation. For the taxpayer, who would otherwise be paying solicitors, barristers and for time in court, there will be a saving. For the parties involved, it is far better to sit around a table and have constructive engagement than to be in a court scenario, where there is often—I speak as a former solicitor—a destructive environment, rather than one of constructive engagement.
Susan Elan Jones
There might be some validity in that, but how does the Minister square it with the rise of litigants in person? We may well see the well-heeled being able to get the best legal advice in the world, while those on the other side of the dock have to represent themselves in person. Surely that is not fair.
Mr Vara
I plead with the hon. Lady to be patient; I will turn to litigants in person shortly.
From April last year, the Children and Families Act 2014 made it a legal requirement that anyone considering applying to court for an order about their children or finances should first attend a mediation information and assessment meeting, which we call a MIAM, unless exemptions such as domestic abuse apply. The requirement was introduced so that parties could consider the benefits of mediation before the start of court proceedings, which can be long, arduous and expensive. From November last year, we have funded the first single session of mediation in cases where one of the parties is already legally aided. In such circumstances, both parties will be funded for the MIAM and the first session of mediation.
I hope Members appreciate that legal aid is only one part of a balanced access-to-justice provision, although of course we recognise that in some cases it can be a vital part. We also recognise that those in greatest hardship at times of real need should have the resources to secure access to justice. When the programme to reform legal aid commenced in 2010, the scale of the financial challenge facing the Government was unprecedented. We had to find significant savings, which meant making difficult choices. Despite that, we have made sure that legal aid remains available when it is most needed: where people’s life or liberty is at stake; where they face the loss of their home; in cases of domestic violence; or where their children may be taken into care.
In the case of domestic violence, evidence is required to ensure that the correct cases attract funding, but we have listened and made changes to the amount of evidence required. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Minister in October 2013 was meet certain stakeholders, who told me that the conditions were too stringent. As a consequence, I made the appropriate changes. We will, of course, continue to listen and to make changes where necessary.
The fact remains that even after all the reforms, our legal aid system remains one of the most generous in the world. Last year we spent more than £1.6 billion on legal aid, which is around a quarter of the Department’s expenditure. We have also made sure that funding is available through the exceptional funding scheme, where that is required under the European convention on human rights or by European law. We believe that the reforms to the legal aid scheme are sustainable, but we have provided that there will be a review within three to five years of the implementation of part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
As far as the Welsh language is concerned, let me make it absolutely clear that Welsh-speaking users can call the Civil Legal Advice Welsh-language operator service, or request an immediate call back from a Welsh-speaking operator. The bilingual site architecture has been designed to ensure that the same service is available in the Welsh language as in English, and that the content can be easily kept up to date. We continue to work with the advice sector to develop sustainable and collaborative ways of working to ensure that people can obtain advice when they need it.
On litigants in person, we have provided £2 million for a strategy led by the advice, voluntary and pro bono sector. It maximises the provision of support to litigants in person, and there is an increase in the provision of face-to-face, phone and online support.
In the few moments I have left, let me address a few of the points raised. The hon. Member for Swansea East said that there has been a reduction in the number of criminal contracts, but there is a far higher number of contracts for own-client work, which means that people can continue to work for the clients that they already have. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has a distinguished record in government, asked about the criminal court charge. He will know from his time in government that laws change. Until 24 December—the date that the Lord Chancellor gave—the law will apply. I have already touched on the issue of telephone access, but I emphasise that the digitalisation process that we envisage will clearly not apply to all cases. The physical presence of courts, which people will need to go to when appropriate, will always remain.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East on securing this debate, and I thank all Members for taking the trouble to attend. I hope I have been able to give some comfort to Members, and assure them that we are very keen to ensure that access to justice remains.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to justice in Wales.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
1. What recent progress his Department has made on consulting on the future of Torquay magistrates court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Courts and Tribunals Service is evaluating all responses to the consultation, and no decisions have been made. An announcement on the future of Torquay magistrates court will be made in due course.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for his answer. At the end of this month, a successful turnaround integrated offender management team that is based at the court building is due to be evicted. Can he confirm that this is not a sign that the decision has already been taken, and that the Government are still considering options to keep justice local in the bay?
Mr Vara
May I first thank my hon. Friend for the submission that he made to the consultation? I am also grateful to him for raising this point so that I can clarify the issue. I can confirm that no decisions have been taken. Moreover, the arrangement for the turnaround IOM team to use the building was always due to come to an end this month. I understand that alternative arrangements have been made for it to continue to provide its very valuable services locally.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to promote the use of victim statements in parole hearings.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
4. What plans he has to reintroduce the residence test for legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are committed to the civil legal aid residence test and are planning the next steps following the success in the Court of Appeal. Individuals should have a strong connection to the UK to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme.
Mike Kane
The Minister was forced to admit last year that there were no precise figures for any savings from this policy area. The policy was also criticised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and is subject to further legal scrutiny under the Supreme Court. Is it not time that the Minister gave up the ghost on this failed area of policy?
Mr Vara
Given the Court of Appeal judgment on 25 November, when it sided with the Government, we have no intention of giving up on this. It is important to remember that people who seek to have benefit from UK taxpayers should show some connection to this country. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people to have continuous 12-month residency in the UK before they benefit from UK taxpayers’ money for their legal aid.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On legal aid and any potential change, has the Minister turned his mind to the disparity involved when one parent abuses the legal aid available to them in order to get an upper hand in contact cases with their children while the other parent has to self-finance?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
In June, the Justice Secretary criticised what he called the two nation justice system, but restricting civil legal aid according to how long an individual has lived in this country clearly widens the gap between those afforded access to justice and those not. The residence test would have denied justice to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. Does the Minister think that that is right, and if not, will he drop the two nation justice policy of the Justice Secretary’s predecessor?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we have had to take tough measures. It is vital, and the British people in their millions rightfully say that they want overseas people to have some connection with the UK before getting use of the taxes that they pay. The residence test has gone through the court process to the Court of Appeal, and if it goes further, the Government will object and robustly defend our stance on the residence test.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
5. If he will make an assessment of the effect of the criminal courts charge on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
17. What plans he has to modernise the courts and tribunals system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I am delighted that we have secured over £700 million of funding to invest in our courts and tribunals. We have worked closely with the senior judiciary to develop a plan to reform our courts system so that it delivers swifter and fairer justice for everyone in England and Wales at a lower cost.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My constituents in Ogmore face the closure of two local courts: one at Pontypridd in the neighbouring constituency and one in Bridgend. How does the Minister respond to the president of the Law Society, Jonathan Smithers, when he warns that:
“Combined with the further planned increases in court fees and reductions in eligibility for legal aid, many of the proposed closures will serve to deepen the inequalities in the justice system between those who can and cannot afford to pay.”?
Mr Vara
It is important in the 21st century that we recognise that a third of the 460 court and tribunal buildings are utilised at a rate of less than 50%. Many of the buildings are not fit for purpose, are listed or are not in compliance with equalities legislation. There is a host of problems and the cost of running the buildings is phenomenal. We need a reformed, up-to-date and modern courts system, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will provide access to justice for all.
Henry Smith
I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is high time, as we are in the 21st century, that we updated outdated court practices, with particular regard to the way in which those with learning disabilities are treated in the system?
Mr Vara
Absolutely. As a consequence of the £700 million investment that we received in the spending review, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient Courts and Tribunals Service. Reform of the service is crucial to enable much more efficient access to justice for everyone, including people with learning difficulties. In the one nation Britain that we seek, we want to ensure that everyone has access to all the public facilities on offer.
Alex Chalk
As part of the Government’s welcome courts modernisation plans, Cheltenham magistrates court can expect to hear cases from across Gloucestershire, not just from Cheltenham. What measures will be taken to ensure that such courts have the physical and staffing resources they need to deal with the increased case load?
Mr Vara
It is already the case that all magistrates court work in Gloucestershire that requires custodial facilities is heard at Cheltenham magistrates court. Should more work be moved to Cheltenham following the outcome of the consultation, the Courts and Tribunals Service will continue to assess the resources that are available at the court to ensure that they meet operational requirements. I should, however, emphasise that no decisions have yet been taken regarding magistrates courts in Gloucestershire.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My constituents in Stockport would probably understand where the Minister is coming from, were their courthouse not down for closure. It is one of the busiest in Greater Manchester, was refurbished as recently as 2010 and has specialist facilities for witness support and protection. Is this not a short-sighted move by the Ministry of Justice? Will he now save Stockport courthouse?
Mr Vara
There is nothing short-sighted about having a consultation, the purpose of which is to allow people such as the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to have their say and try to persuade us that, all things considered, the court should be retained. As I said, no decisions have been taken and we are carefully considering all the submissions.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I listen to Tory MPs and Ministers talking constantly about localism. How can this be a form of localism, when people are having to travel 50 or 60 miles to get justice, instead of going to the local court? It is nothing but hypocrisy.
Mr Vara
I have the utmost respect for the hon. Gentleman, but may I gently bring him into the 21st century, which he may not be familiar with? We will ensure that with modern technology such as video-conferencing and telephone facilities, people will have access to justice without having to go to court. Access to justice does not mean simply attending a court and the physical building that it represents.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
22. I understand the rationale behind court modernisation, as it will help to create a more streamlined and responsive justice system while generating substantial savings for the taxpayer, and I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the proposed closure of Stockport court, which is a mutual interest. Following our conversations, will he provide an update on that court’s future, and say whether the proposals that I presented to him, which would mean that that court remained viable, have been considered?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have met. With this proposed closure of 91 courts, I have tried to make myself available to as many colleagues as possible—as far as I am aware, I have met every person who wanted a meeting. I am seriously considering my hon. Friend’s proposals, and I am grateful to her for submitting them.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
7. What steps his Department is taking to improve prisons’ engagement with employers; and if he will make a statement.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
14. What plans he has to reform legal aid; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
In the past five years, we have taken action to put the country’s finances back on track, while protecting legal aid for those who need it the most. Legal aid remains a vital part of our justice system, and we must ensure that it is sustainable and fair for those who need it and those who provide legal services, and fair for the taxpayer. I am pleased that the recent spending review led to no further reductions in criminal legal aid.
Mims Davies
All victims of domestic violence must be fully supported in freeing their lives from this menace. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to maintain full access to justice for victims of domestic violence all the way through the legal system?
Mr Vara
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend, and we have made sure that legal aid remains available for victims of domestic violence who need it. We have also made recent changes making it easier to obtain legal aid in cases where domestic violence is a factor, and we have made sure that once legal aid is granted, no further applications need be made for the duration of the case.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Chester is a city for the legal industry and the legal sector. I am told that numerous criminal legal aid solicitors have been forced out of business or forced to amalgamate with large national firms, while barristers on the Chester circuit are being forced to subsidise access to justice in legal aid cases because they are not getting paid enough through the current legal aid system. Will the Minister review his changes to legal aid, and perhaps deal with them in the same way as the criminal courts charge—by reversing the disastrous changes made in the first place?
Mr Vara
We have a legal aid budget of £1.6 billion, which is one of the largest in the world. By comparison with other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Northern Ireland and Canada, we have double the expenditure per inhabitant. We have started a process and we will see it through. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those in need of legal aid will be able to have it where it is necessary.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
15. What the Government’s policy is on the UK remaining party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the effect on court users of recent changes in civil court fees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are monitoring data on case loads and fee income from the civil courts, but it is too early to draw any firm conclusions. We will continue to keep the impact of fee changes under review. We recognise that fee increases are not popular, but at every stage we have sought to protect the most vulnerable by ensuring that they will not have to pay new and higher fees. In the current financial climate, it is only right that we are considering every option to raise fees to meet the budgetary challenges that we face.
Daniel Zeichner
In March 2015, the court issue fee for a £200,000 claim was raised by more than 600%, from £1,500 to £10,000. Does the Minister appreciate the impact of that on small start-up companies, of which there are many in my constituency, and will he assure those companies that there will be no further rise after the current consultation?
Mr Vara
It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the court system needs to be properly funded. However, we have a very effective remission system, and those who cannot afford the fees do not have to pay them. He should also bear in mind that court fees amount to a tiny fraction of the total amount of legal fees that are incurred.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
T6. Further to my earlier intervention, may I simply remind the Minister of the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds that have been spent in recent years on the courts in Pontypridd and Bridgend? He urges me to consider the upgrading. They have been upgraded; do not close them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Access to justice comes in various forms. An African chief justice who visited me earlier this year told me that he wanted a justice system in which the people living in the villages outside the capital city could access their courts through their mobile phones. That is how the world is progressing, and we have to ensure that we keep pace with it. We will keep the majesty of the court building for those serious cases that require it, but we also need to recognise that modern technology requires different forms of communication, and that access to justice is not what it used to be in the past.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor’s speech to the Magistrates Association last week was very welcome on a number of counts, particularly his reference to the success of problem-solving courts in New York, such as that at Red Hook, which the Justice Committee has looked at in the past. Will he give us further details of his discussions with the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary on how we can take that process forward? [Interruption.]
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T9. Has the Minister read the recent “Locked out” report from Barnardo’s, which claims that changes to the incentives and earned privileges scheme mean that a child’s right to see their father is being withheld in order to enforce discipline? Does he think that this is good for the 200,000 children who have a parent in jail?
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Our courts system not only provides effective justice to us domestically, but is the forum of choice for much foreign litigation. When considering the civil courts charge, will the Secretary of State ensure that our courts remain not only effective places for the resolution of domestic litigation, but at the forefront of international dispute resolution?
Mr Vara
My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, but I think she also ought to bear in mind that the reason why people come to Britain for their litigation is not because of the fees, but because of the expertise we offer, the impartiality of our judges and the fact that UK law is used by a large part of the world as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
How is the transforming rehabilitation programme in Wales likely to achieve its targets if the only CRC—community rehabilitation company—is to base its operations in Middlesbrough and make 200 staff redundant?
State Pension Age Equalisation
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 11 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 Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. I recognise that the subject is hugely important and I commend all the contributors, who have spoken eloquently and passionately. It has caused a huge amount of correspondence for all of us as Members of Parliament. In the course of my comments over the next 10 or so minutes, I shall address as many of the points made by colleagues as possible.
The debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government’s position on state pension age equalisation, in particular regarding women born in the 1950s. The acceleration of state pension age equalisation and the increase to the age of 66 under the Pensions Act 2011 achieved gender equality in state pension provision, while also saving more than £30 billion for the state, thereby ensuring the affordability and sustainability of our reformed pensions system. It is important to recognise that we must have a pensions system that is affordable and sustainable.
It is also important to remember that gender equality was one of the main purposes of the state pension age changes.
Barbara Keeley
We have heard equality mentioned many times. The generation of 1950s-born women have not known equality in their lives, in pay or in pensions. Why should they carry the weight of the savings that the Minister has just lauded? Why should that group of women who have suffered so much inequality in their lives carry the weight?
Mr Vara
I see that two or three Members are rising to their feet. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), but I have only seven or so minutes and I seek to address a number of points already raised. I therefore ask Members to be mindful of the fact that the more questions I take, the less I get to put on the record.
Ian Blackford
I will be brief. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but this is about fairness. It is about women having the time to make adjustments and the fact that the period for transitional arrangements is too short. Such changes have never taken place in such a short period in the past. That must be addressed and there must be fairness for women. That can only be done by lengthening the transition period.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman speaks about fairness and transition arrangements, and I will come to that, but I repeat the point that there is a cost to all of this. I am trying to make this apolitical, but given that so much political comment has been made against the Government and the previous coalition Government that my party, the Conservative party, led, I gently remind all colleagues not to forget that between the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 there was the small matter of a 13-year Labour Government, which seems to have been conveniently forgotten in everything said about communication, concessions and so on.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not know how the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government can be responsible for the 2011 Act, or indeed the 1995 Act. First, the Minister talks about equality in the present, but we are talking about inequality that has taken place in the past and been suffered by this generation of women. Secondly, transitional arrangements are transitional by definition, so they do not necessarily affect long-term sustainability.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman has said nothing that had not already been said, and I will refer to issues as I progress.
Equalisation was necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision. The five-year gap in men’s and women’s state pension age dated back to the 1940s and is not fair in a world where women’s employment opportunities have opened up and provisions are made for carers. I hope that all colleagues on both sides of the House agree with that.
The resources made available allowed the new state pension reforms to take place in the form that we have introduced, benefiting those women who would have had poor outcomes under the current system largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. About 650,000 women reaching state pension age in the first 10 years will receive an average of £8 a week more in 2014-15 earnings terms owing to the new state pension valuation of their national insurance record.
To encourage and enable those who want to work longer is a priority for the Government. That is the real solution to ensuring a comfortable and fulfilling later life. People having fuller working lives would not only help our pensions system to remain sustainable but could greatly benefit the economy. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that adding just one year to people’s working lives would add 1% to GDP a year.
Recent polling indicates that many people want to work longer. A YouGov survey has shown that 74% of people in their 50s who have not retired would like to be in work between the ages of 60 and 65. To help older workers in the labour market, the Government have extended the right of flexible working to all employees. In the same YouGov poll, more women than men said that they would prefer to work flexibly or part-time before retiring. Of course, working longer also provides the opportunity to build up a bigger retirement income.
We know that some people cannot work. For some, that is because they have caring responsibilities; others will suffer from disability, making the continuation of work difficult. We must remember that women affected will be eligible for the same in-work, out-of-work or disability benefits as men of the same age.
For those who cannot work because they have caring responsibilities, carer’s allowance will be available. Those who get carer’s allowance are also awarded national insurance credits automatically.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister needs to understand that the question is not whether women born in the 1950s need more national insurance credits. Almost every WASPI campaigner I have met has 40 to 44 years of credits already. There is no question of their needing to pay any more national insurance.
Mr Vara
I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for everyone. I am sorry that she derides the additional benefits that the Government have sought to introduce; I am sure that some women out there will appreciate the fact that, in 2011, credits were introduced to help grandparents and other adult family members who look after a child under 12 to help working parents. It is noteworthy that independent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the rise in women’s state pension age since 2010 has been accompanied by increases in employment rates for the women affected.
The reforms would leave more of those women, and their male counterparts, who really need the state pension better off than if we had retained the current arrangements. That is a better use of taxpayers’ money than spending on transitional arrangements, which will inevitably prolong gender inequality. I am minded to say that removing state pension age gender inequality is right.
When the first contributory state pension was established in 1926, men who reached 65 could expect to live for another 11.3 years. In 2014, however, a man who reached 65 could expect to live for another 21.5 years. Importantly, the Government listened to concerns expressed at the time of the 2011 Act and shortened the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension, relative to the 1995 timetable, to 18 months. That concession, which came after the speech by the Secretary of State on Second Reading that has been referred to, benefited almost a quarter of a million women who would otherwise have experienced delays of up to two years. A similar number of men also benefited from a reduced increase. The concession was worth some £1.1 billion in total, and, as a result, 81% of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less.
It is argued by some that these women were not given adequate notice of state pension age equalisation. I do not accept that. Following the 2011 Act, the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age, using the address details recorded by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the time.
I am conscious of time, I so will conclude. The decision to increase women’s state pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove the inequality. The achievement of this by 2018 was considered and approved by Parliament and there are no plans to make any policy changes.
Employment Tribunal Fees
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 11 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)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate. It is an important subject, and I know that in his case it is particularly so, given his background as an employment solicitor. I thank the other contributors, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and the two Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I also thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for allowing me the opportunity to put on record the Government’s position.
The Government recognise the crucial service that employment tribunals provide to those employees who have serious disputes with their employers. It is vital that people in that position have meaningful access to justice and an effective way to remedy their problems.
Ian Lavery
If it is that vital for ordinary people in the workplace to access justice, will the Minister explain why his Government introduced a £1,200 tribunal fee?
Mr Vara
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, as I will turn to that issue, and also to the issue of working people that has been mentioned by a number of colleagues.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government were elected as a majority Government with a clear mandate to eliminate the budget deficit during this Parliament. That requires a responsible approach to funding public services, which must include the courts and tribunals, both now and in the future. When the Government introduced fees in employment tribunals in 2013 it was estimated that the cost of running the service was about £84 million per year. Before the introduction of fees, the whole burden of that cost was met by taxpayers. Fees were introduced to reduce the burden, and to ensure that those who were using the service and benefiting directly from it were making a reasonable contribution to the cost, when they could afford to do so.
At the time the fees were introduced, we also applied Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service fee remissions. That scheme is there to ensure that those on low incomes are not prevented from lodging a claim. Under the scheme, those who qualify may have their fees waived, either in part or in full, depending on their financial means. I am a little disappointed that although much has been made of the employment tribunal fees, only a passing reference was made to the conciliatory scheme introduced by ACAS, to which I will turn shortly.
As far as remissions are concerned, I am grateful for, and have very much taken on board, hon. Members’ practical comments, and I can assure colleagues that my officials are looking at how applications are made to see how the process can be made simpler and more user-friendly.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister reassure us that he will pay particular attention to cases in which there is a claim for an illegal deduction of wages, the amount of which is lower than the fee demanded by the service?
Mr Vara
I will not make any instantaneous decisions. I will look at everything in the round. We are considering the matter, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are undertaking a review—which I will come on to—of the whole employment tribunal fees structure, of which I am sure that matter will be a part.
Jo Stevens
The Minister mentions the review that is under way. The terms of reference for the review make no reference whatsoever to the question of whether the fees should be abolished. They simply say that the review will make
“recommendations for any changes to the structure and level of fees”.
Will the Government reconsider the terms of reference, and think about whether the fees should be scrapped?
Mr Vara
The terms of reference are a little broader than the hon. Lady says. They are “to determine how successful” the employment tribunal fees have been in achieving “the original objectives”. There were three original objectives. One was financial, to consider transferring
“a proportion of the costs from the taxpayer to those who use the tribunal where they can afford to do so”.
The second objective was to consider any behavioural aspects,
“to encourage parties to seek alternative ways of resolving their disputes”,
and the third was to ensure that we maintained “access to justice”. We are carrying out the review in terms of those three broad original objectives.
Jo Stevens
May I take it from the Minister’s reply that the question of abolition of fees is not ruled out, in the context of the review?
Justin Madders
I do not wish to labour the point, but the question is simple. We are not asking the Minister to make a decision today; we are simply seeking clarification and confirmation that he is not ruling out the abolition of fees altogether as part of the review.
Mr Vara
It is important to appreciate that once the Government website publishes terms of reference, which have been there for many weeks, it is not appropriate to seek to change those terms of reference simply because one is in a debate, no matter how many times colleagues try to press me to respond in that way.
Karl Turner
I will give the Minister one last opportunity: is the possibility of the complete abolition of the fees in the review?
Mr Vara
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave setting out the three objectives against which we are basing the review.
It is important to note that the introduction of fees was designed to encourage parties to use alternative ways of resolving their disputes. Colleagues will appreciate that such means can often be more effective, less stressful and less expensive than formal litigation. For that reason, the previous Administration introduced the new early conciliation service, under which anyone contemplating bringing a complaint to an employment tribunal must first contact ACAS, which will offer conciliation that is free of charge.
ACAS’s evaluation of the scheme during its first year shows that the early results are promising. Although participating in early conciliation is not compulsory for either party, the vast majority do so. In 75% of cases, both parties agree to participate. The scheme was used by more than 80,000 people in its first year. Recent research by ACAS shows that more than 80% of participants in early conciliation were satisfied with the service. Much has been said so far about lawyers acting for people, so it is important to note that we have a free option, without lawyers who charge fees, that will also be less stressful and in an environment that is constructive to arriving at a solution. Sadly, it is often the case that when lawyers are involved, it can be antagonistic. That is not always the case, but it can be the case when two sets of lawyers are acting.
I assure colleagues that it was always our intention to carry out a post-implementation review of the impact of fees on employment tribunals. As Members will be aware, we announced that review in June. The aim of the review is to look at how effective fees have been in meeting the original objectives, as I mentioned. Following their introduction, there has been some concern—it has been expressed today—about the impact fees have had on people’s ability to bring claims before the tribunal. Those criticisms have tended to focus on selected statistics, taken in isolation and out of context. In particular, the fall in the volume of claims issued in the employment tribunal has been pointed to as proof that people are being denied access to justice. That is too narrow a perspective when considering this rather broader issue. The fall in the number of claims is likely to be the result of a number of factors. Crucially, there is a failure to take account of the significant increase in the take-up of conciliation.
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware that conciliation was introduced some time after the fees were introduced. Will he explain why there was such a significant drop immediately after fees were introduced?
Mr Vara
I maintain that it is too simplistic to say that the fees were responsible for the drop. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for just a moment, I will explain the other reasons that may have contributed to the decline in the numbers. As I have already mentioned, ACAS’s evaluation of the service suggests that the early results are promising. It is noteworthy that the trend was that the number of claims was declining before fees were introduced. It is likely that that was related, at least in part, to the improving economy, which has delivered higher levels of employment. The economy and employment have continued to improve, and it is therefore likely that we would have continued to see a trend of falling claim numbers, irrespective of whether fees were introduced.
Ruth Cadbury
The Minister says that there was a decline for other reasons. The figures that we heard earlier in the debate were of 60% drops and even a 90% drop in certain types of cases. Was the level of drop in claims that the Minister saw of that order?
Mr Vara
I am giving a general analysis of the number of claims that were made to the employment tribunal. The trend of the total number of claims was declining. The hon. Lady seeks to talk about specific types of cases, and I am not going to go into that. I am talking about the general trend, because the debate and the numbers given so far have been broad and have related to the total number of applications received to employment tribunals.
Chris Stephens
Is the Minister casting doubt on the specific research on this matter carried out by Citizens Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice for England and Wales, the TUC and others? Will he write to me with the figures on the declining number of employment tribunals prior to the introduction of fees?
Mr Vara
I am certainly not casting doubt on research. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, I said that I was not going to discuss specific issues and specific types of case. It is important to take things in the context of how the debate has been going so far. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke in broad-brush terms about the fees coming in and the total number of reductions.
Richard Arkless
I politely ask the Minister, when he takes the information from this debate back to the Government and his colleagues, to point out to them that although there may arguably have been a small decline or a trend before the imposition of fees, since then the numbers have fallen off the edge of a cliff. The trend has not continued.
Mr Vara
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have said, we are undertaking a review at present.
Other policy reforms, including changes to employment law, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to, are also likely to have had some impact on the figures. It is clear, therefore, that a wider range of factors needs to be taken into account if we are to have a proper assessment of the true impact that fees have had, and that needs to be considered in the round. That is why we are doing a review, and that is what the review will seek to evaluate. If, after the review has reported, the Government believe that there are compelling arguments for changes to the fees structure or to the operation of the fee remissions scheme, we will, of course, bring forward proposals for a consultation, to which Members may wish to contribute.
We recognise that fees are never popular, but in the current financial climate we have a duty to consider all possible ways of ensuring that the courts and tribunals are adequately funded, so that access to justice is protected in the long term. Let me be absolutely clear, however, that at every step we have ensured that the most vulnerable are protected through the fee remissions scheme, so that the burden falls on those who can afford to pay. The conclusions of the review will provide us with a clearer picture of how fees have affected the way people seek to resolve their disputes.
Turning to some of the issues that were raised by colleagues in the debate, there was a charge that the fees were a sustained attack on working people. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I do not accept that for one moment. I refer to something that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said in his speech—I will more or less quote him—which was along the lines of, “If you are still working, taking your employer to a tribunal is the last thing you want to do.”
That is exactly why an ACAS proposal and early conciliation is a lot better than going to the tribunal. I like to think that the proposal for ACAS fits in nicely in the context of that interpretation of his sentence. The conciliation system is free. Colleagues talk about considering the working man but it seems that, by proposing to scrap or not recognise the free early conciliation system, they are showing that they would prefer a system where lawyers are instead paid by the people whom they speak about.
Jo Stevens
I am glad that the Minister has praised ACAS and the service that it provides. On that basis, will he please therefore speak to his colleagues in government about the fact that Government Departments are not engaging in early conciliation via ACAS, and specifically, on the point that I made earlier in the debate, about the National Offender Management Service?
Mr Vara
I take on board what the hon. Lady says, and I will certainly look into the matter further. On the remissions system, I have already said we are looking to see how it can be made more user-friendly, and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston also quoted Lord Justice Underhill in the case in which Unison had been involved. I gently point out to him that both the cases brought by Unison to seek judicial review were rejected by the Court of Appeal. Unison is seeking permission to appeal from the Supreme Court, but let me put it on the record that we will object robustly if the appeal process is granted.
Richard Arkless
The Minister is being extremely generous with his time; Opposition Members appreciate that. As part of the brief that he gives back to his colleagues—I am afraid I have had a memory freeze. I will come back to my point. I apologise.
Mr Vara
We still have about three and a half minutes, so I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if necessary.
On the issue of women and pregnancy discrimination, let me make it absolutely clear that it is unacceptable that women, pregnant or not—indeed, anyone—should be discriminated against when there are laws against it. We have strict laws and the Government take the matter very seriously, as do all Members of all parties. The reviews that have been referred to will certainly be taken into account by my Department’s review into the employment tribunals.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke of the Scottish aspect. I can assure him that my officials are in contact with Scottish officials to ensure that, pursuant to the Smith Commission, there is a smooth transfer in the running of the tribunals. I hope I have managed to persuade colleagues that the matter is not simply about preventing vexatious claims; it is much broader than that and is intended to ensure that where there is a need to reach a settlement with an employer, it is done in an environment that is less stressful than the court environment. Given the financial climate in which we operate, it is right that those who use the court service should in some way contribute to it.
I will conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on securing this debate. It is absolutely clear from the 90 minutes or so that we have had that it commands a huge amount of interest from colleagues. I am grateful to him for giving his colleagues an opportunity to air their views, and for allowing me to take on board their comments and views and put on the record the Government’s view.
Social Security Uprating
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 11 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 the proposed social security benefits rates for 2016. I have attached the table of rates to this statement and I will place a copy of the proposed benefit and pension rates 2016-17 in the Library of the House. The annual uprating of benefits will take place for state pensions and most other benefits in the first full week of the tax year. In 2016, this will be the week beginning 11 April. A corresponding provision will be made in Northern Ireland.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-11-26/HCWS328/
[HCWS328]