Debates between Carolyn Harris and Shailesh Vara during the 2015-2017 Parliament

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Carolyn Harris and Shailesh Vara
Wednesday 24th February 2016

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have given way many times and I am afraid that we are now getting to a stage at which MPs are simply repeating points that have already been raised. I am mindful that many hon. Members wish to speak. Nobody can accuse me of not being generous in giving way, but I wish to make progress.

The changes that were made, and the transitional arrangements made in 2011, benefited a quarter of a million women who would have otherwise have had a delay of up to two years. For more than 80% of those affected, the increase in the time period will be no more than 12 months. The House voted for this amendment to the Bill and a concession was called for. A concession was considered by the Government, proposed by the Government and accepted and voted for by this House. The Government promised to consider transitional arrangements in 2011 when the legislation was going through, and that is exactly what the Government delivered—a reduction in the time period from two years to 18 months at a cost of £1.1 billion. That shows that the Government were listening to the concerns of Members and responded to them at the time.

Carolyn Harris Portrait Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Exactly how much of that money went to the women concerned?

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady needs to appreciate that the concept of dealing with pensions and money is that the concession was made—

Carolyn Harris Portrait Carolyn Harris
- Hansard - -

I know the answer. How much?

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That concession was made by the taxpayer—[Interruption.] It was made by the taxpayer, and the total cost was £1.1 billion—

Carolyn Harris Portrait Carolyn Harris
- Hansard - -

How much?

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I have said, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not got the message yet, and that she does not appreciate that the time was shortened by six months—[Interruption.]

Criminal Legal Aid

Debate between Carolyn Harris and Shailesh Vara
Friday 29th January 2016

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be grateful that he managed to slip in that last bit concerning his court. As I have told him previously, no firm decisions have been taken on that issue. On other matters, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman pays such detailed attention to what is happening in the MOJ.

Carolyn Harris Portrait Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I welcome the Justice Secretary’s move to scrap the two-tier system. He said HM Treasury has given him a settlement that allows him greater flexibility in the allocation of funds for legal aid. Will he give us more detail about the settlement and whether it will extend further than what he has already said?

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I refer the hon. Lady to the Chancellor’s autumn statement. He said he would be allowing £700 million-plus for the courts reform programme and there would be £1.3 billion for reforming the Prison Service. We in the MOJ are also consolidating our estates programme generally in terms of the offices and space we use. If the hon. Lady reads the statement, she will also be aware that my Department will be making 50% administration cuts by 2019-20.

Court Charges (Access to Justice)

Debate between Carolyn Harris and Shailesh Vara
Tuesday 17th November 2015

(9 years, 1 month ago)

Westminster Hall
Read 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

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have some 20,000 magistrates. At any given point, there are always some who are resigning. It is regrettable that some have felt it necessary to resign on that basis, but I will say that magistrates do hugely beneficial work. It is an important role in society and they give up valuable time of their own to do a good service. Of course, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual circumstances, but it is regrettable that some have felt it necessary to resign on that basis.

Carolyn Harris Portrait Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Does the Minister not agree that the fact that only a fraction of the imposed costs has been recovered indicates that those charged with repayment are unable to repay, and that this therefore makes the whole court charge untenable?

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is not yet known how much has been recovered, because those statistics will be forthcoming in the December quarterly statistics. Just to explain, they were not in the September quarterly publication because, although initial data from the first three months of operation—the change having taken place in April—were included in the regular September quarterly statistics, it was not possible to provide separate figures on the charge in time for that publication which met the data quality standards required for published management information. Detailed figures will, however, be published on 17 December.

I note the comments made about the effects on the offender’s plea decision and the issue of access to justice. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair and effective criminal justice system that is accessible to all, and we are assured in the knowledge that the coalition Government carefully considered the compatibility of the criminal courts charge provisions with the European convention on human rights, on article 6 “access to the court” grounds. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights has an implicit right of access to the courts, and the charge does not interfere with that right in any way. In particular, it should be remembered that the charge is imposed at the end of proceedings. Defendants facing trial are not required to pay the criminal courts charge and the charge is not a condition of an offender being able to access the courts. A person will be subject to the charge only if convicted following a court hearing that will have taken into consideration all the available evidence. Therefore, those who are innocent and should be found not guilty by the courts will not be required to pay the charge.

We should also remember that our justice system already creates a number of incentives for those who enter early guilty pleas to ensure that the wheels of justice run more smoothly. For example, if defendants who are guilty enter a guilty plea as early as possible, the courts recognise the benefit to victims, witnesses and the criminal justice system as a whole by means of a reduction in sentence. I recognise, however, the need to ensure that any incentives are proportionate and I note the concerns expressed about the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Carolyn Harris and Shailesh Vara
Tuesday 23rd June 2015

(9 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carolyn Harris Portrait Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

The Government recently announced that they were going ahead with a further 8.75% fee cut to criminal legal aid, the second in a year. The existing system, especially the online Crown Commercial Service system, is already wholly inadequate. What justification is there for further cuts, other than to further reduce access to justice for those most in need?

Shailesh Vara Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I first welcome the hon. Lady to the House?

It is important that we recognise that we have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, and that it needs to be sustainable. It has to be fair to the people who need legally aided advice, fair to the providers and fair to the taxpayer, who ultimately pays for it. As far as the latest 8.75% cut is concerned, we have made sure that there will be proper access for all those who need legal advice.