Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2024

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2024.

In October 2023, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement on prison capacity and, in that context, set out that the Government would review the use of recall to ensure that the system was working effectively and to consider how best to strike the appropriate balance between safely managing any risk posed by offenders and not having people in prison on recall for longer than necessary for that objective. This statutory instrument reflects that.

This Government stand on our record. We have increased sentences for causing death by dangerous driving, for causing or allowing the death of a child, and for assaulting emergency workers. We have ended automatic release for the worst offenders; now, serious sexual and violent criminals serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody and the most dangerous spend the entirety of their sentence behind bars. We are ensuring that life means life. For the most disgusting and depraved killers, we are changing the law, to make whole-life orders the default sentence. As the Lord Chancellor announced in an oral statement to the House on 16 October, we are changing the law so that rapists and those convicted of equivalent sexual offences spend every day of the custodial part of their sentence in prison, where they cannot be a danger to the public.

This Government are increasing sentences for the worst offenders, while at the same time ensuring that short prison sentences do not ruin the redeemable. We are building the modern prison places needed to turn offenders’ lives around for good, which helps to bring down crime in the longer term and means that fewer victims are created. We are also taking action to ensure that we have enough prison places in the future to continue upholding our duty to protect the public.

Recall—the focus of this SI—is a preventive measure available to the probation service to bring back to custody an offender managed on licence in the community following their release from prison. In the period from 2017 to 2023, the number of people in prison on recall rose by 85% and the average time an offender spent in custody following recall increased by about half. That is due to a number of different factors, including increased numbers of released offenders serving longer determinate sentences, changes to offender behaviour and more offenders being recalled on a standard—that is, indefinite—rather than a fixed-term basis and subsequently spending longer back in custody while waiting for a release decision from the Parole Board, if not the Secretary of State. Probation officers can recall offenders for a range of reasons, including procedural reasons, and these could suggest that their risk while on licence had increased. Examples include failing to keep in touch, missing their curfew, being under the influence of alcohol if licence conditions prohibit that, and failing to reside at their agreed residence.

When recalled, offenders can be issued with a fixed-term recall of 14 days if they are serving a sentence of under 12 months, or of 28 days if they are serving a sentence of over 12 months, after which they are released automatically. Alternatively, offenders can be issued with a standard recall, which means that they are liable to remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless they are subsequently cleared to be released sooner by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board.

For those serving short sentences, the reality is that there is often too little time for these reviews to take place before the end of their sentence and, as a result, offenders may be held in custody for longer than is actually necessary to protect the public and are then released at the end of their sentence without any licence conditions or the support crucial for rehabilitation and successful resettlement in the community. The period of release prior to the automatic sentence end can be crucial for managing and understanding risk and for achieving reintegration through the conditions of a licence.

Let me be clear: the draft instrument before us today is not a measure that means that prisoners will be released before they have served the part of their custodial sentence required by law. It is a largely technical measure to address recent changes of practice that we have seen in the recall system. It will help to rebalance the application of fixed term and standard recall and in doing so help restore a degree of proportionality in recall decisions and, crucially, give greater clarity and guidance to probation staff.

Since 2017 we have seen a 20 percentage point reduction in the use of fixed-term recall in the wider recall population, and a 27 percentage point reduction in the use of fixed-term recalls in the fewer than 12 months cohort. Given the rises in time spent on recall and the overall recall population, it is right that through this statutory instrument we offer greater clarity to probation practitioners on how we expect fixed-term recall to be used and to provide the legislative backing to give them certainty around the change.

The fixed-term recall order will apply to lower-level offenders who are aged 18 or over serving custodial sentences of fewer than 12 months and who are assessed as requiring recall.

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

The Minister speaks of lower-level crimes and earlier spoke of some very serious crimes. At what point will there be a threshold to determine what is lower level and what is more serious? Will there be guidance for the officials who decide which crime is lower level, and how will that decision be made?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that key point. I will conclude the remarks I was making and then address it.

The cohort of offenders that I have referred to will now be recalled to custody for a fixed period of 14 days and will then be re-released into the community—again, with licence conditions to mitigate risk. They will remain eligible for re-recall by probation at any time should their risk become unmanageable or concerning in the community.

To my right hon. Friend’s point, the order will not apply to higher-risk offenders who are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements at levels 2 or 3, or who have been charged with a serious further offence under schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The sorts of crimes listed under schedule 18 include—these are under the Offences against the Person Act 1861—threats to kill, malicious wounding, abandoning children and causing bodily injury by explosives. There is a whole range, but that gives my right hon. Friend their tenor and they are already listed in the schedule.

In such circumstances the offender will be eligible for a longer recall period and, if appropriate, will be remanded in custody. It is important to remember that this order applies only to those who have received a custodial sentence of fewer than 12 months, which also acts as a filter. Those who have committed the most serious crimes, such as violent and sexual crimes, will almost certainly—not always, but mostly—have received a much tougher custodial sentence reflecting the severity of their crime and thereby excluding themselves from consideration in these measures.

In conclusion, I want to express our deep gratitude for the efforts of all those working in the criminal justice system, including prisons, probation and the police. They deserve huge credit for their enormous commitment and professionalism. This draft instrument is a measure to address the recent changes of practice in the recall system, which is reflected in the fixed-term recall approach introduced in 2008. It will help rebalance the application of fixed term and standard recall and enable the system to work effectively, ensuring that we do not have people in prison on recall for longer than necessary, and it will allow probation to apply the licence conditions to manage risk in the community. This is a proportionate and reasonable measure. I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shailesh Vara]

The hon. Lady is making an important point on the work levels of probation officers. However, does she agree that it is better that low-level offenders are not kept in prison unnecessarily for long periods, associating with more hardened criminals from whom they may pick up habits that would be to their detriment when they are released? It is better that they are outside if, all matters considered, they are of a low level. That is notwithstanding the pressures on the probation service; I recognise that problem, but it is one to be dealt with.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I agree with the principle that the right hon. Member mentions. However, we are talking about people who have been recalled—those who have been in prison, released and then recalled for some reason. It is a small part of the serious problem of the high level of reoffending, which we do not have time to go into today. We need to address the reoffending rate, but that is for a different debate.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I believe that we have had a dozen Prison Ministers in the last decade. We have had more Ministers than new prisons. The prisons that we have are in a dreadful state: they have sewage in cells, urine on walls and, in the case of HMP Dartmoor, radioactive radon gas seeping in, which has resulted in the closure of more than 150 cells.

This SI is part of the Government’s prompt response to the prisons crisis. As the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire has said, it is shifting the pressure from prisons on to, as I have said, the overstretched probation service. Probation staff are overworked and undervalued, and we know that there are huge vacancies and problems with staff retention. The Minister will no doubt respond by saying that 2,000 new probation officers have been recruited, but we know that 19% of the new starters left within the first year.

Cases that require experience are being left to probation officers with too little of it and who have been in post only a few months, sometimes with tragic consequences. Many officers leave because they are stressed. Nearly 50,000 work days were lost in 2022 because of stress among probation staff.

Some of those being released early have committed offences relating to domestic abuse. I know that there are some exceptions in the SI, but will there be enough time to ensure that victims are informed before their release? As I have said, cutting from 28 to 14 days means that a lot will have to be done. Will there be time for that key element to be addressed on behalf of the victims?

Additionally, I have heard from probation officers that we are back to offenders being released early on a Friday afternoon, which is contrary to Ministry of Justice policy stating, quite rightly, that release must take place early in the week. We know that those Friday releases make it extremely difficult for probation staff and the charities that support the work to ensure that adequate housing and other support are in place as soon as the prisoner comes out of the gates. Can the Minister confirm that the MOJ still has a policy of no Friday releases from prison, and why is that not being fully implemented? Why am I hearing from probation officers that they are dealing with Friday releases?

One of the core functions of the probation service is public protection. We have seen warning after warning—there have been too many damning cases, whether it was Damien Bendall, Jordan McSweeney or Joshua Jacques. Our probation service is at breaking point, and the public are the ones at risk from that. The Government have pointed to the Sentencing Bill as a way out of the crisis, but I am taking this opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm on the record when the Sentencing Bill will be returning. Can he confirm that Committee stage will be happening and, if so, when? Will he confirm that the Bill will not get pulled?

We have all read the latest account of blue on blue in The Times today, which suggested that No. 10 are dragging their feet because they are worried about their Back Benchers. I remind the Minister that we are in this Committee today because we do not have enough prisons or enough prison places—and that is because the Government have failed to stand up to their own Back Benchers with the new prison proposals.

This crisis is not victimless. The capacity crisis in prisons is also hitting victims of crime. As the reoffending rate continues to rise, prisoners are not getting the access they need to the classes, training or sessions that help to reduce their reoffending, improve their behaviour, treat their addiction or anger management and so on. This measure is not going to reduce reoffending if there has not been time to put together the elements of an essential support package once through the prison gate.

I also remind the Minister that the Government have acknowledged that the changes they are introducing to address the prison overcrowding crisis are putting huge pressures on our probation service but we have not seen any policy changes since October around probation. We have heard warm words, but we have seen no action.

Frontline probation officers are having to work on their days off and in their holidays in a frantic bid to keep the public safe, but they are being set up to fail. The Ministry of Justice and Ministers seem to be trying to pretend that there is no crisis and seem to be allergic to releasing information on these various schemes that are releasing prisoners early. Probation officers frankly do not have faith in the Government after 14 years of failure, and this SI is yet another admission of failure.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1397).

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Cummins. I welcome the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—it is good to see Whips taking their rightful place.

This statutory instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, known as the CPRs, to provide a closed material procedure for court proceedings relating to prevention and investigation measures. I will refer to these as STPIMs—state threats prevention and investigation measures—to distinguish them from terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which are known as TPIMs.

STPIMs are new measures established under provisions in part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 that closely replicate the provisions for TPIMs in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. STPIMs provide a suite of restrictive measures that can be used, where necessary and proportionate, to prevent, restrict and disrupt an individual’s further involvement in state threats activity, where prosecution and other disruptive actions are not possible. STPIMs will be used sparingly and as a measure of last resort to mitigate the immediate threat an individual poses while they continue to be investigated by the authorities.

STPIMs require specific procedural provision in order to be workable. This statutory instrument, while not establishing STPIMs, makes that procedural provision to enable their operation. The imposition of STPIMs requires the permission and review of the court and contains a procedure for appeal by the STPIM subject. This statutory instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to provide the court with a bespoke closed material procedure for proceedings relating to STPIMs.

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

My hon. Friend says that there would need to be court approval. What level of court would it be, and will there be any ministerial approval required, or is it just the court?

[Mike Freer]

My understanding is that this would require High Court approval. There is a review mechanism by the subject, subject to the purview of the Home Office, but it does not involve the Secretary of State for Justice.

The procedure includes, in particular, for applications by the Secretary of State for permission to impose measures, directions for a review hearing after the imposition of the STPIM and appeal against the imposition of the measure itself, or any other determination in connection with the STPIM. Both the review hearing and any appeal hearing will be determined on judicial review principles.

These cases will inevitably involve sensitive material. This instrument therefore sets out a procedure to enable the sensitive material to be relied on by the Government, and the evidence against the STPIM subject, to be tested by the court, but through a closed procedure that will ensure that it can be adequately protected in the public interest. This rule change is effected by amending part 80 of the CPRs, which contain rules relating to TPIM proceedings, so that the rules cover the equivalent STPIM proceedings.

In conclusion, the Government have publicly committed to provide operational partners with the tools needed to combat state threats. STPIMs are important measures within this toolkit, and this instrument is vital in ensuring that STPIMs are a usable tool that can be fully defended and justified in our courts through both open and closed proceedings. Given the sensitivity of the evidence, which will be a key component in why an individual cannot be prosecuted and why the use of an STPIM is necessary, it would fundamentally undermine the scheme if closed proceedings—where sensitive intelligence and national security arguments can be made—were not available. I hope colleagues will agree.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

May I say how pleased I am to see the Government bringing forward proposals to stamp out illegal hare coursing? It is an issue that I and many other rural MPs have campaigned on for the best part of a decade, not least as a result of the extreme violence shown by coursers in Cambridgeshire and many other rural parts of the country to those who try to stop them—farmers, local people and even police. The coursers show disregard for property rights and cause huge amounts of damage to crops and hedges.

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

rose—

[Mr Djanogly]

I give way to my Huntingdonshire colleague.

[Shailesh Vara]

As a Cambridgeshire neighbour, I am well aware of the difficulties that the Bill seeks to put right. When the matter has been raised with the police, one of the main points that they make is that until now the legislation has had no teeth. When the Bill becomes law, hopefully they will have what they have always wanted. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we really need, once the Bill is on the statute book, is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the maximum penalties are inflicted on those who are found guilty, not only as punishment for them but to act as a powerful deterrent to others?

[Mr Djanogly]

I agree with my hon. Friend in every regard. He has made the important point that when legislation is on the statute book, it must be enforced. I think he will agree with me, given the experiences we have both had in talking to local police, that they seek this legislation, they are waiting for it and they will act on it, and no doubt we are both keen to see that happen.

Farmers have been complaining bitterly to me, with good cause. They have a tough enough job as it is without the worry of these coursing criminals. The basic problem is that the provisions of the Hunting Act 2004 often failed to work owing to their complexity, so prosecutors started to use the old 19th-century anti-poaching laws. While those worked evidentially, they failed to have the penalty clout that was required. Fines of tens or hundreds of pounds were pretty meaningless when there were dogs worth tens of thousands and gambling opportunities worth hundreds of thousands. I even heard that the coursing was being streamed into city pubs for gambling purposes. The problem then became worse, because the threat of intimidation was so high for farmers, versus a low penalty risk for the perpetrators, that many farmers did not want to become involved in prosecutions at all.

Now, with this legislation leading to higher levels of fines and confiscation orders, and the ability to charge for the detained dogs and their living costs, I think that we have a much better chance of significantly reducing coursing. Now, armed with these powers, rural police forces will be able to get to work against the perpetrators. I know that in Cambridgeshire they will have the support of all the county MPs, one of whom we have heard from this evening. All of them have been actively involved in this campaign. These anti-coursing measures represent a great example of the Government’s acting in the best interests of the countryside and the farming community to counter rural crime, and they have my full support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a previous answer, I am in the spirit of working constructively with a fellow Parliament and fellow parliamentarians. I want to ensure a situation where the whole of the United Kingdom can benefit from improvements and rebalancing, and that applies equally to the people of Scotland. I hold out an olive branch to him today. I want us to work together on these issues. We can achieve far more working together than by pursuing pointless independence referendums.

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

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Prison officers are some of our finest public servants, and I have had the honour and pleasure of meeting many of them, not just as a Minister, but as a practising member of the Bar. The incident at HMP Whitemoor was quickly resolved thanks to the bravery and professionalism of the staff who intervened. Their courage in protecting others cannot be overstated. HMP Liverpool is driving prison officer safety through an increased focus on key work as part of our offender management in custody investment, through a new drugs strategy and through the improved use of data to understand the reasons for violence, but we recognise that more needs to be done, which is why were are introducing PAVA, a synthetic pepper spray, to protect staff from incidents of serious violence or where they are in imminent or perceived risk of serious violence.

[Mr Vara]

Would my right hon. and learned Friend kindly update the House on the ambitious reform programme by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work when he was courts Minister. As he knows, the programme that he helped to spearhead is already improving both access to justice and efficiency. More than 300,000 people have now used new online services established to enhance access, such as to make civil money claims, to apply for divorce or to make a plea to low-level criminal offences. Last year alone, more than 65,000 civil money claims were made online, with nine out of 10 users saying they were satisfied or very satisfied with the service.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

The removal of the charter without a like-for-like replacement would amount to a reduction in legal rights, particularly domestic remedies, and the Government have not done enough—

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

The hon. Lady rightly speaks of our living in a global environment, but she will acknowledge that, as has been said by Members on both sides of the House, Britain leads the way in laws for equality? Therefore, what is her concern, particularly as the Human Rights Act 1998 will remain operative?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Legal experts the Select Committee has listened to have made the point that there are gaps, so what is the point of not taking the charter into our retained EU law as a whole, because we are taking everything else, and making sure these gaps do not exist?

Prisons and Courts Bill

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

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

[Richard Burgon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Burgon]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

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

[Richard Burgon]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

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

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

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

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

[John Mann]

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

[Mr Vara]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Mr Vara]

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

[Richard Burgon]

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

Question put.

Pension Freedoms

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

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

[Stephen Timms]

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Timms]

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

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

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

[Mr Vara]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley]

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

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

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

Where will you get the money?

[Angela Crawley]

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

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