Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

As I have just said, we will be carrying out a full review of the implementation of LASPO. We still have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, notwithstanding the reductions we have made.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Some of the people who would struggle the most to pay court fees are those affected by family breakdown, often in chaotic families. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what plans he has to simplify and reduce costs to access child arrangements orders, and will that include any further statutory rights for grandparents?

[Mr Vara]

On court fees, what I will say is that where people have difficulty attending court, there is a fee remission system available, which can be for remission in full or in part.

Police Funding Formula

Jake Berry Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I do not accept that the whole police family has no faith in the Home Office or in me. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, to suggest that, so far as ministerial oversight is concerned, I am ultimately responsible. That is why I have not blamed an individual civil servant or any Department. At the end of the day, this is my responsibility, which is why I am standing here now.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach; his apology to the House is characteristic of the transparent way in which he has approached this entire settlement. When he brought that characteristic transparency to the cross-party meeting of Lancashire MPs, we were hoping that Lancashire would see a fairer formula. It cannot be right that some budgets are going up and some budgets are going down. Every police force should be equally miserable across the country. The formula should be fair.

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That was a really good meeting, which we held in the Deputy Speaker’s office. I promised to listen and I will continue to listen. At the end of the day, though, there will be winners and losers with any change to the funding formula. That is why some of the forces that are going to do very well seemed to be quite quiet when they appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, but I understand exactly where they were coming from.

Police and Fire Shared Services

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) on bringing this debate on an extremely topical and important issue to the House. We might have some disagreements about it, but perhaps we will have agreements as well. I have to say at the outset that I do not share the view that taking fire engines away from a fire station means that people feel safer, as one speaker said. Quite often, taking fire engines away and dropping pumps off at local fire stations does not make people feel safer.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I certainly share the view that taking fire appliances or engines away from fire stations does not make anyone feel safer, but does the hon. Gentleman share my view that the people who are expecting firefighters to turn up on the frontline are probably pretty relaxed about who does the human resources for the fire service and whether that function is shared with the police force? It would not make them feel any safer, or any less safe, if HR were shared between the fire, the police and the ambulance services.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman makes a viable point, which can and should be discussed if we want a top-class blue-light service, whether it be the ambulance service, the fire service or the police service. That can, and will be I am sure, the topic of much discussion in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I understand the instances to which the Minister refers. In my constituency, fire authorities have checked alarms and different things in buildings, and I understand that, but what I am describing now is the different in terms of law enforcement. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, we will not have fire and rescue service officers detecting crime and clipping young people around the head or doing things of that nature. It will be completely different. I understand that there is a duty and obligation on the fire and rescue services in relation to alarms and things of that nature, and they do an absolutely fantastic job; they have built up a great reputation. The Minister was a member of the fire and rescue service many years ago. I am sure that he was up to the task then and that he will support the issues we are raising today. When he was in the service, I am sure he had the utmost respect of his community, because that is what happens with the fire and rescue service.

There are alternatives that will not compromise the trust in and integrity of the fire and rescue service, and they are what we need to look at. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned joint procurement, which is absolutely on the money. Why should there not be joint procurement? There is no reason not to look at sharing administrative services and, potentially, servicing roles with other public sector bodies where that is appropriate—but not necessarily between the fire and rescue service and the police service. It should be with other public sector services that share the humanitarian remit, rather than the crime remit.

That brings us on to a number of points, such as the difference in the roles and remits. As I have just explained, there is a huge difference between the fire and rescue service and the police, and that needs to be considered. The police and the fire service perform very different roles and consequently have very different command and control structures. If the proposal went ahead, that would limit the opportunities available for any joint working.

Members have mentioned the police and crime commissioners. I am sure we will have a massive disagreement about this, but there is already a lot of concern about the police and crime commissioners’ role, without giving them extra responsibility for the fire and rescue services. After all, they were elected by, on average, only 15% of the electorate. I am not even sure that the commissioners themselves want any additional responsibilities; in fact, commissioners up and down the country have emphatically said, “We don’t want any additional responsibilities. We are police and crime commissioners. What on earth have we got to do with the fire and rescue service?” Again, we have to listen to the people who are actually delivering services on our behalf.

It is obvious that, unlike many public sector organisations, including the police, the fire service lacks common guidance and a natural procurement channel. That is a wasted opportunity. We must improve the procurement channel for fire-specific products.

The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the ambulance service. I have to be honest: the ambulance service—certainly in my area—is creaking. The North East ambulance service needs 120 recruits—the paramedics we discussed, who cannot suddenly appear because of the training and expertise they require—so I wonder whether the ambulance service should be involved in these proposals.

We have fantastic blue-light services—the four services—and every member of every one of those services deserves lots of credit. They have all suffered massive cuts. They are all working as hard as they can in the most stringent financial circumstances, and that is very difficult for them. It is easy to criticise them, but I am not sure the answer is to bring them all together and plonk them in one place, although I accept that some of the measures I have mentioned should be looked at for the common good.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase said it was time to move to a mandatory position, rather than a voluntary one. Well, call me a dinosaur—

[Jake Berry]

Dinosaur.

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

That is a fair comment. There is a lot I could say about the failure of the democratic process nationally, regionally and locally.

[Jake Berry]

I fundamentally disagree. Actually, combining the police and crime commissioner and fire commissioner roles will give much more democratic accountability. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a fire panel made up by local authority councillors is much more accountable? Could he name everyone on the fire panel in his area? I admit that I cannot do that for my area. If MPs cannot do that, how are constituents meant to?

[Ian Lavery]

That is a fair point. The Northumberland fire and rescue service is completely different from the services in the rest of the country. I can tell the hon. Gentleman the names of the people elected to run the service on behalf of Northumberland County Council because I have met them on numerous occasions, but I understand his point about whether constituents know who is on the fire panels.

To conclude, this is a serious issue. I understand the points that have been raised by almost everyone here. There are a lot of things that need to be discussed, and I urge the Government not to move forward with any plans without holding proper consultations with the people who deliver these services. It is important that we represent those people and, of course, the people in our communities who rely on these services in the most difficult times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Parliament, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) on securing a hugely important debate that matters particularly to Lancashire Members; the idea of sharing services to reduce costs will be particularly important there, given changes to the police funding formula. The Minister will not have scope to respond to me on that matter, but I want to thank him for meeting me and a cross-party delegation of Lancashire MPs who expressed concern about potential savings. His Department and officials have supported us every step of the way and have enabled Lancashire MPs to contribute to the continuing consultation to try to protect services.

Blue-light services are under pressure throughout the country because of financial constraints such as those I have mentioned. When MPs talk in the House about blue-light services—police, fire, ambulance, the coastguard and the Mines Rescue Service—they should reflect on the huge contribution that they make. My grandfather patrolled the docks in Bootle in Liverpool during the blitz—a tremendously brave thing to do—while he was in the police service. He put his life at risk every night to try to keep people safe in the city. We had a tragic reminder of the risks yesterday in the same city, at the funeral of PC Phillips at the Anglican Liverpool cathedral, where there were amazing scenes as more than 1,000 police officers lined the streets. I know that the Minister attended, to pass on the condolences of everyone in the House. When we discuss the blue-light services, we must remember that they are like no other part of the public sector. We ask and expect the people in those services to put their lives at risk to keep us safe.

Nevertheless, the new funding environment is here to stay. There must be savings and all services must play their part in helping us to pay down a record deficit. There is an opportunity for blue-light services throughout the country, but particularly in Lancashire, to begin saving by sharing more back-office services, to protect the frontline. When our constituents dial 999 or 101, they really care about whether someone will arrive on their doorstep in the worst of emergencies—or perhaps for a more minor incident if they dialled 101. Will someone arrive to help them? They do not particularly mind whether those people share headquarters or training facilities. We heard a fantastic example from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the sharing of training facilities in Northern Ireland. I support services sharing if, and only if, all the savings are used to maintain investment in and support of officers in all front-line services.

I was involved in running a business before I came to the House, and we had 1,500 employees, who were all fantastic and made a huge contribution. They would have thought it bizarre if we had had five HR, payroll or training departments for our five offices. They would have thought it even more bizarre if I had told them that to maintain the five payroll departments, we would sack people doing the work in the five different offices. That does not work in business, and it should not work in blue-light public services. For too long, there has been a silo mentality, and public services have not wanted to co-operate with each other, because they thought of that as a bit of an attack on their independence. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made some fantastic points, with some momentum. We agree on quite a lot and he made some constructive comments about how we can share services but still maintain independence. I agree that if I phone the fire service I expect someone to turn up in the uniform of a firefighter, not a police officer. We have a special relationship with firefighters, which is to do with the fact that they are independent and not linked to crime fighting. That needs to be maintained.

I want to keep my remarks brief; perhaps I have already gone over the time limit. I just want to say that there is an opportunity, through PCCs, to look at increasing democratic accountability. I outed myself as unable to name everyone on the fire panel in my constituency. I doubt whether many hon. Members could do so for theirs. I can name a few whom I have met in my constituency, but there is an opportunity to increase democratic accountability, and that is why I support the Government’s consultation.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will, because of Standing Orders, have to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.30 pm, so I call Chris Davies, who has 70 seconds.

Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [Lords]

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. He knows from his practice outside the House and from his time in this place that that is exactly the position. The law has not changed. The guidance does not change the law, it has not been changed elsewhere and it is not about to be changed. The Government have no plans to change it. We are simply reinforcing the clear view, implied by his question, that if somebody goes to their solicitor and says that they would like their will to be drafted in a way that reflects their beliefs about how they want to dispose of their assets, they can do so, subject to the overarching rule of English law. That often applies to the Jewish tradition, and might be the same for some Christians and people of other faiths. The law has not been changed and I want to knock on the head the assertion that the Law Society was somehow facilitating a change. The Law Society was simply ensuring that when it had had enquiries from its members about how to proceed they were given guidance, but that does not change the law one jot.

A third general point, which is important, is that people are living longer—and thank God for that. We are very lucky to have in this country a great, and growing, life expectancy. The Office for National Statistics tells us that nearly 14.5 million people in the UK are over 60, but with old age comes an increasing incidence of dementia and Alzheimer’s. According to Alzheimer’s UK, 800,000 people in this country have dementia. The Government are keen that it should be known that there is a legal facility open to people to make what is called a lasting power of attorney—an LPA—that gives an individual the opportunity to plan ahead for the time when they might lack the capacity to deal with their own affairs. We are talking not about after death, but about when people are still alive but might not have the physical or mental capacity to deal with their own affairs.

People can appoint somebody of their choice to make decisions on their behalf about their property and financial affairs or health and welfare. They can do that online through a facility introduced last year by the Office of the Public Guardian. The process is relatively simple: people are guided and prompted through each page so that the form is completed correctly. It can be printed off for signature and the LPA can then be applied for, and the fee is currently £110. It is registered as a document recognised in law.

There are 51 million adults in England and Wales, but the number of people who have made such an arrangement is small, and I hope the Bill will also remind people that one way of dealing with their affairs, for not just after they have left this earth but before, is to make provision now. The lasting power of attorney is the way to do that.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a solicitor. A worrying number of people are still dying intestate. What further steps will the Government take to encourage them to make a will? Will the Minister also take this opportunity to encourage initiatives such as will week, in which people can make a will and the solicitor will donate the fee to charity? Rossendale hospice takes part in that with great effect.

[Simon Hughes]

I was going to deal with that later, but as it has been raised it seems logical to do so now. I am very clear that although the Government cannot make people do such things we have a duty to lead. At the moment, if people go on to the Government website they will be directed to places where they can receive advice about such matters, but clearly the numbers are still surprisingly low. A lot of people of all levels of intelligence—this is not a matter only for people with fewer exams and qualifications—have not written anything down, as their families discover when the time comes for them to leave.

Such programmes are run, by different organisations, across the year, and I have referred to three already. We want to make them more effective and I have started to engage with officials and my colleague in the other House, Lord Faulks, who leads specifically on wills in the Ministry of Justice, to work together with him—[Interruption.] He does other things as well, but, bizarrely, lasting powers of attorney and inheritance come to me and wills go to him for reasons that are above my pay grade.



Lord Faulks and I have had a conversation. We are working together and we hope to work with our colleagues in the Department of Health, because the other part of the planning-ahead system is thinking about organ donation, and I know that the Secretary of State for Health is keen that that, too, should be better promoted. I hope that by the end of this year we will have a co-ordinated approach so that from this year on, we will have an annual, regular, clear promotion for people to make their will, to arrange lasting powers of attorney if they need to do so, and to arrange to donate their organs if they wish to do so. One of the reasons why the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and I are to meet is to try to get maximum agreement, the best ideas, the most effective systems and the easiest use of the internet so that it is as easy as possible for somebody to find the right place and use it. I am sold on the idea that this is an area in which the Government need to do more and will do more.

[Jake Berry]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he say specifically what steps he will take to encourage charities to increase the take-up of wills? I have seen for myself that it is a hugely successful fundraising activity for local charities in Rossendale and Darwen. It is also a big public service that they are providing to people who live locally. Often, the hospice movement, which will be managing the end-of-life journey for so many people in this country, can be a good place to find that information. There is surely a role for Government to support such charities in their work to encourage the take-up of wills.

[Simon Hughes]

I apologise for not dealing with that specifically. It is a very good idea and one that the Government support. I will take on board my hon. Friend’s idea. Perhaps he would like to come and have a cup of coffee, a cup of tea or even something else, and share his experience. The more people can be encouraged, the more charities can be helped and the more organisations can feel part of owning the process to the benefit of the community, the better, so I will be as helpful as I can. That is the backdrop. I hope everyone has got the message that we would rather people did not die intestate, but we must provide for those who do so.

I said that the Bill came from work by the Law Commission. Following a consultation paper that it published in 2009, it issued a report in 2011 entitled “Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death”, which included the draft Bill. The Ministry of Justice then carried out a public consultation. We published our response in July 2013, explaining the changes we proposed to make to the Bill. As a result of that consultative process, we are largely in agreement today.

There was a proposal to deal with the rights of cohabiting couples in intestacy. The Government have decided that it would not be appropriate to take those matters forward at present. They are not uncontroversial and raise other, wider issues. The Law Commission recognised that its work on cohabitation raised issues that do not apply specifically to the matters in the Bill. The Ministry of Justice is in the middle of a very large programme of reform of the family justice system, which I believe will be hugely beneficial, and we do not want to be distracted from that. The new family courts come into operation next month and we want to concentrate on sorting out and getting a much better service there, and on the issue of inheritance and trustees. Therefore there is no proposal to deal with cohabitees’ rights in this Session or in this Parliament.

The Bill started in the Lords on 30 July last year. The Lords took their job very seriously and I am grateful to them for being so attentive. It underwent detailed scrutiny and was amended three times in the other place. It then came to us in the Second Reading Committee upstairs and from there to the Public Bill Committee, where I believe we gave it adequate attention, although there were no further amendments.

There are two aspects to the Bill—intestacy rules and family provision. The first part deals with the division of property when somebody dies without leaving a will. The second part allows family members and dependants to apply to the court to vary the distribution, either under the intestacy rules or under the terms of a will.

Clause 1—this is the core and simple but important proposition—deals with the situation where the intestate leaves no children and has no other direct descendants. From the time the Bill receives Royal Assent—in a few weeks’ time—the surviving spouse or civil partner will be the sole beneficiary of the estate. That changes the current law. Under the current law, a surviving parent or full sibling or sibling’s children are entitled to share, after the spouse or civil partner has received the deceased’s personal effects and what is commonly called a statutory legacy—a lump sum, in this case the first £450,000. The clause will change those arrangements. The estate will go to the surviving spouse.

Clause 1 will also mean that where the intestate does leave children or other descendants, the surviving spouse or civil partner will be absolutely entitled to the deceased’s personal chattels, to a statutory sum of £250,000, and then to half of whatever remains on top of that. The other half will be shared between the children or other descendants. That also changes the current arrangements, because at the moment a surviving spouse or civil partner has only a life interest in the rest. That is complicated and it will go. Life interest trusts are really only an area of benefit to lawyers and are often a source of confusion, so they have gone. I hope that is clear. Spouses will know where they stand; children will know where they stand.

Clause 2 and schedule 1 deal with the way that the statutory legacy—the fixed net sum—is decided. It is the amount that the surviving spouse will receive where there are children or other descendants. The Bill will implement a new system whereby the Lord Chancellor will be obliged to make an order raising the level of the legacy if the consumer prices index rises by more than 15%, or at least every five years. So there is an automatic trigger when my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will address whether we ought to have more given as a lump sum to the surviving spouse. That was the result of a Government amendment on Report in the other place. As to the actual level to be set—this was debated in Committee—the Bill provides that unless the Lord Chancellor decides otherwise, the level will be set according to the procedure in the Bill. It will index the statutory legacy by an amount that reflects any increase in the CPI measure of inflation. The legacy can only increase; it cannot be reduced, so in the event of no inflation or deflation, it will not go down but will stay the same.

Clause 2 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to set the level of the statutory legacy without using that mechanism, and he is at liberty to set a level equal to, or even lower than, the pre-existing figure if he wants to. If he does want to do so, he must come to Parliament and explain why he has not used the mechanism in the legislation. We hope that the benefit of that is that spouses and civil partners will have an inheritance that does not slip behind in real value with the changing value of money in this country.

Clause 3 deals with what are called personal chattels. Under the current law, the surviving spouse or civil partner is entitled to all of the personal chattels that are not disposed of in the will. That has not changed as a principle, but it is updated by the legislation. We have defined personal chattels in the Bill as “tangible movable property”—the lawyers will know exactly what I am talking about—but with three defined exceptions. The first is money, and securities for money. That is not new. The second is property used at the death of the deceased person solely or mainly for their business purposes. The words “solely or mainly” have been added, and they will ensure that, for example, if there is a vehicle, such as a van, that was used by the individual and for their business, it is treated as something that is personal as well as a business asset. The third exception, which is new, relates to property held at the death of an intestate person solely as an investment. That is a narrow exception, which would apply only to property owned as an investment and which had no personal use. We are trying to be very clear about those things that go to the spouse because they are the personal assets of the deceased person. Again, that is what the public would expect and we want to make sure that what is reasonable and normal and to be expected is what the Bill does.

The numbers in clause 4 are small in significance, but as we agreed in Committee, the clause is important as a principle. It seeks to protect the position of children who are adopted after the death of a parent. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and all colleagues will know that, very occasionally, there are tragedies in which one or both parents of youngsters are killed, and they are then often brought up by aunts, uncles, godparents, or whoever it might be. However, the will may have made arrangements on the basis that the parents will be alive indefinitely, and certainly for many years after the children become adults, or there may be no will, because it will have been a sudden event that afflicted the family. The general rule is that after adoption, a child is regarded as the legal child of the adoptive parents and has no other legal parents.

Clause 4 ensures that a child whose parent has already died before adoption will not lose, as a result of adoption, any of the rights that they had before, in terms of interest in their natural parents’ assets. It is relevant where a child is adopted as a result of the birth parents’ death. That is normally a fairly speedy process, and it is not a secret one. We are clear that we want to do what common sense and justice would want us to do, which is to make sure that no orphan child should lose the inheritance from their parents. We are sure that that is what the parents would have intended. At the moment, that is not what would happen. We are changing the law to make sure that children in that very particular circumstance are better protected. It only affects children who are adopted after the death of a birth parent, which is obviously an important distinction.

Clause 5 disapplies section 18(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 in certain circumstances. Again, that is a small point, but we feel it is important to correct and modernise the law. At the moment, when somebody dies intestate and the parents were not married to each other at the time of their birth, rights do not follow in terms of inheritance. Under the proposal, the administrators of the estate may presume that the parent died first, as did any other person to whom they may be related only by virtue of the father—that might be somebody who is another parent by virtue of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, in very unusual circumstances. The rule discriminates against unmarried fathers. In practice, it makes it less likely that the deceased’s estate will pass under intestacy rules to such a parent.

Nowadays, it is quite usual for both unmarried parents to be identified as the parent of a child. Both are often on the register of birth so there is no longer any reason for both parents not to have equal entitlement in law. Therefore, we will disapply the presumption if a person is recorded as the intestate’s father, or as a second female parent in the specified formal register of births. In that case, the estate’s administrators will have the same responsibility to the deceased’s father or other parent as they would to any other relative entitled under the intestacy rules. The change clarifies that where somebody is recognised as a parent, irrespective of whether there is a marriage certificate, that parent should have the same right as an unmarried counterpart.

Clause 6 amends various provisions in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 by way of schedule 2 in the Bill. The Government’s original intention was to create an additional ground of jurisdiction for family provision claims to enable claimants who are habitually resident in England and Wales to bring such a claim, irrespective of the deceased’s place of domicile. Scottish colleagues raised concerns about how that would operate in practice across the border, and particularly, if it could displace Scots law. The Government therefore decided that we would not proceed with the proposal. We amended the Bill in the other place and therefore, there is no change that would impact adversely on Scotland or on any other jurisdiction.

The remainder of clause 6 makes a number of changes to the procedure for family provision claims, including some amendments to the categories of people who can apply to the court for provision. There is already a rule that allows someone to go to the court and say, “I’m a family member. I need some financial help.” The Bill modernises the law so that a “child of the family”—someone who might have been adopted in practice but not formally, for example—would be treated the same as any other child brought up in the same family. Therefore, the relationship between the parent and the “child of the family” would allow the inheritance rules to apply to the benefit of that child. We believe that it would be wrong for a deserving child who was brought up by the family not to be able to inherit in the same way as someone who was formally their child, either biologically or by adoption.

Clause 6 also amends the wording of the 1975 Act, which defines a person who may make a family provision claim because they are considered to be a dependant of the deceased. Under the current law, the court has to balance the deceased’s contribution towards the needs of the applicant against any benefits flowing the other way before deciding whether the applicant can be assisted. If the applicant is found to have contributed more to the deceased than the deceased contributed to the applicant, the applicant is not regarded as a dependant. We think that this “balance sheet test” is technical and inappropriate in a modern society. Of course there has to be a link, but we understand that dependency is often mutual and that therefore someone should not be debarred from applying because there has been some benefit in the other direction.

Clause 7 makes various amendments to provisions that require certain types of grant to be left out of account when deciding the date when representation with respect to the estate of the deceased was first taken out. They are technical changes, so I do not intend to elaborate on them for the House.

The last few clauses are highly relevant to a large number of people. Clause 8 concerns a situation in which a trustee is able to use income from a trust for the maintenance, education or benefit of a beneficiary under the age of 18. It is common for a trust to be set up and for applications to be made for school fees, medical attention or for sending a child on a holiday or arranging an apprenticeship. The Bill provides that in future the amount of income that can be used for such purposes should be entirely a matter for the trustees’ discretion. Currently, there has to be an objective test of reasonableness, together with a proviso listing all the factors that trustees must consider and a specific restriction on the amount that can be paid out. We do not think that those are necessary, so clause 8 removed them. Trustees will still be governed by the need to fulfil their fiduciary duties, so beneficiaries will not lose out, but they will, following a request, have the flexibility to give to meet the need.

Clause 9 deals with a similar situation in which trustees are able to use their powers of advancement to make payments of capital to beneficiaries where that is thought necessary. Such payments are limited by the current law to one half of the beneficiary’s future share. We believe that this limit should go. In future, trustees will, if they think fit, be able to pay out the whole of a beneficiary’s share under the power of advancement. That gives trustees the flexibility they would certainly have if they were acting under a professionally drafted will or trust. Of course, payments cannot amount to more than the beneficiary’s future share. The clause was amended in the other place to make it clear that if trustees have exercised their power of advancement, the money or property given to the beneficiary can be treated either as a percentage of the overall value of the trust or according to its monetary value at the time of advancement. Trustees may expressly exercise their choice to treat advancement in that way, for example by writing it in the trust deed or by dividing up the trust fund.

The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent next month. We intend all its provisions to come into force simultaneously later this year on a common commencement date of 1 October. The date is to be confirmed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor.

Of course, the provisions will apply only to deaths that occur after the Bill comes into force, because it is not retrospective. It is an England and Wales Bill, not a United Kingdom Bill, except for one part that repeals some technical matters. The only exceptions to its forward-looking nature are in clause 4, which deals with adoptions of children that take place after the death of a parent. The relevant date in that case is that the adoption has to take place after the Bill has come into force.

Clauses 8 and 10 also make changes that do not have the same timetable application. These are changes to trustees’ powers rather than arrangements for dealing with the deceased’s property, and they will apply only to trusts or trust interests that are created or arise after the Bill comes into force. The exception is the clarification of the powers in clause 9 that allow trustees to make non-cash advancements and to treat an advancement as a percentage of the overall value of the trusts. This provision is not governed by the timetable rule. It will apply to all trusts, including those created before the Bill comes into force, because it is a clarification of powers that exist in current law.

Some of that sounds technical, but the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to rid the law of a lot of technical restrictions. Hundreds of thousands of people still die without writing their will, and we believe that, for their families, this Bill will make life simpler and easier and lead to less conflict, less tension, and less cause for dispute. It will still be better for people to make a will, and we hope that they will, but where they do not, as I hope the House agrees, this Bill makes the law much clearer and provides for families where there is no will a much better, safer and simpler future.

Legal Aid Reform

Jake Berry Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman, but after that I must make some progress.

[Sarah Teather]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She was referring, of course, to the changes in civil rather than criminal legal aid. I think that the costs are likely to be significantly greater, especially if people remain in detention or cannot be released from hospital.

[Jake Berry]

Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my declaration of interest, largely because I am immensely proud of being a solicitor. What concerns me most is discrimination against small high street practices such as Holt and Longworth and other small firms in my constituency, which, although they are the backbone of our profession, will probably cease to exist.

[Sarah Teather]

I find it extremely worrying that the Government should pursue a line that would put small and medium-sized firms out of business, apparently deliberately. It flies in the face of everything they are trying to do to promote growth and the high streets. I trust that the Minister has noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) will catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that she wishes to speak specifically about issues relating to civil legal aid for prisoners. I shall not have time to speak about that myself, but I think that it is important for it to be covered today.

Let me now say something about the residence test. As a former children’s Minister, I know that the proposed changes have particular implications for children, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, I am very concerned about the impact on those who seek sanctuary on our shores.

The Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act was highly contentious and fiercely debated in both Houses. Many were persuaded of the need to save money, but all sought to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society would continue to have access to justice. Time and again, Ministers assured the House of Commons that when people’s lives or liberty were at stake, access to justice would be preserved. However, the new residence test appears to undermine that directly.

Schedule 1 of the Act lists the categories that the Government sought to protect from cuts—groups whom they recognised to have a vital need for legal representation. Children who may be subject to care orders, children with special educational needs, victims of domestic violence, victims of trafficking, asylum cases, those in immigration detention, those facing immediate homelessness, and those with mental health issues are just a few of the very vulnerable groups that are identified. I am afraid that people in all those categories may be denied legal aid if they fail to pass the residence test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

They do. The consultation considers very high cost cases and identifies them as a specific area that needs to be looked at. I agree with that.

During debates on what is now the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Labour spokesmen said that we should be looking at making savings by contracting criminal legal aid rather than touching civil legal aid. Now it seems that they have made another U-turn and are saying that they do not want criminal contracting at all. The position of Labour Members is not only inconsistent but deeply irresponsible, because they still acknowledge the need for legal aid savings but do not have a clue how to deliver them in practice. That is not the position of a party that can be serious about government.

[Jake Berry]

The criminal legal aid solicitors to whom I have spoken in my constituency have said that they would prefer a further cut in their rate to the structural changes the Government are talking about, because those structural changes mean that a solicitor in Rawtenstall has to travel to Blackpool to go to the police station. That is completely unsustainable.

[Mr Djanogly]

Further cuts in the rate are the easy option. The market is out of sync with the legal profession and it needs reform.

My theory is that Labour’s contracting proposals failed because they not only succumbed to the reactionary wing of the legal profession but shied from the bottom line facts of criminal legal aid contracting, which are that in order to get efficiencies and savings, contracting will always involve fewer but larger practices operating over a larger area. If the market is to be sustainable, there must be fewer firms each receiving a larger slice of the remaining pie.

Although I support the Government’s consultation and the contracting proposals in general, my personal view is that we are missing an opportunity radically to restructure the market and bring it into line with modern practice norms. At the core of that lies the need to consider the type of organisation that can bid and how they are paid. The historic position in England and Wales is that the client instructs a solicitor and then, particularly for more complicated advocacy, the solicitor employs a barrister. That involves two fees and I would strongly advocate moving to a single fee.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in paying tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). In Committee, the debate took place the other way around: I spoke to the amendment first, and she spoke second.

It has been a pleasure to work across and among parties on this issue, because it is not a divisive issue. We all genuinely want to correct what we consider an anomaly in the law. I am, however, deeply disappointed that we have found ourselves where we are today. As my hon. Friend said, the Second Reading debate took place on 5 February, and the sitting of the Bill Committee during which I proposed the original amendment took place on 12 March. I know that two Departments are considering the Bill, and that No. 10 and the Deputy Prime Minister have been involved as well, but there has been quite a lot of time for the issues to be resolved.

It is disappointing that today, almost at the eleventh hour and 59 minutes, the magic bullet, or nuclear weapon, of the Attorney-General has been wheeled out to tell us that the new clause falls foul of the European convention on human rights. That was never put to us on Second Reading or in Committee, or during the many bilateral private discussions which have taken place between the various parties and Ministries that have been involved in putting the new clause together.

Other, spurious, objections have been made at various times. It has been said, for instance, that the new clause would create an exception. However, as a number of people have pointed out, the law in England and Wales already makes exceptions for the Jewish community and for Quakers. Even more spurious objections have been presented, and leaked to the Daily Mail. Another thing that I find deeply disappointing is that both the Daily Mail and The Sun specifically named both the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and me as being in favour of Jedi weddings—or the pagan ceremonies in Scotland about which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The force is not with them.

[Stephen Williams]

Indeed; the force is not with those arguments!

The other argument that has been put forward is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle at the wrong time. I ask this of the Government Front-Bench team: if not now, when? Marriage Bills are not introduced in this place very often. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will correct me if my chronology is wrong, but I think that since the Reformation there was a marriage Bill in the reign of George III to deal with clandestine marriages, there was civil registration in 1837, divorce was legalised in 1857 and there was one marriage law in the 20th century, which was in 1949—and that is it in the whole sweep of hundreds of years of history of this Parliament debating law. This is our opportunity in the first decade of this century to try to get it right.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I hope that we can do more. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking at drug rehabilitation services generally for people who do not offend, as well as for people who get themselves into trouble with the law. This is a very important area. The majority of crime in this country is linked directly or indirectly to drug abuse of some kind. The majority of prisoners have indulged in the abuse of drugs shortly before their admission to prison. It is essential that we respond to my hon. Friend’s plea that such programmes are supported and made more effective.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

My constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that more life sentences will be available to judges when dealing with serious, repeat and violent offenders. What offences that will cover and, specifically, which repeat offences will eventually carry the life tariff?

[Mr Clarke]

I think there will be an automatic increase in the number of life sentences when we get rid of IPPs. When indeterminate sentences were introduced, some of the people who were given IPPs were in really dangerous categories and had been convicted of offences for which life imprisonment was already the maximum offence. When we change it, judges will put such people back on life sentences. The whole IPP experiment was a mistake. We have indeterminate sentences in this country—they are called life sentences. They are better managed and are the proper way to deal with the most serious offenders. I think that some of the most serious offenders who get IPPs now will in the future get life sentences, just as judges always gave them before.

Reforming Civil Justice

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

This has sometimes been looked at, hence it has been possible to raise these levels by quite large amounts as they have not kept in line with inflation for the last 15 years. What we are doing in respect of the small claims courts should be of assistance to people of low means, because the small claims courts have been quite successful as a reasonably informal, very low-cost way of resolving simple disputes or collecting straightforward debts which people cannot recover from those who owe them. It is right to extend that jurisdiction so that people are not faced with the daunting prospect of appearing before a judge in a formal court setting, and possibly having a lawyer on the other side and so forth, which comes at the next stage up, at county court.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

On the small claims courts, it is interesting that we are increasing the limit from £5,000 to £15,000. Will personal injury cases now be included, and will the recovery of legal fees be precluded in all cases up to £15,000?

[Mr Clarke]

We are only consulting, so we are open to arguments about whether or not £15,000 is the right figure; we might put it up further, or we might be persuaded to take it down. I personally think that extending the small claims court jurisdiction is a very desirable thing to do, but it will not be extended to personal injury cases, because the small claims court is intended for quick and easy disposal of fairly straightforward cases. Too many personal injury cases would clog up the system which is meant to be quick and relatively informal and for straightforward disputes.