Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of planned changes to personal injury law and whiplash claims on access to justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government remain concerned about the number and cost of whiplash claims, particularly their impact on insurance premiums, and have announced robust new measures to tackle the problem. We will consult on the detail in due course, and the consultation will be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment.
Mary Glindon
How does the Minister respond to my constituents who have genuine concerns about the evidence base for the proposed reforms, and believe that they are unjust and will not deliver the right and proper compensation for people who were injured through negligence?
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
In the UK, 80% of road traffic accidents generate a whiplash claim; in France, 3% of road traffic accidents generate a whiplash claim. In the UK, whiplash claims are increasing as accidents decrease; in France, it is the other way round. Insurance premiums in the UK are 50% higher, meaning that many young people cannot afford insurance. Will the Government act to get this sorted out?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right to say that it is important, to benefit all our constituents, that we deal with this. The way to do so is through our proposed reforms, on which there will be a consultation in the not-too-distant future. That will ensure that premiums go down.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
20. What plans he has to review sentencing guidelines related to stalking offences.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
T4. With regard to employment tribunals, does the Minister have any plans to include personal independence payments in the calculations for assessing eligibility?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
As far as employment tribunals are concerned—as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), said earlier—the review will be published shortly. It is a fact that a lot of people who would previously have gone to employment tribunals are now going to the ACAS conciliatory procedure. We will certainly make sure that all the issues referred to are covered in the review.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
T8. At Justice Questions in March, I raised serious concerns about the systematic failure of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in relation to a case in my constituency. From my experience of dealing with this case, it has become clear that the self-governing SRA needs reform both to improve accountability and to restore public confidence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this issue so that, together, we can bring forward proposals to ensure solicitors are regulated properly and independently?
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
T7. Will the Secretary of State be good enough to tell us, in the wake of the atrocity in Orlando, what steps he is taking to monitor and address homophobic hate crime against lesbian and gay people in this country?
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The former Justice Secretary was warned that cuts in legal aid to domestic violence victims were “grossly unfair” and “harsh”. That is why the Court of Appeal shot them down. In response, the Government decided to do a survey, which had a very limited timeframe for being filled in. Do the Government think that that was a reasonable way to show that they take the situation seriously? Would it not be better to have a full, open, public and transparent consultation?
Mr Vara
I say very gently to the hon. Lady that she is completely misinformed and wrong. Following that court judgment, the Government increased the time period for the production of evidence from two years to five years, and have allowed financial abuse to be taken into account. What is more, having made those immediate changes to the system, we are now engaging with the relevant stakeholders to bring in a better system that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Home Office has reportedly refused to disclose data on sexual violence towards detainees at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre because the information could damage the commercial interests of the company that runs the facility. Is the Minister able to assure the House that Ministry of Justice policy will not put profit before people in prisons?
Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and all those on the Order Paper who support the motion, on securing the debate on this very important subject. For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out a flaw in the motion. It seems to indicate that it is this Government who have introduced the measure, when it states
“will no longer be uprated”
and
“regrets that the Government has taken this action”.
I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that this policy has been consistent for 70 years. It is not something that this Government have done.
Ian Blackford
I made it clear in my speech that I recognise that this has been happening since the 1940s. I absolutely acknowledge that. This has happened under all Governments. None the less, we have the opportunity today to respond to it in the correct manner.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The House and the Minister will recall that each year a statutory instrument, or equivalent legislation, is brought before the House to continue the policy, so none of us can say we are blameless. The fact that a small minority of us have so far been voting against what the Government propose to Parliament is our fault for not recruiting more people. The best people to recruit would be the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and then the Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions who have to face up for the Government and will be able to pass the responsibility on to those who carry the responsibility—the most senior Ministers in Government.
Mr Vara
I am grateful to both hon. Members for clarifying that point. I was simply pointing out an inconsistency on the Order Paper. For the sake of good order, I wanted to make clear that although yearly decisions have been taken by the Government, they are consistent with the policy undertaken by successive Governments from both sides of the House.
The UK state pension is exportable worldwide, regardless of recipients’ countries of residence or nationality. Successive Governments have taken the view that all those who have worked in the UK and built up an entitlement to state pension should be able to receive it. We have no plans to change this arrangement. However, the state pension is only increased, or uprated, each year where the recipient is resident in the European Economic Area or a country with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating.
The policy on this issue has been consistent for 70 years, including under the Governments of Attlee, Wilson, Blair, Macmillan, Thatcher and Major. To uprate all state pension payments, regardless of a recipient’s country of residence, to the rate currently paid in the UK would cost in excess of an extra half a billion pounds a year. This amount would increase significantly over time. If arrears were to be included, the cost would be in the billions of pounds. Some have suggested partial uprating, but while this may cost tens of millions of pounds in the short term, the annual cost of the policy would converge to that of full uprating in the long term.
Sir Peter Bottomley
It might help if the Minister, either today or in the next Session, could tell us the last time the Government voluntarily negotiated a reciprocal agreement with another nation or territory. Secondly, since the last negotiation on a voluntary reciprocal agreement, how many other countries have been brought into the uprating for other reasons, such as accession to the EU?
Mr Vara
I can certainly partly address my hon. Friend’s question. No new commitments allowing for uprating have been made since the 1980s. As far as the other information he seeks, I am more than happy to write to him.
We have to recognise that resources are limited. The Government have to make judgments and take difficult decisions about how best to use limited resources. The majority of pensioners abroad live in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The rules in those countries vary. Some have largely means-tested pension systems, whereby a significant proportion of any increase in the amount of the UK state pension would go to the Treasuries of those countries, rather than the pensioner. I should add that many people who voluntarily move abroad do so before they have reached pensionable age. As such, many of them may well have been able to build up some pension provision in the countries they have emigrated to.
We should remember that the decision to move abroad is a voluntary one. It remains a personal choice dependent on the circumstances of the individual, which will differ from person to person. The implications for their state pension is just one factor in that decision. There is no evidence of a proven behavioural link between the uprating policy for the state pension and pensioner migration.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time. Will he not accept that every other OECD country allows their pensioners who live abroad to collect their pension? Why are we standing against this? We are not talking about people getting something they are not entitled to, whether they have moved abroad before they have retired. We are talking about them getting something they are entitled to because they have made national insurance contributions. That is what we are denying them.
Mr Vara
It is important that we do not just look at this from one narrow perspective. The hon. Gentleman says that people have paid national insurance and are therefore entitled to this. As I say, there are other aspects involved. For example, there is the element of individual choice. When people think about going abroad, it is not purely this issue that will determine whether they will live here or abroad.
Over the years, the UK has entered into a number of reciprocal agreements with other countries. Although most provide for payment of upratings, that is not the primary purpose of reciprocal social security agreements. They are intended mainly to provide a measure of co-ordination between social security schemes to protect the social security of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from needing to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time to get access to social security benefits. Of course, social security agreements vary to some extent from country to country, depending on the nature and scope of the other country’s social security scheme. It should also be noted that the UK is not alone in applying restrictions on payment of state pensions abroad. In some respects, the UK arrangements are less restrictive than those that apply in other countries.
The crux of the issue is individual choice. Those who have contributed to the UK state pension scheme are free to draw their entitlement from wherever they choose to live. The rules governing the uprating of pensions are straightforward and widely publicised. If a person chooses to live in country A their pension will be uprated, but if the choice is to live in country B their pension will not be uprated. In the final analysis, it is for the individual to weigh the benefits of living in country B, where her or his pension will not be uprated, against the benefits afforded by country A—or, indeed, remaining in the UK.
I am mindful that there are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber who wish to speak in the debate. It is a Backbench Business debate and I am mindful to give Back Benchers the freedom and opportunity to speak for a longer time than those on the Front Benches. So I congratulate again the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and those who have supported him, on securing the debate. I am very pleased to have been able to set out the Government’s position, which remains unchanged.
Mr Vara
With leave of the House I would like to make some brief comments. I am mindful that this is a Backbench Business Committee debate, and that it is not normal for Front Benchers to have a second go. I do not want to set a precedent, so I will just make one or two concluding comments about issues that have been raised.
Bilateral agreements were mentioned, and those are normally negotiated on the basis of compatibility of systems. That reciprocity is achieved between the two nations, and respective costs are broadly balanced. Canada has more than 150,000 recipients of the UK state pension, but any new bilateral agreement would not achieve reciprocity and would be disadvantageous to the UK taxpayer.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for all the work that he has done consistently over a number of years on this issue.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The logic, I think, is that if a reciprocal agreement may be done at no cost, there would be no reciprocal agreements anywhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot answer that because it is not a point of order. It is a point of debate, and the Minister is being brief because he has the leave of the House to speak again.
Mr Vara
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not wish to abuse the leave of the House.
I simply conclude by referring to the issue raised by the International Consortium of British Pensioners, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet mentioned. He was right to say that it has come up with proposals, but it was felt that they were not sufficiently developed. The ICBP is working on more proposals and we look forward to having sight of them.
I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber on securing the debate.
Draft Crown Court (Recording) Order 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Crown Court (Recording) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. The order removes the prohibition on recording court proceedings to the extent necessary to enable a judge’s sentencing remarks in the Crown court to be recorded, on a not-for-broadcast basis, for the purposes of a test.
The present position is that the recording and broadcast of proceedings in courts other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal is prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent in April 2013, enables the Lord Chancellor, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, to make an order specifying circumstances in which the prohibitions on recording and broadcasting may be lifted. The order before us is the second order to be made under that power.
There is evidence to suggest that the more informed people are about the justice system, the more confidence they will have in it. Few people have direct experience of court proceedings, and public understanding of how the justice system works is very limited. In principle, our courts are open to all members of the public who wish to attend, but in practice very few people have the time or opportunity to attend and see what happens in person. We believe that we should make our courts more accessible and make it easier for the public to understand court proceedings.
Increasingly, people rely on television and the internet for access to news and current affairs. It is therefore right to respond to changes in technology and society and allow cameras into our courts. However, although it is important for justice to be seen to be done, that cannot be at the expense of the proper administration of justice, the integrity of the trial process or the reputation of the courts. The courts deal with very serious matters that can affect the liberty, livelihood and reputation of all the parties involved. The proposed test period provides an opportunity to examine how we can film in our courts in a way that protects the individuals involved and preserves the dignity of the courts and the trial process.
I am conscious that there will be concerns about the welfare of victims and witnesses and the potential for court broadcasting to have a detrimental effect on their experiences in court. In the event that a victim or witness is present in court during the recording of a judge’s sentencing remarks, there are in place a number of safeguards designed to minimise any potential impact that recording might have.
I emphasise that the order does not permit the filming of victims or witnesses, or indeed any other court user, including staff, members of the public, defendants and advocates. It will be for the judge to decide whether filming of a particular case should not be allowed, and they will take into account the interests of victims and witnesses when considering that. In addition, existing reporting restrictions will continue to apply, and section 32(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides that the court may stop or suspend filming in the interests of justice or to prevent prejudice to any person. Any breach of the terms of the order may amount to a contempt of court. None of the cases recorded during the test will be available for broadcast to the public. Recorded material will be used only by the judiciary, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice for the purposes of the test, including assessing whether it has been successful.
The Government are committed to increasing transparency and providing the public with information on the operation of public services, and the justice system is no exception. To many people, the law remains mysterious. Public understanding of how the courts work, and sentencing in particular, is critical to maintaining confidence in the system and ensuring that justice is seen to be done. We believe that the order before us today is an appropriate step forward in testing how we can allow for greater visibility of what goes on in our courts without undermining the quality and reputation of our justice system.
At the end of the test period, the lessons learned will be considered by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to help inform their decision on whether broadcasting of judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown court should be permitted in future. If they agree, we will return to the House with a third order to allow broadcasting of recorded material to commence. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Mr Vara
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the measure and am happy to give her the assurances she seeks. Let me make it absolutely clear to the Committee that we are legislating for a test. The idea is that the test will last for some three months. The intention is that filming will commence around June. At the end of that three-month period, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will consider whether we should put the filming into practice, effectively moving on from the test period. Before that happens, much consideration will be given.
I emphasise that we are simply talking about filming the sentencing remarks of a Crown court judge. There is no intention of filming victims, witnesses, counsel, solicitors, lawyers, court staff, audience members, members of the public or anyone else. It is confined to the judge and only to the sentencing remarks that she or he makes. Were there to be a debate in future on whether victims, witnesses and others should be filmed, that decision would clearly need to come before a Committee.
As far as the criteria that the hon. Lady seeks are concerned, this is just a test, so we have not yet decided on what the full criteria will be because we have not decided whether filming will progress beyond the test. We are doing the test to see whether this is feasible, and then decisions will be taken and criteria will be set. Filming processes have existed in the Supreme Court since 2009 and in the Court of Appeal since 2013. The Court of Appeal allows for the filming of the concluding comments of counsel and judges, but nothing else.
The hon. Lady raised a concern that allowing cameras in court would discourage victims and witnesses from giving evidence. As I say, victims and witnesses will not be filmed. Hopefully, that gives her the assurance she seeks. I emphasise that there is no intention of moving the filming beyond the judges. We would need to come back to Committee for parliamentary approval for that.
I trust that hon. Members will agree that this is a proportionate and sensible approach that will enable us to develop further the safeguards introduced in the Court of Appeal and ensure that any future footage recorded in the Crown court will be presented in a fair and accurate way.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
7. What progress has been made on the modernisation programme to upgrade technology in the courts and tribunal estate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I assure the hon. Lady that significant progress has been made to upgrade technology in the courts and tribunal estate. The vast majority of our criminal courts are now equipped to work digitally, and we are reducing reliance on paper bundles. New digital services such as in-court presentation, shared drives and wi-fi are enabling professional users, the judiciary and court staff to work digitally.
Holly Lynch
As the Minister knows, the magistrates court and the family and county court in Halifax are due to close. An answer to a recent written question revealed that overall investment plans for the courts and tribunal estate have not changed or been updated following the announcement that 86 courts were to close across the country. What plans are there to update the digitalisation programme to include measures that ensure that justice is accessible in areas that are soon to be without a court?
Mr Vara
I know the hon. Lady takes this issue very seriously, and I want to assure her that it is at the top of the agenda in my regular meetings with the senior management of the Courts and Tribunals Service. A lot is happening, however, not all of which gets into the public domain. For example, we are reducing reliance on paper bundles in the criminal courts, and the digital case system in Southwark Crown court now holds over 94,000 pages of information that would otherwise have been printed in triplicate. Also, the new national automated rota system for magistrates, which is now live for 2,500 magistrates, has eliminated a complex and error-prone manual process.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome the upgrading of technology in the traditional court setting—for example, for civil claims, the Rolls Building now takes claims on line—but will the Secretary of State also be implementing the more radical proposals of the Civil Justice Council to include an online dispute resolution service for low-value claims?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The National Audit Office warned against focusing all our attention on technology, and not users, so what is being done to encourage buy-in from the legal profession and to help with training?
Mr Vara
First, we need to recognise the world we live in, which is technologically advanced, and we are working closely with users, lawyers and everyone else involved in the legal process. I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the buy-in from the judiciary, the lawyers and the public is very optimistic.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions he has had with G4S on its proposal to sell its contracts for the operation of secure training centres.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
9. What steps the Government plan to take to improve access to justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are determined to deliver a swifter and more certain justice system that is more accessible to the public. We are investing £700 million in our courts and tribunals, and our reforms will digitise the justice system to speed up processes and provide services online; remove unnecessary hearings, paper forms and duplication; cut costs for litigants; and make justice more accessible. Moreover, they will remove hearings from the courtroom that do not need to be there; ensure we make full use of judges, courtrooms and legal teams only where necessary; and support people in resolving their disputes by means of more informal and less costly remedies.
Drew Hendry
The UK Government are proposing fee increases of up to £800 for a full hearing in asylum and immigration tribunals. This means that applicants seeking to challenge decisions on their right to enter or remain in the UK will struggle to afford this, despite the Home Office’s often getting the decision wrong. Does the Minister agree with me that access to justice should never depend on an individual’s ability to pay?
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Citizens advice bureaux, including those in Havant, play an important role in helping people to access justice and to understand the legal system. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them on their work and in encouraging more people to use them?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
15. The Supreme Court has found that the Justice Secretary acted without moral authority and in a legal vacuum. Will he now ensure that there will be access to justice for those who do not meet the residence test?
Mr Vara
The Government are disappointed with the findings of the Supreme Court on the residence test, particularly when the last Government listened to Parliament and the public, and we made exceptions to that test. I am minded to say that there are millions of people across the country who take the view that it is right that there should be some sort of connection with Britain for people who seek to have their legal aid funds paid for by the British public.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
19. Claudia Lawrence from York was last seen on 18 March 2009; she is still missing, as are around 2,500 people in the UK. In the midst of their grief, families have to battle to deal with financial and property affairs, and they need access to justice. There is a simple solution: guardianship on behalf of the missing person. The Government promised this over a year ago. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting it in this year’s Queen’s Speech?
Mr Speaker
That is a very good example of what I call “shoe-horning”. The hon. Lady shoe-horned in a later question into this one, and was just about in order. She is very ingenious.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
In order to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities, will the Minister confirm that personal independence payments will not be used in calculations that determine whether or not someone is entitled to help with employment tribunal cases?
Mr Vara
Much consideration is given when assessing the criteria to be taken into account. The Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions and others are involved, and it would be inappropriate for me to make a decision right now from the Dispatch Box in the way the hon. Lady asks me to do.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s previous answer, but I still find it very difficult to understand that while this Conservative Government voted not to take in 3,000 refugee children, the Ministry of Justice is proposing to raise written first-tier immigration and asylum tribunal fees by a massive 512%. How on earth are vulnerable people going to be able to challenge what are quite often errors by the Home Office? Will the Minister please tell me where the justice is in this?
Mr Vara
I simply say to the hon. Lady that there are a series of exemptions for vulnerable people. We need to recognise that the court system has to be paid for, and it is perfectly reasonable for the British taxpayer to expect those who use our court system to make a contribution towards its running.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
12. What progress he has made on reducing the cost to the public purse of legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Before the process of legal aid reform began in 2010, our legal aid system cost the taxpayer over £2 billion each year. During the period 2014-15, the legal aid spend was £1.64 billion.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Ours is still the only country in the world that pays foreign nationals to sue our own soldiers, and last week the Supreme Court told us that the Government did not have the power to curtail legal aid for that purpose. The only solution, apparently, is primary legislation. Will the Minister tell us how he intends to make progress on this matter?
Mr Vara
I refer my hon. Friend to some of the comments that I made earlier. However, he has made a good point about the residence test. He will appreciate that, while I have enormous sympathy with his view—as do many other people, including, in particular, millions in the country outside—we for our part await the written judgment of the Court, and will reflect on it.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Every solicitor who practises in England and Wales, as I did, has a client account. In some jurisdictions in north America, the interest earned on moneys held in client accounts is devoted to legal aid. Would the Government consider introducing such an arrangement in England and Wales?
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
When it comes to legal aid, I wonder what help will be given to the family of Lance Corporal Young. They have been refused legal aid and therefore cannot take civil action against John Downey, the republican bomber who is believed to have been behind the Hyde Park bomb, and who was let off as a result of the “on the run” letters.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
13. When he plans to publish a consultation on a British Bill of Rights.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T3. In view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association’s campaign concerning certain cases relating to taxi and private hire drivers refusing carriage to guide dog owners, will the Minister tell the House what the Government’s position is on this important issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I am happy to set out the Government’s position on this important issue. It is an offence under section 168 of the Equality Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The penalty is a maximum of £1,000. As far as sentencing is concerned, my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for the judiciary, which of course acts independently.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
T2. Last week, the Justice Committee was at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the judges praised the UK for incorporating the Court’s principles into our law to provide effective redress. However, the Lord Chancellor wants to tear up the Human Rights Act and it now looks as though the Home Secretary wants to leave the convention altogether. I know that an attempt was made to get an answer to this question earlier, but can we actually have some clarity on this? To the outside world, it looks as though the Conservatives have a blind spot in relation to anything containing the words “European” and “human rights”.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
T7. A report by Citizens Advice states that“nine out of 10 people who have gone through the family courts, under new rules that heavily restrict access to legal aid, suffer strain in their mental and physical health, working lives and finances”,which is surely unacceptable. What will the Minister do to put that right?
Mr Vara
As was said earlier, much is being done for people who need legal aid, particularly in the family courts. Our judges are aware of the difficulties of the people before them and are trained to help and assist them. The Government have also provided much money and support for litigants in person. People talk about more legal aid, but it is important to remember that it is taxpayers’ money and to recognise that we spend £1.6 billion on legal aid, which is one of the largest such budgets in the world.
Civil Legal Aid
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
On 18 February the Court of Appeal handed down judgment on an appeal in a judicial review challenge to the domestic violence evidence requirements under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). I would now like to inform the House of the steps the Government are taking to respond to the Court’s concerns.
Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. Our overriding approach to legal aid reform is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of paying for legal aid, while ensuring that it is targeted at the highest priorities. In line with this approach, LASPO removed legal aid from most private family matters while making a clear exception for victims of domestic violence. In such cases, the applicant is required to supply specific evidence of domestic violence, which is set out in regulations.
In this judicial review, the Court of Appeal found that the regulations frustrated LASPO’s purpose in two specific areas. First, in that they required evidence to have been obtained within a two-year period before the application for legal aid. Secondly, because they lacked provision for victims of financial abuse.
We continue to believe that victims of domestic violence in private family disputes should receive legal aid where evidence is provided, and the Court of Appeal has agreed that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make arrangements in regulations to allow this. But there are areas where we need further information—for example, the number of individuals who have evidence over two years old. We also need to more fully appreciate the issues in play in cases of financial abuse, on which there is only limited research available.
We have begun work with domestic violence support groups, legal representative bodies and colleagues across Government to gather data and develop our understanding of these issues. Our findings will be used to inform an evidence-based solution to the Court’s concerns, with the aim of drawing up replacement regulations.
In the meantime we are taking immediate action, through interim regulations laid before Parliament today, to change our arrangements. We are more than doubling the original time limit for evidence—increasing it from two to five years, and we are introducing a provision for the assessment of evidence concerning financial abuse. We are expediting implementation of these changes so they will come into effect on Monday 25 April in order to make sure that victims of domestic violence can receive the support they need as soon as possible, and to give certainty to those considering applications for legal aid. We believe that these arrangements address the Court’s concerns while work continues to find a sustainable longer-term solution.
[HCWS690]
Court Closures
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bingham
I am not sure how to respond to that without sounding big-headed. I do not know the ins and outs of the courts in Durham, but I felt I put forward a coherent argument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My hon. Friend is making a very passionate speech. I just want to put on the record that decisions on changes, closures and keeping courts open have been made about courts represented by Members on all sides of the House. There has been no preferential treatment for Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) sits on the Labour Benches. I listened to her eagerly, as she said, and the proposals were changed. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Stockport constituency is held by a Labour Member.
Andrew Bingham
I argued against the closure of the Buxton court. It will be closed, so I was only partially successful.
The response to the consultation states:
“move the workload to Chesterfield justice centre and Stockport magistrates and county courts”.
My concern, which I want to flag up today, is how much work will be going to where. I do not want only the odd case going to Stockport just to placate one awkward Member of Parliament.
I want to raise the response to the proposals and the consultation. My judgment is coloured by my views about the way the consultation was carried out and by its content. Yet again, I think there is a hidden agenda and that the officials are letting the Minister down. The response document, which I have here, contains serious flaws. For example, nowhere in the response are the comments made by High Peak Borough Council. The council has 43 elected members from across the political spectrum and they discussed this issue. They made representations, but they have not been referred to anywhere in the official response to the consultation. It seems as though the officials did not like what the council said, so they did not put it in. They have either ignored it or treated it with disdain. This happens at a time when, across the political parties, we are seeking people to stand for public office in councils. Councillors go to meetings, make their opinions well known and then they are ignored. If we are not careful, this will increase the feeling of “What’s the point?” I am very, very disappointed by that. I may be a little cynical, but were councillors’ representations not mentioned because they did not fit in with what Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service wanted?
The decision has been made and it will be implemented. In the official documents, Buxton court is earmarked to close in the first tranche. It is therefore scheduled to take place as we speak today, between February and June this year. The argument was made that the court could not be moved to Stockport because it is in Cheshire and Buxton is in Derbyshire. After discussions, the Minister said the system could work across counties, which I can accept. However, I am told that for the work of a Derbyshire court to be sent out of county, further administrative action needs to take place. I urge the Minister to ensure that that action is taken. I do not stand here as member of the Minister’s fan club, but he is a decent chap and he has been very fair with me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on giving colleagues the opportunity to debate this very important issue one more time. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I will try to mention them as best I can in the few minutes available. May I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box? I look forward to debating with her in the weeks and months ahead.
I am keenly aware that hon. Members hold strong views about the importance of courts in their constituencies and about the impact that their closure may have on the delivery of justice. That has been made abundantly clear today, as it has in numerous parliamentary debates and questions, as well as at the many meetings I have had with hon. Members and in the correspondence—I have written letters to them in response—in which they have engaged.
I very much understand the sincerity of those concerns. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the decision to close a court is not one that I take lightly, but it is a decision that I am prepared to make when it is necessary to do so to support essential reform of our courts and tribunals system and to bring it up to modern-day standards. We need to create a modern and flexible Courts and Tribunals Service that is fit for the 21st century.
Court staff and the judiciary work hard, but they face challenges in delivering an efficient service when the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. Some of the technology that supports services is decades old, and few of the services we offer can be accessed online. We continue to use paper forms, and when court users need to make a payment, we often accept only cash or cheques. We need urgently to modernise the way the courts and tribunals operate to reduce inefficiencies, and to open up new ways for the public to access justice.
The Government are supporting this reform with very significant investment. Investment of £700 million over the next four years will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with courts and tribunals. We will provide new services and deliver better, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system. These reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier to use and more efficient.
I appreciate that some hon. Members have concerns about the consultation exercise we conducted. I have apologised at the Dispatch Box for errors that have occurred in some of the individual courts concerned. However, I assure the House that, although there have been some inaccuracies, the final decisions were taken on the basis of correct information and after consideration of all the well over 2,100 submissions that were made.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as I was unable, owing to other parliamentary business, to be in the Chamber for much of the debate, for which I apologise. I do not like having to intervene in this way on so kindly a Minister. Frankly, however, the closures, particularly for Chichester, are not a policy, but a negation of a policy. Everyone understands the need for financial stringency, but no economic rationale for these closures has been provided, despite repeated requests. Until such a rationale is provided, people will continue to be deeply concerned about the closures. Chichester’s court use is above the national average, and the travel times analysis is seriously flawed. Is the Minister now prepared at least to reconsider the closures, for which no economic case at all has been provided?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
In view of that speech, you may have some injury time.
Mr Vara
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend speaks with passion. He and I have corresponded much, and we have met on many occasions. In fact, it is fair to say that I dreaded entering the Tea Room when I knew he was there, because I knew he would come and speak to me about his court. I think he will agree that I have tried to give him the best information I can, but on the final conclusion he wants, we will have to agree to disagree.
The Government have listened carefully, which is why, in addition to the five court buildings we have retained, we have modified our initial plans for a further 22 sites. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be mindful of that, because the court work that was initially going to be transferred to a court at Wandsworth, 6 miles away from Lambeth, will now be transferred to one at Camberwell Green, just 2 miles away. That was a consequence of our meeting and engagement with the local community.
In eight of the 22 sites where changes have been made, we will not close the court until suitable local alternative provision is in place. Work is under way to determine the specific provision to be provided at each of those locations, and to evaluate a number of options for holding hearings away from traditional court buildings. I expect further testing to take place over the coming months.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister clarify whether what he has just said is accurate? He seems to indicate that all the cases that were to be heard in Putney instead of Lambeth county court will now be held in Camberwell, but that is not the impression delivered previously. How much of the £700 million budget being made available will go to police or council facilities to ensure that a video link is possible?
Mr Vara
This four-year reform programme is worth more than £700 million, and the intention is to ensure that we have one of the best justice systems in the world. I will not give the hon. Gentleman details now about the precise minutiae and breakdown of a four-year programme involving so much money.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, but if he had a little experience of business, he would know that in a four-year programme with such a huge sum of money involved, the figures might not be as precise as he would like them to be at the initial stage.
An important aspect of testing and evaluation will be to ensure that any hearings held outside a traditional court offer appropriate levels of security for members of the public, the judiciary, and court staff. Travel time was mentioned by a number of people, and there must be a fundamental recognition that far fewer people will have to travel to courts in the first place. We intend to use modern technology, and video conferencing facilities are already available. The hon. Member for Neath asked whether those have been tested in any way, but we already have such facilities—for example, there is a community centre in Wales that is used to give evidence.
We already have alternative places to use as courts, and employment tribunal cases have been conducted on oil rigs in the North sea. Only yesterday, a lawyer colleague of ours who joined the House after the election last year told me about probation cases that she had been involved in that were held in public houses.
Mr Kevan Jones
I note what the Minister is saying about new technology and I do not disagree with him, but will he look again at my North Durham constituency, because it is nonsense when people can travel to Gateshead or Newcastle in 10 or 15 minutes, as opposed to travelling to Peterlee? I have raised the issue previously with the Minister and asked him to reconsider, because it makes no sense whatsoever.
Mr Vara
There comes a point when we have to start taking decisions and agree to disagree. This whole programme started before last year’s summer recess, and we had a lengthy consultation period. I have had numerous debates and met more people in the House than I can remember. There has been a huge dialogue, but there must be some recognition that we have listened and made changes in a huge number of cases. That may not be the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about the effectiveness of the administration process that will see this programme through. I will be keeping a sharp eye on proceedings, and if he has any concerns about his local area, I will be more than happy to try to arrange a meeting with senior people at local level, so that he has the comfort he wants.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke of the wonderful work that magistrates do in our courts. I can only echo those comments and say that many magistrates recognise the need for reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about the very useful work of the Justice Committee and brought his own expertise to the House. He also questioned the reliability of the IT projects we will be undertaking. I emphasise that we are taking a staged approach. We will not be putting all our eggs in one basket and we are bringing in expert advice from outside to assist us.
Robert Neill
Will the Minister also deal with the question I raised about what happened to the 10 courts closed under the previous programme that remain unsold? If he does not have that information to hand today, will he at least write and place it in the Library?
Mr Vara
What I can say is that the 10 has now been reduced to nine, and there are offers in place for some of the remaining courts. Others have had genuine difficulties because of joint occupation with other parties. We hope to transfer the remaining courts to the Homes and Communities Agency, which is dealt with by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about her personal experience. I was sorry, as I am sure were other colleagues, to hear about the assault that had taken place on her. I very much take on board the points she makes about domestic violence. I emphasise that we are improving the system by which witnesses and victims give evidence. At the moment, they have to go to court and go through a terrifying experience. With a video conferencing facility, they can go to a place that is closer to their home and in much more pleasant surroundings, rather than the awesome and austere environment of a court.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for his comments confirming that this has been a genuine consultation. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a very powerful speech, raising an important point about digital infrastructure. I take on board what he says. We will certainly be making sure that the infrastructure is in place to support the court reform programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about low-level offences, such as TV licence offences. He sought assurances that perhaps they could be dealt with in courts that are closer to the area. Our thinking is that such low-level offences can probably be dealt with online where people plead guilty, which is the majority of cases.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd gave a very powerful speech, raising concerns about access to justice. I assure her that we are very mindful of rural areas and want to make sure we get this right. My constituency has a rural element to it, so I know where she is coming from.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Minister mentioned alternative arrangements for eight courts. Can he provide more detail on that?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not provide detail on the provisions for eight separate courts at the Dispatch Box now, as time is pressing. I am happy to write to her later in more detail and I will certainly do that.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), a very good friend of mine, made a passionate speech. He wanted an assurance that justice would not become more stressful. As I said in relation to the comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield, we hope the experience will be a lot better for people. We hope they will not have to travel as far and that modern technology will assist them in giving evidence in a closer and more convenient location.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) made a heartfelt speech, in which she referred to technology. I assure her we will deal with the £700 million in a very careful way and make sure we get it right.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) raised concerns, in particular in relation to his local court. He has been passionate in defending his local court, but the consultation received only three responses about it from his local community. I give him credit for wanting to keep the court open, but the fact that there were three responses speaks for itself. I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) welcomed the need for reform, and I take on board what he said, but we will have to agree to disagree, as I said.
In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members, particularly the two who secured this debate. This is a major undertaking by the MOJ, and we will do our best to ensure we have a fit-for-purpose justice system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, hon. Members, the Clerks and, most importantly, all the people who ensure that this place continues to operate, especially the security services, a happy Easter.
draft Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and modification) Regulations 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Ryan.
The draft regulations were laid before both Houses on 8 February this year. They enable the Department to waive collection and enforcement fees on the 2012 child maintenance scheme for a specific group of cases for a limited period of time. That is to allow non-resident parents with a poor history of meeting their child maintenance obligations the chance to demonstrate a change in behaviour. Some minor technical amendments are made to enforce the orders.
A comprehensive reform of the child maintenance system began in 2012 with three express aims: to incentivise parents to collaborate in the best interests of their children; to move away from the idea that applying to a statutory scheme should be the default option for separated parents; and to offer an improved statutory scheme. Alongside that, an ongoing programme to close all existing Child Support Agency cases is giving parents a fresh chance to consider what arrangement for providing financial support for their children best suits their circumstances.
When approaching case closure, we are taking careful steps to minimise the risk of child maintenance payments being disrupted, in particular with those cases in which money is only flowing as a result of enforcement being undertaken on the CSA case, addressing key concerns raised at consultation. We will close cases in which money is flowing as a result of enforcement action last, and we will introduce a new positive test of compliant behaviour for such non-resident parents, which is to be known as a compliance opportunity.
The compliance opportunity will last for six months, provided the non-resident parent pays maintenance in full and on time. During that period, the non-resident parent will be required to pay half the maintenance liability via the collect and pay service through a voluntary method of payment. Where case circumstances allow, an enforced method of payment will be put in place to collect the rest of the liability. That payment safeguard is intended to minimise the risk of payment disruption for the parent with care during the compliance opportunity.
The non-resident parent will be expected to make all payments on time and in full, and if they miss one payment they will fail. Only in exceptional circumstances, when the non-resident parent is not at fault, will an exception be made. If all payments are made, the parent will pass. The outcome of the compliance opportunity will inform a decision on whether the parent’s 2012 scheme case should be a voluntary, direct pay arrangement or a collect and pay arrangement in which the Child Maintenance Service manages collections and charges apply.
Following consultation with stakeholders, we now propose to offer the compliance opportunity in the first six months of the new 2012 scheme case, rather than the final six months of the CSA case. That avoids unnecessary disruption to clients who do not wish to apply to the new scheme, and it can be delivered at a lower overall cost to the public purse.
We will still use enforced methods of payment as a payment safeguard for the duration of the compliance opportunity, when case circumstances allow. Ordinarily, that would attract collection and enforcement fees, so introducing a waiver for those clients during the compliance opportunity will ensure that they are not required to pay until we know it is absolutely necessary.
The draft regulations will also make minor technical amendments to the rules governing regular deduction orders and lump sum deduction orders. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Mr Vara
I thank the hon. Lady for that huge series of questions. I will try to address as many as I can. She raised several points, one of which was to ask why the transfer is not automatic for all cases. If the cases were transitioned into the 2012 scheme automatically without requiring a new application, it would lead to excessive complexity and confusion and undermine the Government’s fundamental commitment to offering a fresh choice to all parents regarding their child maintenance arrangements.
The hon. Lady asked when the transfer can be completed. We do not publish information on the timetable for individual segments, but I can assure her that we are on course to have ended the liabilities for all segments by 31 December 2017.
The hon. Lady asked how long the arrears cleansing process takes. It can take up to six months from the point at which CSA liability ends. In most cases the process takes less than six months, but the time can vary based on the complexity of the case. As for how CSA arrears cases are dealt with in the context of a compliance opportunity, if CSA arrears are transitioned to the 2012 scheme during the compliance opportunity, they will be included in the payment schedule. Failure to comply with the schedule will mean that the non-resident parent fails the compliance opportunity.
The hon. Lady asked whether the transitions arrears in the 2012 scheme will be dealt with in the same enforced way as they were in the CSA. If the non-resident parent complies with the schedule, the historical arrears will be recovered, so nothing will be gained by enforcing collection. If the non-resident parent does not comply with any element of the schedule, that will be taken as evidence that they are unlikely to pay and action will be taken to enforce payment of the arrears and the ongoing liability.
The hon. Lady asked whether the letter asking parents whether they want to write off their debt is to be sent to all parents with care. The answer is yes. She also discussed regulation 2. It makes minor consequential amendments to powers we already have to deduct fees from a person’s bank account, alongside maintenance by regular and lump-sum deduction orders. Regular deduction orders may also be varied to include legacy scheme arrears that have been transitioned to the 2012 scheme. The measures are tidying-up provisions to ensure that the legislation in this area is consistent. There is no change to the policy as a result. In a nutshell, we are introducing new powers that make minor consequential amendments to make the process easier.
As for what would happen in cases in which we are unable to use a DEO as a payment safeguard, the parent would be required to pay 100% of their liability by an enforced method of payment. When a payment is missed, swift action will be taken to enforce the resulting arrears.
The hon. Lady asked about statutory maintenance arrangements. All cases covered by the regulations will be managed in the statutory scheme. She asked several questions and I have given several answers. I hope that she is satisfied with them and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I trust that the order will not be contentious, and I hope the Committee will not be detained for long. The order, which was laid before the House on 8 February 2016, reflects the conclusions of this year’s annual review of the automatic enrolment earnings thresholds, which was required by the Pensions Act 2008. The review considered both the automatic enrolment earnings trigger, which determines the point when someone becomes eligible to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension, and the qualifying earnings band, which determines those earnings of which the enrolled employee and their employer have to pay a proportion into a workplace pension.
The order sets a new upper limit for the qualifying earnings band and is effective from 6 April 2016. The earnings trigger and the lower earnings limit are not changed. The lower earnings limit remains that set in the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2015, and the earnings trigger remains that set in the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2014.
Automatic enrolment is in its fifth year and has been very successful in reversing the decade-long downward trend in pension saving. Since its launch, more than 100,000 employers have complied with their automatic enrolment duties, and more than 6 million eligible employees have been successfully enrolled in a workplace pension. Last year saw the successful staging of the first tranche of small and micro employers and it is projected that by March 2017, more than 700,000 small or micro employers will have enrolled their employees into a workplace pension.
It is therefore more important than ever that, when deciding the thresholds for joining and contributing to a workplace pension, we strike the correct balance between minimising the administrative burden on employers and ensuring that as many people as possible save in a workplace pension.
The qualifying earnings band sets the earnings levels within which an automatically enrolled employee and their employer have to pay a proportion of the employee’s income into a workplace pension. Past reviews have generally linked that to the national insurance bands. As the Minister for Pensions signalled in her written statement on 15 December 2015, the lower limit for the qualifying earnings band will remain unchanged and aligned with the national insurance lower earnings limit of £5,824. However, the order will align the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band with the new national insurance upper earnings limit of £43,000.
Maintaining the alignment with the national insurance thresholds at the points where contributions start for low earners and are capped for higher earners keeps the overall changes to existing payroll systems to a minimum. The decision, therefore, both ensures simplicity and minimises the administrative burden of compliance for employers in 2016-17.
The order does not change the earnings trigger, which remains at the value set in the 2014 order. That trigger is the level of earnings at which individuals are eligible to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme by their employer. We have decided to maintain the automatic enrolment earnings trigger for 2016-17, so it will remain at £10,000.
Owing to anticipated wage growth and the maintenance of the existing trigger, we expect an additional 130,000 individuals to meet the earnings criteria and be brought into the automatic enrolment population. Individuals earning below the £10,000 earnings trigger, but above the lower earnings threshold will still have the option to opt in to a workplace pension and benefit from employer contributions, should they so wish.
The decision to maintain the earnings trigger at £10,000 will increase the number of low earners who meet the earnings criteria and are therefore automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. It will increase the total number of people saving into a pension and total savings. The decision to maintain the alignment of the lower and upper earnings qualifying bands with the national insurance contribution thresholds maintains simplicity and ensures that there are no new potential administrative burdens on employers at a crucial stage of the programme’s wider roll-out.
The order ensures that automatic enrolment will continue to provide greater access and opportunity for individuals to save into a workplace pension, while making sure that, once enrolled, they build up meaningful pension savings. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr Vara
I am grateful for the various comments that have been made this morning and the general support for the order from the Opposition and hon. Members.
I was asked about the impact of freezing the trigger, particularly on women and minorities. It is estimated that the decision to freeze the trigger will make an additional 130,000 individuals eligible for automatic enrolment into a workplace pension in the course of next year, of whom 71%—or 91,000—are expected to be women. I think that that is good news.
As for the self-employed, if they wish to make retirement plans and save into a personal pension scheme, they will, of course, receive tax relief from the Government. However, I trust that the Committee will appreciate that the existing framework for auto-enrolment is not suitable for the self-employed because, by definition, the employer and the worker are the same person. It does not make sense to require a person to take action to enrol themselves and then have to opt out if they do not want to be in the pension scheme.
On the opt-in rate, the “Employers’ Pension Provision survey 2015” suggests that 5% of ineligible workers whose employers have staged choose to opt in to saving in a workplace pension, to which their employer contributes too.
The point about multiple part-time jobs is important, as are the other issues that have been raised. When an individual does not earn more than £10,000 in a single job, but earns more than the lower limit of the automatic enrolment qualifying earnings band of £5,824 in that job, they can choose to opt in to a scheme with a mandatory contribution from their employer for earnings over that level.
More than 90% of members who have been automatically enrolled into master trusts have been enrolled into schemes that have signed up to the master trust assurance framework. That provides additional protections, where appropriate. The immediate-term risks are lower in such schemes than elsewhere.
We urge employers to think carefully about which pension scheme is suitable for them and their staff. The Pensions Regulator has recently updated its guidance to employers and advisers to highlight which schemes operate a net pay arrangement versus a relief-at-source method of tax relief.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for his efforts to tempt me to say what will be in the Budget. My answer is the one he perhaps knew deep down that I would give: it would be premature for me to do so some three hours before the Chancellor stands up and says what he wants to say.
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy, and I wish you well in your new post. This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship and I look forward to doing so again.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on legal services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that on 19 February, the Prime Minister set out the Government position on remaining in the European Union.
Bill Esterson
The former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, says that leaving the European Union would increase the risk of terrorism and would mean that Britain would become a safe haven for criminals. I am sure that the Minister agrees with Sir Hugh, but will he explain why the Justice Secretary is so keen to ignore this advice from such a well-respected authority and to take such a risk with public safety?
Mr Vara
May I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s position is that we would be better off in the European Union and that we would be safer and more secure in it? It is also the case that the deal struck by the Prime Minister in Brussels very much achieves those objectives.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
England and Wales have by far the largest law firms in Europe and provide by far the largest legal services market in Europe, which is 1.5% of UK gross domestic product. Does the Minister not agree with most commercial law firms and the Law Society that up to £1.7 billion of annual legal services output could be lost following a Brexit?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Given that an assessment of the impact on legal services will have been made by the civil servants in the Department, does the Minister think it fair, right and proper that his colleague, the Justice Secretary, is denied the opportunity to see the paperwork?
Mr Vara
As I said earlier, the Government’s position is very clear—that we will be better off in the European Union. As for any potential disagreements, let me gently say to Opposition Members that it is a bit rich for them to be engaging in this sort of conversation in view of the level of unity in their own party. I am prepared to bet a substantial amount with any Labour Member that tomorrow, in 24 hours’ time, when we have Prime Minister’s Questions, the cheer for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be a lot louder than the cheer that the leader of the Labour party will receive.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I invite my hon. Friend to think about how he would choose to spend part of the £350 million that we will save every week when we leave the European Union? Will he also confirm that there will be a big saving in translation services currently expended on foreign national offenders?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes his point as robustly as he always does. I simply say that the Government position is that we would be better off in the European Union; he might wish to reflect on the 3 million-odd jobs that we have secured that are linked to our being in the European Union.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It must have been tricky choosing who should answer this question. According to The Spectator, the Secretary of State has three Ministers for in, three Ministers for out—a perfect miniature of the Conservative party. Given that the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims is away, perhaps we should take the departmental vote today because there would be a majority for in.
We were promised a British human rights Bill last year, a consultation on the repeal of the Human Rights Act in the new year and then a sovereignty Bill last week. Are we going to get anything before the Secretary of State moves on or by the end of June, whichever comes sooner?
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
5. What progress his Department is making on plans to ensure that more prisoners obtain employment after release.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of using other venues in Torbay for magistrates court hearings after the closure of Torquay magistrates court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My officials are engaging with the local authority and will evaluate the suitability of any proposed venue. The majority of the work, however, will transfer to Newton Abbot, seven miles away. In addition, video link facilities are available in Newton Abbot for any victims or witnesses who are unable to attend court where cases are listed in Plymouth.
Kevin Foster
As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, there is disappointment in Torbay that justice may no longer be local after the closure of our magistrates court. Will he look again at options for holding some criminal cases at the town hall and county court buildings in Torquay?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have had a lengthy and thorough consultation, where there were more than 2,000 responses. We have had to make some difficult decisions. I am afraid that Torquay magistrates court is in a poor condition, with inadequate facilities, and the majority of work will be transferred to Newton Abbot, seven miles away. We are, however, evaluating options to continue to provide access to services locally. My officials in the region have written to the council inviting alternative solutions for the provision of services.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
15. What steps he plans to take to ensure access to justice does not depend on the ability to pay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government’s programme of reform aims to deliver faster and fairer justice for all citizens, by speeding up decision-making, giving parties the ability to submit and consider information online, and considering issues far more proportionately. We have committed to invest in the technology that will underpin that.
Yvonne Fovargue
The introduction of employment tribunal fees has caused the number of new cases to plummet. Sex discrimination cases are down by 80% and equal pay cases by 84%. Will the recently announced review publish an impact assessment on the introduction of those fees, and say whether it has disproportionately affected the number of women bringing forward cases to tribunal?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady raises some important points. On the employment tribunal, she should consider the alternative facilities that are available. For example, the early conciliation service has reported that, in the first 12 months, 83,000 people used its services, and that the vast majority were happy with the services that they received.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
A total of 3,600 barristers, including a third of all Queen’s counsel, contribute voluntarily to the Bar Pro Bono Unit. I am honoured that, as a barrister, I was one of those statistics. Does the Minister welcome the significant contribution that the Bar Pro Bono Unit is providing to free access to justice?
Mr Vara
I certainly commend not only my hon. and learned Friend’s contributions, but the contribution of the Bar and the legal profession generally. Pro bono work benefits many people, and I am pleased to see that our engagement with the legal sector is fruitful, and that it is considering other ways of helping the community.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
17. Today is International Women’s Day, which gives us the opportunity to reflect on the fact that financial abuse is not just a crime in itself, but also a way for domestic abusers to control victims and to prevent them from leaving abusive relationships. Following the recent Appeal Court decision on legal aid in cases of domestic violence, how is the Ministry of Justice intending to make access to justice a reality for victims of financial abuse?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady refers to a recent case. She will be aware that the court did confirm that the Lord Chancellor has the power to set domestic violence evidence requirements. As for the other issues, we are considering the outcome of the case and will clarify our decision on the way forward in due course.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
In his latest annual report, the Lord Chief Justice makes an astonishing admission. He said:
“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most.”
Does the Minister accept that that is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs?
Mr Vara
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we work very closely with the senior judiciary? On access to justice, he knows only too well that, despite the reductions that we made to the legal aid budget, it remains, at £1.6 billion, one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
16. What discussions his Department has had with the Home Office on steps to reduce the level of violence against women.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
19. What progress his Department is making on implementation of its strategy on estate requirements and disposals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We keep our estate office under review to make sure that it delivers and supports business transformation, operates efficiently and effectively, and delivers best value for the taxpayer. By closing less efficient, poor-quality court buildings, for example, we will raise £40 million to reinvest in the justice system, and have saved hard-working taxpayers £27 million per year.
Richard Graham
The Ministry of Justice kindly agreed a year ago to dispose of an unused car park in Gloucester to provide more parking and an additional entrance to our railway station—a very good regeneration cause. The Justice Minister assured me that this would be resolved before the end of the financial year. However, we are almost there and there is still no resolution. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the time has come to lock the Courts and Tribunals Service real estate representatives in a room with representatives of Gloucester City Council and Great Western Railway, and to leave them there until they have reached agreement?
Mr Vara
That may be a little drastic as a negotiating procedure, but my officials are engaged in conversations with Gloucester City Council. Those are at an advanced stage. My hon. Friend will not expect me to make commercial comments at the Dispatch Box, but I hope that a final decision will be arrived at very shortly. He and I are due to meet shortly, when we will discuss the matter further.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Can the Minister provide any further update on his plans for the Victorian prison estate and, in particular, any information regarding HMP Norwich in my constituency?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Before the legal aid restrictions were introduced, 78,000 disabled people a year were able to challenge social security decisions, 80% successfully. How can withdrawal of legal aid to disabled people, who are twice as likely to live in poverty, be fair or just?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is important that the hon. Lady appreciates that we have not withdrawn or abolished legal aid. Legal aid still exists for the most vulnerable and the most needy. We do have certain criteria. However, in terms of the decisions that are coming to the courts, the officials who take the decisions in the first instance are looking at the decisions of the courts, so that they do not have to come to the court by way of appeal in the first place.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
In 2009, Walter Scott and Ross, a solicitors firm in my constituency, was closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority due to financial irregularities. Since then, the SRA has systematically failed in its duty of care to former clients of the firm, leading to at least one bankruptcy. Will the Minister agree to investigate that case as a matter of urgency so that we can at last secure some closure for my constituents?
Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
As always, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 1 February, respond to stakeholders and interested parties and clarify the Government’s requirements to ensure that regulations work as intended. From April 2015, new governance requirements were introduced in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Charges and Governance) Regulations 2015 for occupational pension schemes providing money purchase benefits. They include: annual statements regarding governance; certain requirements for processing financial transactions; appointing a chair of trustees responsible for signing the annual statement; and further requirements relating to the default arrangement. Additional requirements were imposed on relevant multi-employer schemes to strengthen the independent oversight of schemes used by multiple employers.
Relevant multi-employer schemes must have at least three trustees and a majority of all trustees, including the chair, must be independent of providers of services to the scheme. Trustees must be appointed for limited terms through open and transparent recruitment processes. Those requirements do not apply when the employers are part of the same corporate group, as we consider such schemes to be closer in nature to single employer schemes and thus less likely to require such additional member protections.
We also made a temporary exemption from the additional requirements, until April this year, for schemes set up by statute. That was to enable us to carry out further work on their existing governance requirements before deciding whether the exemption should continue. The National Employment Savings Trust, known as NEST, is also exempt from the additional requirements as it already has rigorous governance requirements set by law.
The governance measures cover occupational schemes offering money purchase benefits regardless of whether they are used for automatic enrolment or not. They also exclude schemes where the only money purchase benefits offered are additional voluntary contributions.
Since those regulations came into force last April, we have received representations that the definition of “relevant multi-employer scheme” had unintended consequences by bringing some corporate group schemes within the scope of the additional governance requirements. The draft regulations will amend the definition of a multi-employer scheme to ensure that normal corporate activity does not bring a corporate group scheme within the additional requirements unless it promotes itself as open to unconnected employers.
The draft regulations will not extend the temporary exemption for multi-employer schemes set up by statute. On balance, we considered that there was no significant reason to provide a further exemption from good governance standards. However, we will give such schemes up to six months to comply with the requirements for the appointment of independent trustees.
The draft regulations will make other minor changes to ease the practical application of the governance standards. They will remove the requirement for the chair of NEST to be appointed within a three-month timeframe, as that appointment is already covered by other statutory requirements. NEST has to comply with the public appointments process. The draft regulations also allow a person or deputy chair appointed by the trustees to sign the annual statement if there is no chair in place—for example, if the chair resigns or is removed.
For some schemes, certain provisions governing the appointment of trustees are set out in their trust deeds and rules, which may conflict with the governance requirements regarding the appointment of independent trustees. To make it easier for those schemes to comply, the draft regulations will apply a statutory override where provisions in trust deeds and rules conflict with the requirements for the appointment of independent trustees in multi-employment schemes. The draft regulations also correct a typographical error in the definition of “default arrangement” in the 2015 regulations, which were inserted into the Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005.
Consideration has also been given to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, so the regulations include a review clause. The review’s conclusions will be set out in a report, to be published within five years after the regulations come into force. Subsequent reports will be published at intervals not exceeding five years. The review will cover both the original governance requirements and the amendments in this instrument. The draft regulations will make important changes to clarify the scope of the governance requirements and will ensure that they are practicable for occupational pension schemes.
Mr Vara
Those who take the trouble to look at the regulations before us will find that they are specific and narrow. I intend to address the issue before us, rather than go into a general debate on pensions.
The revisions proposed today are a specific response to stakeholders and interested parties, and they are intended to improve the system that exists at the moment. I like to think that the public will welcome them, given that we are responding to the points made by them.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
A relevant point was brought up by the Opposition spokesman in relation to a “fit and proper person”. Although I appreciate that the Minister wants to go on to a specific area, it would be useful for the Committee to be aware of some of the potential concerns. I suspect that whatever the Government are doing in this regard will be rather more robust than it is for the Football Association, for whom “fit and proper person” seems an almost meaningless phrase. None the less, given the large sums of money being held on trust for many of our constituents, it is important that at least some thought is put into that, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the matter.
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I did intend to touch briefly on the governance of master trusts and fit and proper individuals. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke at length about master trusts and raised several concerns, so I assure her that master trusts already have to meet a number of governance requirements under the current law. A voluntary master trust assurance framework has been developed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in partnership with the Pensions Regulator. It is designed to help trustees to assess the quality of their scheme against an industry-wide quality benchmark. It also helps employers to find a well run pension scheme that can be used to comply with their automatic enrolment duties. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator are exploring whether additional protections would be appropriate for the future regulation of this part of the market.
Well run master trusts can and do offer good deals for consumers and employers, and we are keen that the market develops in the right way. We are aware that potential issues have been suggested and we are working with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that the right protection is in place. Once the measures are firmed up, we will inform the public.
Angela Rayner
Does the Minister know how many master trusts have signed up to the voluntary arrangement and how many are yet to do so?
Mr Vara
I do not have a specific figure to hand. The hon. Lady suggested a number of figures, but I want to be careful before I commit myself to any specific number—[Interruption]—although it is my understanding that it may be five. That is my present assumption.
The Government agree that it is important that members’ interests are represented and their views considered. Requirements from April 2015 ensure that independent governance committees and multi-employer scheme boards have arrangements in place to ensure that members’ views are directly represented. Annual chair statements must also include the details of those arrangements. As for contributions paid, the Pensions Regulator works with the industry to monitor the ongoing payment of contributions.
I am grateful for Members’ contributions this morning. The regulations that we have put forward will improve the management of the pensions industry generally. Good governance is fundamental in securing good outcomes for members, and the regulations will help ensure that schemes are well run in members’ interests.
Question put and agreed to.