draft Civil Proceedings, Family Proceedings and Upper Tribunal Fees (amendment) order 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 3 months 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 Civil Proceedings, Family Proceedings and Upper Tribunal Fees (Amendment) Order 2016.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Neath; I welcomed her yesterday during oral questions in the House, but this is the first time that she and I are speaking in a statutory instrument Committee together. I look forward to working with her in the months ahead.
The purpose of the draft order is to introduce enhanced fees for certain types of civil and family proceedings. Specifically, the order will increase the fee to issue a possession claim in the county court to £355. It will also increase the fees for a general application made in civil proceedings to £100 for an application made by consent and to £255 for a contested application. The changes will also apply to general applications made in judicial review proceedings heard in the upper tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber.
The order will also make a small number of increases to other fees in judicial review proceedings. It will increase the fee for copy documents from £5 to £10 and for a summons or order for a witness to attend the tribunal from £40 to £50. There are, however, general applications related to certain proceedings for which, given the particular sensitivities involved, we feel it would be inappropriate to charge a fee above cost. Those are applications in insolvency proceedings, in relation to an injunction for protection from harassment and for payment to be made out of funds held in court. Finally, the draft order increases the fee to make an application for a divorce to £550.
Where users are charged a fee to access public services, the fee should normally be set at a level to cover the full cost of delivering those services. For many years, the civil and family courts have operated on that basis. Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the Lord Chancellor with a power to prescribe fees above cost on the basis that those fees are used to finance an efficient and effective system of court and tribunals. The power was used for the first time in March last year to increase the fees for money claims.
Hon. Members will be well aware of the difficult economic situation we face and the fact that this Government were elected to continue our work to fix the economy. That is what we are doing. It is clearly right that we continue to look for opportunities to reduce public spending, including on the courts and tribunals and those who use them. In the current financial climate, it is right that we look again at the balance between what users pay towards the overall cost of the Courts and Tribunals Service and the financial burden that falls to the taxpayers. All the increases in the draft order have been subject to consultation and we announced those we plan to take forward in the Government response published in July last year.
The reason for introducing the fee increases is to ensure that courts and tribunals are funded in the long term. Courts and tribunals fulfil a vital function in our society, ensuring access to justice for those who need it. Access to justice is critical to the maintenance of an effective and functioning democracy because it helps to maintain social order, underpinning an effective economy and upholding the rule of law. It is crucial that those principles are preserved so that people who need it have ready access to courts and tribunals. A strong economy is a pre-requisite for effective and affordable public services.
Hon. Members will be aware that this Government inherited a growing budget deficit, increasing public sector debt and an economy in recession. We made economic recovery our first priority, which has required some difficult decisions. The action we have taken is working and the recovery is now well under way, but further reductions in spending are essential if we are to eliminate the deficit. We have secured more than £700 million of funding to invest in courts and tribunals and we have been working closely with the senior judiciary to develop a plan to invest that money in reforming the courts and tribunals so that they can deliver swifter, fairer justice for everyone in England and Wales at a lower cost. There is, however, only so much that can be done through cost-efficiency measures alone.
If we are to secure the sustainable funding of courts and tribunals, we must look to those who use the system to contribute more when they can afford to. We consulted on all the proposals and have carefully considered all the responses we received. We have listened to what people had to say and have decided to limit the increase in the fee for a divorce to £550, rather than to the £750 that was originally proposed. We estimate that the measures set out in the draft order will generate about £60 million per annum in additional income, with every pound collected spent on providing an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. We recognise that fee increases are not popular, but they are necessary if we are to deliver our promise to fix the economy while protecting access to justice. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr Vara
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments and her agreement with the general thrust of the order—the need for an efficient Courts and Tribunals Service. I am happy to give consideration to the points she has made, and I hope to give her some assurance.
I recognise, as do the Government, that divorce is a very difficult time for the people concerned, particularly where families are involved. It is, however, important to remember two basic points. First, we have listened to the public. In response to their concerns, we did not go ahead with the initial proposal to raise the fees to £750, but will instead raise them to £550. Secondly, where people are unable to afford the fees, we have a remission scheme in place that will give them full or part remission, depending on their means.
Christina Rees
The point I was making is that the Government are making a profit on the £270 cost of divorce. That was my first point. Also, how difficult is it to get through that remission system? I understand that it is quite difficult.
Mr Vara
As far as the profit element is concerned, the hon. Lady will appreciate that we passed legislation to make it possible for fees to be raised to a higher level than simply cost value. She will appreciate, I hope, that the Government have a mandate to fix the economy, and that mandate was given at the general election. We put our cards on the table—our manifesto was there—and said that we would continue to have to take some tough decisions.
The increase is not an easy decision, and I do not for one moment say that it is. It is a difficult decision, but I hope she will accept that it is necessary as part of our overall scheme to ensure that we can raise sufficient funds. Through that, we can ensure that the responsibilities of the economy are taken on board by this generation and not passed on to the next or to our grandchildren.
Graham Stuart
In their modelling, the Government looked at a 10% or a 20% fall in case load volumes. Will the Minister share with the Committee where those falls are expected to land? Are we expecting to see a disproportionate reduction in the number of applications for divorce as opposed to other proceedings covered by the fee increase?
Mr Vara
It is our expectation that where people need to divorce, they will go through that divorce. Where two people are in a relationship that is not working, they will need to separate, and many will go through a divorce. The increase will not impact in the way that the scaremongering would suggest, with people prevented from divorcing and forced to stay in abusive relationships. They will not, because the issue concerns funding and money. Where someone is saying, “I cannot afford the fees”, the answer is that remission is available.
The hon. Member for Neath asked how the remission is available. We are constantly looking at the remission system to ensure that it is easily accessible and easy to understand. We have looked at that in the past, and I am happy to continue to look at it. If she is aware of any issues or improvements, I am happy to listen, because I want to ensure that the process is made as simple and easy as possible for those in need of remission, so that what is there as of right is available, provided they meet the criteria.
Graham Stuart
May I press the Minister on this issue? He said that he does not think that those who want a divorce are likely to avoid going through the process, but the Department has modelled what will happen with a 10% and a 20% fall in case load volumes. My specific question—if he does not have the answer immediately, I am sure he can get support from somewhere—is about the percentage reduction. If divorce fees are put up by more than 30%, will we see fewer divorce applications? I want to know from the modelling how many and the percentage we expect.
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend asks a fair question. I do not, as he will appreciate, have the figures to hand. If my officials can give them to me during the course of the debate, I will happily mention what they are, but otherwise I am happy to write to him afterwards.
I emphasise that we have listened. We have not gone ahead with the proposed increase that we would have liked, and I assure the Committee that measures are in place to ensure that those in difficulty are looked after and that remission is available. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
5. What steps he is taking to ensure that access to justice does not depend on ability to pay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We are committed to ensuring that our justice system delivers faster and fairer justice for all our citizens. Reform of our courts and tribunals will bring quicker and fairer access to justice and create a justice system that reflects the way people use services today. We have also ensured that legal aid remains available for the highest priority cases, for example where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where they face the loss of their home, in cases of domestic violence, or where children might be taken into care.
Stephen Timms
The result, as the Lord Chief Justice extraordinarily reported two weeks ago, is that:
“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most”.
Two constituents were sacked unfairly. One went to tribunal but was unable to afford legal representation and therefore lost. The other immediately gave up. With justice now available to only the well-off, does the Minister have any serious proposals to open up access to justice to ordinary people?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of employment tribunals, because it allows me to say that this Government’s aim is to ensure that people do not have to go to court or tribunal in the first place, and therefore do not have to incur the legal expenses or experience the stress. In the case of employment tribunals—he might not be aware of this—the ACAS early conciliation service, which is free, was used by 83,000 people in its first 12 months. I very much hope that when constituents bring problems to his surgery in future, he will point them towards that free service.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Since the Government changed the criteria for access to legal aid there has been a huge increase in claims of domestic violence. Has the Minister made any assessment of the link between those two items?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Law Society describes access to justice as being
“on the verge of a crisis”.
Funding for civil cases has fallen by 62% since civil legal aid was cut. Will the Minister carry out a full review to understand the equality impact of the changes in civil legal aid?
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Some of the people who would struggle the most to pay court fees are those affected by family breakdown, often in chaotic families. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what plans he has to simplify and reduce costs to access child arrangements orders, and will that include any further statutory rights for grandparents?
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
We learnt this week that a district judge is suing the Ministry of Justice, blowing the whistle on the rising number of death threats and the increasingly violent claimants that our judges are having to deal with day in, day out. Given that that comes so soon after the Lord Chief Justice’s warning that judges face a rising number of challenging and emotionally charged cases, what action is the Minister taking to address these claims, or is this just another admission that his party’s failed austerity policies have made our courts more dangerous, both for judges and for victims?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to improve prisons’ engagement with employers; and if he will make a statement.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T2. I know that my hon. Friend regards access to justice as a clear priority. With that in mind, and given the large area of north-east Cheshire that will be without easy access to a court under the proposals in the current consultation, can he tell the House what progress is being made in considering the Macclesfield proposal for a single, combined Macclesfield justice centre?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting we had and for the justice centre report that he and his constituent presented to me. He will be aware that we are giving serious consideration to that report and, indeed, to the 2,000-plus submissions made in the consultation, to which we will respond soon.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T3. Women’s Aid published a report last week entitled “Nineteen Child Homicides”. It tells the story of 19 children and two mothers killed by known perpetrators of domestic abuse in circumstances related to unsafe child contact. How will the Department work with Women’s Aid and others to ensure that no further avoidable child deaths take place where perpetrators of domestic abuse have been allowed contact through the family court?
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), what steps are being taken to ensure that all prisoners with mental health issues are dealt with safely, appropriately and compassionately?
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I greatly appreciate that.
The Minister will be aware of the strength of representations from Torbay about the proposal to close Torquay magistrates court. What progress is being made in the consideration of that proposal, and in the making of a decision to keep justice local in the bay?
Draft Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2016
Draft State Pension and Occupational Pension Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I will call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to both the instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion, then ask the Minister to move the remaining motion formally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2016.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft State Pension and Occupational Pension Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016.
Mr Vara
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck? May I also extend warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on her appointment? I very much look forward to working with her during the months to come.
As both the regulations and the order deal with the new state pension, it is sensible to debate them together. I am satisfied that these instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The regulations deal with four topics. The first is the calculation of increments where a person has deferred their new state pension. The second is transitional arrangements for inheriting graduated retirement benefit. The third is the availability of upratings on state pension where a pensioner is living overseas. And lastly the regulations make a technical amendment to regulations relating to contracted-out occupational pension schemes.
As regards deferral of the new state pension, this provision deals with calculating the weekly increase that a person who defers their new state pension will receive when they finally claim. Specifically, it sets out how that calculation is to be performed when there is a change in the weekly rate during the deferral period for a reason other than uprating—for example, where a person is widowed and becomes entitled to an inherited amount under the transitional arrangements.
The provisions introduced by regulation 4 enable a person in the new state pension system to inherit graduated retirement benefit where their deceased spouse or civil partner is in the old state pension system—that is, they either reached state pension age or died before 6 April 2016. The survivor will be able to inherit half the deceased’s graduated retirement benefit—the same as they would have inherited under the pre-2016 rules. This protection of the old-rules inheritance will apply provided that the same conditions are met as would have applied in the old system and provided that the marriage or civil partnership existed before 6 April 2016. These arrangements mirror the transitional arrangements for inheriting additional state pension set out in the Pensions Act 2014. As graduated retirement benefit was the original earnings-related state pension, the forerunner of SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—it makes sense to treat it in the same way.
The provisions introduced by regulation 4 enable the survivor of someone who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016 and deferred their old state pension to inherit a weekly pension increase or, if applicable, a lump sum payment based on the deferred graduated retirement benefit. Again, there are equivalent provisions in the Act that protect the existing inheritance arrangements for the survivors of people who deferred an old state pension.
Regulation 4 inserts a new part 7 into the State Pension Regulations 2015, providing for restrictions on the uprating of the new state pension for persons living overseas. As hon. Members will be aware, the state pension is payable worldwide, but upratings for people who are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain are generally restricted to people living in the European economic area, Switzerland, Gibraltar or countries with which there is a reciprocal agreement that provides for uprating. That has been the policy of successive Governments for the past 70 years, and these provisions extend the same policy to the uprating of the new state pension. We are, however, introducing a change in the way in which we treat deferral in overseas cases.
Under the existing arrangements, when a person who has deferred their state pension while resident in a country where upratings do not apply finally claims, they will have both the amount of their weekly pension and their deferral benefit based on the current rate of state pension in force. That applies even though pension upratings would not have been received if they had not deferred their pension. The regulations remove that anomaly for those in the new scheme so that we treat people who defer their pension consistently, regardless of where they live.
Regulation 6 addresses a procedural error in an earlier set of regulations, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Schemes that were Contracted-out) Regulations 2015, which were laid before the House on 16 July 2015. In brief, those regulations were made using the negative procedure, but they contained two provisions that should have been subject to the affirmative procedure. We revoked the statutory instrument and remade it on 16 September, minus the affirmative provisions, which are now made by regulation 6. The substantive provision is the insertion of new regulation 27A into the remade regulations. That simply carries forward an existing provision that sets out requirements relating to payment of survivor benefits where a pension scheme has converted guaranteed minimum pension liabilities into ordinary scheme benefits.
The second of the two statutory instruments that we are considering is the draft Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2016. As the title indicates, the amendments are essentially technical in nature, rather than implementing substantive policy measures. I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Buck, to serve under your chairmanship in my debut in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I thank you for your kindness in allowing me to sit down throughout the proceedings. As Members will have noticed, I am not quite operating at full capacity. I had an accident over the weekend, in which I managed to fracture my elbow and damage my ribs. I am sure that that will not stop me carrying out my duty as a member of the Opposition to scrutinise the measures before us.
Angela Rayner
Absolutely—the Opposition have some fantastic Whips. As the Minister outlined, in the Pensions Act 2014, the coalition Government legislated to introduce a new state pension for persons reaching state pension age on or after 6 April this year. We are considering regulations that will implement several key features of that settlement. Several aspects of the new legislation have significant implications for future pensioners, and I will touch on some of them in my contribution.
Under the new scheme, the Government intention is that individuals who qualify for the new state pension will receive it on the basis of their contribution record. The rule that allows an individual, under the current state pension, to derive entitlement based on the national insurance record of a former spouse or civil partner will end, with some transitional protection. Although the changes are likely to affect a relatively small number of people, their impact on those who are affected may be large. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in an extreme scenario, a woman who has no entitlement in her own right and is widowed could end up with no state pension, rather than the £115.95 she could expect to receive under the current system.
In addition to the amendments on inherited graduated retirement benefit, there are new features that will affect pensioners overseas. In the new pension scheme, as the Minister outlined, state pensions will be uprated in line with earnings only if the recipient is resident in an EEA country or in a country with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement. Furthermore, many people who receive the state pension and who live abroad may have been impacted by the Government’s temperature test for the winter fuel allowance, which was introduced for the first time this winter. The changes could result in an overlap between those who become ineligible for winter fuel allowance and those whose pensions have not been uprated.
State pension deferral is of particular significance. The option to defer one’s pension in order to receive a larger amount has been part of the system since 1948. Under the new state pension, the terms of such deferral will change, resulting in a less generous return. Given that the bulk of the measures before us today are technical, I hope not to divide the Committee, but there are a number of comments that I wish to make and questions that I hope that the Minister can answer. Let me start by making the general point that the Government’s track record in communicating pension changes falls well short of what the public would hope and expect. Recent analysis that the Department of Work and Pensions published on the new state pension makes it clear that millions of people will receive a significantly lower state pension in future. Some will be more than £500 a year worse off. The Government should be doing far more to inform those affected, especially people who are nearing retirement and therefore have the least notice or time to consider the impact.
The same is true for the regulations we are considering, especially the changes to derived entitlement and inheritance rules. The regulations apply to the new state pension that will be introduced in April, so they have come before us are very late in the day, given that they arise from primary legislation that the House agreed in 2014. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Government have left it until now to table these measures.
In any event, Age UK, among others, has called on the Government to do far more to contact people who are likely to be affected. In its evidence to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on the state pension, it said:
“There are DWP materials highlighting credits and ways to increase the State Pension, but people need to know they may be affected. We believe the DWP should contact people with gaps in their record individually to highlight the changes and explain options…In the most extreme situation, a woman with no entitlement in her own right, who is widowed, could end up with no State Pension compared to an expected £115.95 under the current system. Most will have some contributions in their own right so will not lose this much, but they could still receive significantly less than they are expecting. Couples in this situation need to be made aware of the changes as they may be able to review their retirement plans.”
When asked how the Department was planning to communicate with those affected, the Minister for Pensions replied that we cannot foresee who is going to become widowed in future. I think it is fair to say that that is not exactly a helpful response. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary provided clarity on what action the Government are taking to communicate these changes, in particular to those with gaps in their record who are likely to be directly affected. I believe there is a pool of people they can inform who could potentially be widowed in future.
Will the Minister also give us an estimate of who will be covered by the transitional protection? How many people does he estimate will lose out as a result of the changes in future years? In the context of those facts, what would be the cost of directly contacting individuals with gaps in their national insurance record? Does the Minister think that that cost is prohibitively expensive? While these changes are likely to affect a relatively small number of people, the impacts on those affected may be very large—the Minister may wish to expand on that, based on official estimates. That is one reason why the Select Committee, in considering the draft legislation, recommended that the Government go further in finding a solution for those women who might be seriously affected.
I will not repeat the debates that were had in the House, but if the Minister can give those women any further reassurance on the terms of transitional protection, that would be welcome. In any event, it is crucial that the Government take the issue of communication far more seriously and learn the lessons from previous instances when they failed to communicate changes effectively: most notably, of course, there is a group of women born in the 1950s who were not given proper notification of acceleration in their state pension age.
On that issue, will the Minister inform us whether the Department has undertaken any further work on transitional protection for the group of women most affected? Will he commit to provide the House with details of any modelling the Government have used when looking at different options for transitional protection; for example, for specific cohorts, such as those born between 6 April and 5 December 1953, who will be particularly affected by the acceleration? He will note that I have tabled questions on that subject, but given Ministers’ stated goal of being the most transparent Government ever, perhaps he can commit to answering them fully and publishing the relevant material before Monday’s debate on the issue.
Turning to another aspect of the regulations, many people who live abroad and receive a state pension may have been impacted by the Government’s temperature test for winter fuel allowance, which was introduced for the first time this winter, as I mentioned. Will the Minister tell the Committee how many people became ineligible for winter fuel allowance as a result of these tests? What is the overlap between those who became ineligible for winter fuel allowance and those whose pensions have not been uprated?
As well as freezing overseas pensions, the Government are freezing the savings credit element of the pension credit, as announced in the autumn statement. Will the Minister confirm that some of Britain’s poorest pensioners will be worse off as a result of this measure, and will he commit to publishing a more detailed impact assessment than has been produced to date? Exactly how many people will be worse off, and by how much? Finally, on the issue of state pension deferral, how much do the Government expect to save from the changes to the deferral? How many people have chosen to defer their state pension in this financial year, and what are the Government doing to ensure that those who defer are made aware of these changes to the deferral provisions under single tier pensions? I hope that we have some substantive answers on those points and in that spirit I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Vara
My thanks to the three contributors to the debate. I will try to address as many of their questions as possible. I will start by clarifying a point in the argument about women who might have no entitlement to pension. Under the transitional arrangements, a woman may still inherit a proportion of her late spouse’s additional state pension or half of his protected payment, depending on when he reached state pension age.
I was asked why my Department has left it until now to introduce these measures. I hope the Committee will appreciate that time is needed to develop legislation underpinning the new state pension, and to secure parliamentary time for debating and making the necessary legislation. It has been suggested that Government should do more to inform those affected by the changes to entitlement. The Government are always looking for the channels and media that work best. People sometimes assume that direct mail is the right approach, but experience has shown that is not necessarily the case. We have undertaken direct mail exercises in the past, and evidence suggests that other communication channels can be as or more effective.
My Department conducted a test in 2014 issuing 6,000 personalised letters with the aim of encouraging people to ask for a state pension statement, and only 79 requests for a statement resulted from that mailshot.
Steve McCabe
I understood that the Department’s justification for not notifying people was that it had been given some advice around data protection. In those circumstances, what are the other communication methods that the Minister referred to?
Mr Vara
I am sorry to state the obvious but, other than writing letters, there are social media, emails, articles in newspapers and other publications. There are a variety; I list only some of them. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have moved into the 21st century and still seems to think that everybody should get a letter through their letterbox. Times have moved on and he needs to move with them.
Steve McCabe
The point, which the Minister may have missed, is that if his Department has genuinely been given information about data protection and that has limited the number of letters it can send to people, what information has he had about emails and social media? He can stand there and pretend he is in the 21st century, but how many emails and other examples of social media has he used with individual people and what data-protection advice did he get before he did so?
Mr Vara
I do not think anyone in the Committee would expect me to give precise numbers about how many emails have been sent out by a specific Department. If I may remind the hon. Gentleman, his original question was what are the forms of communication. That is the question I answered. If he now wishes to change the question and say he wants specific numbers, because he is not happy with the answer I gave, I think the Committee will be sympathetic to the response that I cannot give the precise number of emails that have been sent out.
Ian Blackford
This is a massively important point. Anyone who is involved in an occupational pension scheme or any other type of scheme, will be used to getting annual letters telling them exactly what their entitlements are. Given the importance of this, the Government must communicate with all potential pensioners in a fair and reasonable manner. That means that the DWP has a duty to inform such people by letter—that would be the established practice. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister is hiding behind data protection. The Government have a duty to make sure that people prepare adequately for their pension. The Government must take that responsibility and communicate effectively.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for being generous with his time. Can he inform the Committee of historic response rates to the sort of letter that he is talking about? Is it equivalent in some way? What advice has he been given on how to improve response rates through the use of new media, such as the social media to which he referred?
Mr Vara
I do not have the precise details to hand, but I can say that it is an accepted fact that many people now use the new form—the technological advances of the 21st century—for communication purposes. We fought a general election less than a year ago in which the modern form of communication was used by politicians across the political divide. If it were the case that that was ineffective, and people were not taking note of that, we as politicians who aspire to lead and represent our constituents would probably have resorted to the old system. The fact is that the new, modern communication does work and that is why every single person in this Committee resorts to it.
As I said earlier, when DWP conducted a test in 2014 issuing 6,000 personalised letters with the aim of encouraging people to ask for a state pension statement, only 79 requests for a statement resulted from that mailshot. I think that answers the questions more than anything else.
Angela Rayner
May I try to help the Minister? In my contribution, I was referring to the fact that we have to learn the lessons from the past. Since becoming the shadow Pensions Minister, it is clear to me—and my mailbox makes it clear—without going into the issues of the WASPI campaign and women in the 1950s, that people do not feel that they are being communicated to in the most effective way. I urge the Minister to take all opportunities—written, social media, magazines, telephone—to do so. Whatever way he does it, it needs to be done, because of the implications for some of these people. It is not acceptable for the Minister to say, “Well, it may not affect them because they may not be a widower”. Something needs to be done to improve communication to people who are affected by these measures.
Mr Vara
I take on board what the shadow Minister says. Following the Pensions Act 2011—I know we are not dealing specifically with that issue—millions of people did get a letter, and the letters were sent out according to the details that were held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, will the Minister accept that using social media for the target group that we are talking about is probably one of the most inappropriate ways, since the people coming up to retirement age who require this information are the least likely to use it?
Secondly, rather than put the onus on the people who might need information about their pension, would he accept that perhaps the information should be given to them? Surely DWP knows where there are gaps and where people are likely to be disadvantaged by the changes. Should they not be notified by the Department, rather than the Department requesting them to make contact?
Mr Vara
There is no one specific form of communication that my Department will be looking at. We recognise the various forms of communication that exist in the modern world and we will seek to use some of those as we feel they will best target the relevant people. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is important to recognise that there is no single form of communication that we use. We recognise that in the modern world there are various forms and communicate accordingly.
Ian Blackford
This is a massively important point. We all understand that social media is a wonderful tool—the Minister has referred to what was done in the election campaign and so on—but we are talking about the fundamental right that people have to a pension. People have paid national insurance; they deserve to be told by DWP what they are going to get. That is not a message to be delivered by social media, it is a message that should be delivered by letter. That is the right thing to do, and the Government must do it.
Mr Vara
May I put on record, since we are talking about how my Department ensures that people know about the changes, as well as all the items I have just mentioned, the “Know the Facts” communication campaign focused on building awareness for those aged 55-plus, who will be the first to reach state pension age after the new state pension is introduced? That campaign encouraged people to get a personalised statement. Between September 2014 and October 2015, nearly half a million statements were issued. In the current phase of the campaign we are looking at specific groups who may need more detailed information, including people who have been contracted out, have been self-employed, may have a low number of qualifying years, or may be affected by changes to the rules on deriving an inherited state pension.
A range of products is available to help people understand the impact of the changes. These include factsheets, infographics, videos, calculators and content for PensionTube, a YouTube channel dedicated to pensions. The campaign advertising also encourages people to engage with material online, and there is a range of supporting materials on www.gov.uk. We have in place extensive stakeholder communications with third-party organisations and have held stakeholder forums, produced a toolkit for stakeholders and continue to issue weekly stakeholder bulletins. We do communicate with the relevant people outside, we will continue to do so, and we will continue to make sure that people are appreciative of the message. I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.
Question put.
Family Justice
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Just prior to the Christmas recess, an error was identified in an online version of form E. This is the form provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in order to enable people to disclose financial information during divorce and similar proceedings.
This fault meant that the automatic calculator in the form calculated the wrong total for an individual’s net assets by failing to deduct certain liabilities.
The Ministry of Justice was alerted to the fault on 10 December 2015 and a corrected version of the form was put online on 14 December. However the wider implications of the faulty form were not immediately recognised.
As soon as I was made aware of this issue on 16 December, I ordered an urgent investigation.
The investigation found the faulty formula was present in versions of form E which were online between April 2014 and mid December 2015 and between April 2011 and January 2012.
A total of 36,527 cases contain a version of form E filed from these periods. HMCTS staff have now reviewed all these cases and found that 3,638 files—10%—contained the faulty calculator version of form E with an incorrect figure for net assets figure in the summary table.
A total of 1,403 of these cases are still live, allowing HMCTS to intervene immediately to clearly flag these cases to the courts in order to avoid the error affecting the final orders in these cases.
The remaining 2,235 files—6.1%—were closed cases. Although the faulty form was used in these cases, it will not necessarily have had any effect on the ultimate outcome. Form E is only a part of the material used by the parties and the court and is used at an early stage, so the information is often disputed or superseded by further information introduced during proceedings.
Following the error coming to light, HMCTS established a dedicated email address which people could use if they were concerned about their own case: formE@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk. This email address was advertised on our website and also in all responses to media enquiries. As of 21 January, 51 members of the public have emailed us about their case.
I have instructed HMCTS to write to all parties in the 2,235 closed cases. The letter expresses our sincere regret for the error, sets out what happened and explains that, although form E is just one part of the evidence used in their case, there remains a possibility that the error affected the final outcome.
The letter sets out options available to people involved in these cases. Some may wish to do nothing, if, for example, they know that the error was corrected during the proceedings or they do not wish to reopen their cases. If people think they have been affected by this error then they can apply to the court to vary or set aside their order. My officials consulted the president of the family division about the court rules and procedures that would apply to such applications or for any other proceedings that might be open to the parties. My officials also consulted the president on the development of a specific form for such applications. We have provided a link to the new form in our letter to the parties, as well as guidance on how to complete the form.
I have instructed that no court fee will be charged for making this application, and this is also made this clear in the letter from HMCTS.
We are also uploading a new version of form E which makes clearer how the calculation of net assets should be made. We will also consider the future of form E as part of our broader court reforms and the automatic calculator function will be disabled during this process.
This failure should not have happened. Divorce proceedings can be very difficult and I sincerely apologise for this situation and any distress it may have caused.
[HCWS485]
Access to Justice: Vulnerable People
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karl Turner
With respect, I am not prepared to go into the hon. Gentleman’s Daily Mail-reading fraternity line. Frankly, that is outrageous. One thing I think the Bach commission will establish is consensus of opinion, so I will not make Opposition policy about the residence test on the hoof, but it is disgraceful that women who have been trafficked will probably be refused access to law as a result of the Government’s proposed changes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
indicated dissent.
Karl Turner
Of course there are exceptions, but we have seen how exceptions have failed. The Government must be careful. I finish on the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington South—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Bailey? I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on having secured the debate. I also thank the other hon. Members who have contributed. This important subject is capable of arousing many passions, and I am pleased that the debate, although lively at times, has been conducted in a measured tone. I very much hope that will continue.
Let me be clear at the outset: the Government share the passion for a justice system that works for everyone. I have spoken previously about our commitment to one nation justice, which is fundamental to the rule of law. At the heart of one nation justice is equality. We are committed to making sure that our justice system delivers faster and fairer justice for all citizens, not just some. We are committed to a justice system that safeguards and protects the vulnerable and that works better for victims and witnesses. It must be recognised that legal aid is only one part of the balanced provision of access to justice, but it is nevertheless an important part, and I accept that there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that it is available for those in the greatest need.
When the programme to reform legal aid commenced in 2010, the scale of the financial challenge facing the Government was unprecedented. The coalition had to find significant savings, which meant making difficult choices. Despite that, we have made sure that legal aid remains available for the highest priority cases, such as those where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where people face the loss of their home, as in cases of domestic violence, or where people’s children might be taken into care. It is also available in relation to the treatment and detention of people experiencing mental health problems and in cases concerning the best interests of people who lack mental capacity.
Tackling domestic violence remains a Government priority. For that reason, we have retained legal aid for the purpose of obtaining urgent protection via an injunction. In addition, in private family law cases—those concerning child arrangements and financial matters—funding may be available for those who will be materially disadvantaged by facing their abuser in court.
I hope hon. Members will accept that it is reasonable to ensure that the correct cases attract funding. However, we have listened and responded to specific concerns. That is why, during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, we made changes to make evidence easier to obtain. In April 2014, we expanded the list of evidence accepted in applications for legal aid in private family cases. We also extended the definition of health professionals to include psychologists. We made further changes in July 2015, including by adding new offences to the list of domestic violence and child abuse offences. Further regulatory changes ensure that, once a particular form of legal aid has been granted, no further evidence needs to be submitted for someone to receive legal representation for their case. We will, of course, continue to keep the evidence requirements under review.
Mention has been made of exceptional case funding, and funding has been provided where it is required by law under European Union legislation or European convention on human rights regulations.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister explains how legal aid is still available in some of the most urgent situations—for example, when someone’s house is at risk of repossession. However, does that not raise the question, why wait until we get to that stage? Why not provide legal aid earlier, so that people do not get into that mess in the first place?
Mr Vara
It is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there must be some limit, and I will come in due course to how much money is spent. However, his criticism is ironic, given that he admitted in his speech that there is less expenditure per capita in Scotland than in England and Wales.
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman did explain the reasons for that, but I have to say that the facts speak for themselves. He should not try to explain away the fact that there is less expenditure per capita in Scotland than in England and Wales—it is easy to be disingenuous in explaining things away. As I will explain later, the fact is that the legal aid budget for England and Wales is one of the largest in the world.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister misses the two key points I made in my speech about per capita spend. First, it is not fair just to compare legal aid spending per capita; we have to look at justice spending overall. Secondly—this is a matter of fact, not explaining things away—the higher per capita spend in England and Wales is a result of things such as the larger number of expensive fraud cases prosecuted south of the border. The proportion of people eligible for civil legal aid in Scotland is about 75%—well in excess of that in England and Wales. The Minister must also bear it in mind that the financial eligibility rules are more generous and the number of legal cases covered is far broader. He should try to learn lessons from the Scottish jurisdiction, so that savings can be made not by removing all sorts of cases and people from the scope of legal aid, but by achieving efficiencies in the system and other changes.
Mr Vara
I would simply say that the hon. Gentleman should look at some of the cases in England and Wales. He will find that some of the fraud cases in this jurisdiction are pretty complex. However, I am grateful to him for saying that it is important that we look at matters from an overall perspective. With the best will in the world, some of those who have spoken already have not done so—they have seen legal aid in a narrow confine, rather than from the overall perspective the hon. Gentleman speaks of.
Even after the reforms we have put in place, we still have a very generous legal aid system, compared with other countries. Last year we spent more than £1.6 billion on legal aid, which is about a quarter of the Ministry of Justice’s departmental expenditure. As I said, that is one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world.
Jo Stevens
Is it not the case, though, that the Ministry of Justice budget has been cut? Therefore, to boast that the Government are spending that proportion, when the overall amount of money has been reduced, is not really a boast at all.
Mr Vara
May I gently tell the hon. Lady that, were it not for the economic mess that the Labour Government left this country in—[Interruption.] Labour Members may well shrug their shoulders, but the reality is that, were it not for the mess they left and their economic mismanagement, we would not have had to take the tough decisions that we are having to take. I will return later to the views the Labour shadow justice team has expressed on the record about whether the cuts should have been made.
During the previous Parliament the coalition Government proposed a civil legal aid residence test, which has been referred to. The Government continue to believe that individuals should have a strong connection to the UK to benefit from our civil legal aid scheme, and intend to implement the residence test following recent success in the courts. I should add that during the previous Parliament the Government were particularly careful to listen to, and take into account, concerns that were raised about the residence test. As a result a number of modifications and exceptions were proposed, including in cases involving particularly vulnerable individuals. We believe that the proposed residence test, with specific exceptions for vulnerable groups, is both fair and appropriate. It has to be right that when British taxpayers’ money is being used for legal aid, the recipient of the legal aid should have a strong connection to our country.
Karl Turner
Will the Minister kindly explain how the residence test will work in practice?
Karl Turner
Let us say that a solicitor is taking instructions from a client. What evidence will be needed to prove habitual residence in the United Kingdom?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced barrister and an experienced politician. He will appreciate that the function of this House is to put policy into implementation, by ensuring that it becomes law. The practical process will need to be thought out—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—as is the case with every other measure introduced by the present and previous Governments, and during the 13 years when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, and even before that. That is something that will be dealt with and resolved.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for whom I have huge respect and regard, spoke passionately; but he will of course be aware that the matter is a devolved one. I wish him well in his dealings with David Ford, with whom I too have had dealings. To the extent that it will help, I will certainly tell him the next time I see him that the hon. Gentleman was speaking passionately and would like him to give a sympathetic ear when he raises the issue. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) will appreciate that, again, the issue is a devolved one; but he has put his views on record—including in our little dialogue during my speech.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for bringing a realistic perspective to the debate, and for pointing out the reality of the situation. He repeatedly asked the shadow Justice Minister which of the cuts that we have made his party would reverse. I am not surprised that no reply was forthcoming, because in an interview with The Guardian on 30 January 2015, the former shadow Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said:
“I don’t have a magic wand to wave. I can’t commit to reverse the £600m cuts to legal aid made by the Tories and Lib Dems. We will still have to take tough decisions on reducing the deficit.”
However, it was not only the former shadow Justice Secretary who took that view. The person in his team dealing specifically with legal aid, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), was interviewed by John Hyde of The Law Society Gazette on 24 September 2014:
“‘We’re not going to get in a Tardis and go back to before,’ he said. ‘We are in a world where resources are tight and it would not be right to pretend otherwise.’”
The article goes on:
“Slaughter conceded that the Labour party would have been forced to make cuts to family law funding and promote mediation as a cheaper option. He added that a Labour government would seek to promote and improve mediation services on offer.”
He is quoted as saying:
“‘We are going to be honest about the tightness of resources—we can’t tackle everything immediately and other elements”
of public spending
“will have a higher place in the queue.’”
Jo Stevens
I want to ask the Minister: does he support the principle of mediation?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady seeks to justify the fact that her party says it will not make cuts reversals of £600 million by saying, “There you are.” Of course we support mediation. In fact we have said that in family cases where there are divorces, rather than the two separating parties engaging solicitors and then barristers, and then going to court—all paid for by the taxpayer—it is far better for them to sit around a table, trying to have a constructive dialogue with mediation. That way of reaching a solution is preferable.
Given that the shadow team has said it would not make any cuts, perhaps its members could reflect on whether the next time one of them speaks they might be supportive of our proposals, rather than simply saying, “Don’t reduce.”
Karl Turner
Will the Minister concede at least that the leader of the Labour party has set up the Bach commission, to look at the issue of access to justice? It would be constructive for Ministers at least to acknowledge that. It is true that my colleagues said previously that they could not just wave a magic wand—of course not; but some of the cuts were badly made and chaotic. Areas—swathes—were taken out of the scope of legal aid, with the consequence that the most vulnerable people suffered; and the reality was that that did not really save money.
Mr Vara
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I just made—that his party’s shadow team said it would not reverse any of the cuts. That kind of contradicts what he says; but as far as Willy Bach is concerned—and he is a man for whom I have much respect—I wish him well with his commission. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) will be aware that we have said there will be a review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 three to five years from its implementation. That will be a thorough review in relation to the way forward.
I want to mention some other points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Aberavon referred to some research conducted by Rights of Women, showing that 38% or 39% of women do not have the evidence needed to apply for legal aid. That research was based on responses from 61 people, which I hope even the hon. Gentleman will agree is a small sample—much smaller than researchers would ordinarily use to generalise across the wider population.
There is much debate about the amount of work available and the number of lawyers around to do it. The Law Society has itself accepted that there are far too many people chasing too little criminal work. We must recognise that the legal profession needs to take a wider look—not just at legal aid—at how things are going. In a relatively short time the structure of the legal profession has changed. There was a time when there were simply solicitors, barristers and legal executives; but now barristers in particular face competition from solicitors who have higher rights of audience than previously. There are more people wanting to qualify as barristers, as well. Alternative business structures are coming on the scene. That means that more and more people are chasing the same amount of work.
Jo Stevens
The point is not that there is not sufficient work for barristers to do, but that there is no legal aid available to enable people who need legal advice to go to a lawyer and get help. We have more people going to prison than for many years, and more people going into the criminal justice system. There is plenty of work; it is just that those people cannot afford anyone to represent them.
Mr Vara
Perhaps the hon. Lady missed the point when I said that we have one of the largest legal aid budgets in the world, at £1.6 billion. I would say that that is capable of buying a substantial amount of legal aid assistance and advocacy for people. I go back to the comment from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about the importance of looking at matters in the round, from a broader perspective.
Much has been said about employment tribunal fees and the fact that people are not using employment tribunals any more. There should be some recognition of the ACAS early conciliation process, which did not exist before but has dealt with some 83,000 cases in the 12 months since it was introduced. There should also be some recognition of the fact that the economy is improving, and that more jobs are being created out there. It is always the case, looking back at the trend of such things, that there is less demand for employment tribunals when the economy is improving. People should not overlook the fact that more than 80,000 cases have been dealt with by ACAS’s early conciliation process. Furthermore, looking at matters in the round, let us not forget that this Government are committed to spending some £700 million on reforming the courts system, which means there will be a better way of accessing justice than exists at the moment.
Coming back to the words in the title of this debate, we very much hope that the reforms will particularly assist vulnerable people, including victims, witnesses and others. The reforms will mean, for example, that those people do not have to attend a court to give evidence, but can instead go to a convenient location close to them and give evidence by video conferencing. We will also make more use of modern technology in a broader perspective. We already have prisoners giving evidence from prisons, which avoids getting caught up in traffic jams and all the additional security costs that taking them to court would entail.
Stephen Kinnock
Given the changes that are being introduced and the impact they will have in real time, does the Minister not agree that waiting for three to five years before doing a review of LASPO is simply evidence of being asleep at the wheel? A review of LASPO needs to be brought forward in a far shorter timeframe.
Mr Vara
It is important to recognise that LASPO made a huge change to the whole structure of the legal aid system. It is important that we ensure the changes have sufficient time to bed in, in order to make a proper assessment of whether they have worked. As it happens, the three to five year period is more or less approaching us, and we will do the review in 2016 to 2018, but it is important that we allow such fundamental changes to take place.
Jo Stevens
Can the Minister tell us whether the review of LASPO will be in 2016 or is likely to be at the end of the period?
Mr Vara
I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the review will be. Clearly, we are giving much thought to that. We want to get it right and to ensure that the changes we have made already have the effect we wanted. If necessary, we will make changes. As I say, the timing of the review is yet to be decided, but we are committed to doing it and will do so.
I am mindful that the hon. Member for Aberavon must have an opportunity to wind up, so I will simply conclude by saying that I hope hon. Members will appreciate this Government’s commitment to a one nation justice system that safeguards and protects the vulnerable, supported by a strong and sustainable legal aid system to provide advice and support for the highest priority cases. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon for securing the debate and to all other Members who have spoken.
State Pension Age (Women)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mhairi Black
It is noticeable, and a pity, how few Conservatives have turned out.
It is important to highlight that the Government did not send out a single letter to women. There was no official correspondence between the Government and the individuals affected, alerting them to the changes that were going to happen to them. Even the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recognised that not everybody knew that the changes had happened in the 1995 Act.
A response to a freedom of information request states that the Department eventually wrote to individuals affected and that
“Mail campaigns took place between 2009 and 2013.”
That is 14 years after the 1995 Act. Women were not personally notified by anybody official until 14 years after the changes came in. That is 14 fewer years that women have had to prepare and to try to make alternative arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on managing to secure this debate, which has attracted many Members on both sides of the House. I also commend all the colleagues who have taken the trouble to come here and speak today. I will try to address as many of their points as I can in the limited time available to me.
I should like to begin by reminding the House of the rationale for reforming the timetable. For our state pension system to function effectively, it has to be fair, affordable and sustainable. The changes made to the state pension age under the Pensions Act 2011 make an important contribution to achieving those aims. Gender equality is one of the main purposes of the changes to the state pension age. Under the previous system, women reaching state pension age in 2010 would spend on average 41% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension. For men, the figure was only 31%, owing to the longer life expectancy and earlier state pension age of women.
It makes little sense for women to work to a pension age originally set in 1940 which does not reflect the employment opportunities open to them in a modern society. Changes were needed to take account of increased life expectancy and to ensure fairness for working-age people who would otherwise bear the cost of this longevity. Following sharp rises in life expectancy, the previous Government acted to address this and brought forward the timetable for rises in the state pension age. This was vital if we were to continue to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision and to ensure that the state pension remained affordable and sustainable. It is also important to look at the changes in the context of our wider pension reforms and what these mean for women.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister cannot have been listening to what I said earlier. A substantial proportion of what I said showed that that is not the case, although he and his colleagues are hiding behind that argument. We were not required to do that. Some EU countries are not equalising until 2040 or 2044, and some are maintaining a difference. Will he please stop hiding behind something that is not true?
Mr Vara
I will not give way. I am mindful of the limited time that I have, and I am keen to ensure that the proposer of the motion, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, has time to make her concluding comments at the end of the debate.
The introduction of the new state pension will benefit many women who would have lost out under the current two-tier system, largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. All those affected by the 2011 changes will reach pension age after the introduction of the new state pension. Around 650,000 women reaching state pension age in the first 10 years will receive an average of £8 per week more under the new state pension than they would have done under the previous system. The majority of households reaching state pension age up to 2030 will receive a higher total income over retirement under the new system.
The solution to ensuring that people have a comfortable later life is encouraging and enabling them to work longer. This benefits individuals through the social and financial rewards of employment, it benefits employers through the skills and experiences that older workers bring to the workplace, and it benefits the wider economy. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that adding just one year to people’s working lives would add 1% to UK GDP per year.
Support is in place to provide extra help for people who cannot work owing to caring responsibilities, ill health or disability. Women affected would be eligible for the same in-work, out-of-work or disability benefits as men of their age, and carer’s allowance may be available, for which national insurance credits are awarded automatically. In 2011, credits were introduced to help adult family members looking after a child under 12 in order to assist the parents who were working, with these credits being able to count towards state pension entitlements.
Much has been made of the comments made by the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, and it is important to recognise that even he was not seeking a restoration that would cost £30 billion. Indeed, he said that he was only looking for a 10% clawback. It is also worth remembering that he does recognise that the £1.1 billion concession that was made was generous. His exact words were:
“and we got £1 billion back in the end, and a billion quid is a serious amount of money.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. He read out the quote about £1 billion being a “serious amount of money”, but he really should have quoted the whole sentence, which begins:
“this was a measure to save 30 billion quid over how many years, and we wanted 10% of that back to soften the blow”.
Steve Webb wanted £3 billion back but got only £1 billion.
Mr Vara
If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to listen while he was preparing his question, he would know that that is what I said, except that I used different words. He might want to check the Hansard record tomorrow morning. In this place, it always helps to listen before speaking.
The Government listened to the concerns expressed during the passing of the 2011 Act, and shortened the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension, relative to the 1995 timetable, to 18 months. That concession benefited almost a quarter of a million women, who would otherwise have experienced delays of up to two years. A similar number of men also benefited from a reduced increase. The concession was worth £1.1 billion in total, and as a result 81% of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less.
Mhairi Black
To me, the concessions that were given show that the Government recognise that the transition was not appropriate. Given that the wording of today’s motion is clear in asking the Government to reassess the transitional arrangements, will the Minister confirm that he will do so if the motion is passed, be it unanimously or with a vote—yes or no?
Mr Vara
I have only a short time left and I must press on.
As for people being aware of the 1995 changes, I should add that research carried out in 2004 by the Department for Work and Pensions found that 73% of people aged 45 to 54 were aware of the changes to women’s state pension age. It is regrettable that people have sought to put this on a political basis and have conveniently forgotten that after 1995 we had 13 years of Labour government. I have here a list of some 10 Labour Pensions Ministers who totally failed to do anything, yet Labour Members conveniently seek to put the blame on the things that have happened post-2010. The shadow Home Secretary made comments earlier, but he was a Labour Cabinet Minister, and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who also made comments today, was also in the Labour Administration. He is a former Pensions Minister, yet he did nothing then.
Alan Johnson
Indeed, I was the Work and Pensions Secretary, but we introduced measures that did not include this anomaly—it was introduced in 2011.
Mr Vara
The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier of being lobbied, but he took no action on that. Furthermore, big issues arise as to whether notice was given in respect of the changes in 1995, and when he was Work and Pensions Secretary he did nothing to make sure that those women were informed. All the blame has been put on Conservative Members.
I wind up simply by saying that this matter was debated thoroughly and properly in 2011. A concession was made then—by way of time period and financially—which was worth more than £1 billion, and it was thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. I very much hope that I have put the Government’s position on the record. I simply say to some people that they, too, should learn to take responsibility, given that they were in government for 13 years. With that, I shall allow time for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South to speak.
HMCTS
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I will today publish the Government response to the consultation on proposals to increase court and tribunal fees. The consultation paper was published on 22 July 2015 and the consultation closed on 15 September 2015.
The Government announced in the spending review that it will be investing £700 million in reforming the courts and tribunals during the next five years. This crucial investment will allow us to modernise and improve the service we provide to the public.
There remains a need to ensure the courts are not placing too great a burden on the taxpayer. Courts and tribunals in England and Wales cost £1.7 billion in 2014-15, but we only recovered £700 million in income. That is a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1 billion.
It is therefore right that we ask for a greater contribution from court users who can afford to pay more. We have balanced this need alongside the responses we received to our consultation and decided to:
Implement fee increases of 10% across the range of civil proceedings, including enforcement proceedings, determination of costs proceedings, and civil business in the magistrates courts.
Introduce fees for the first time in the General Regulatory Chamber and the tax chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and in the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber.
Keep the maximum fee cap in money claims at £10,000. A number of consultees were concerned about the proposal to raise the cap to £20,000. We accept that it is too soon to understand the full impact of the first round of fee increases introduced in March this year. We will therefore not implement the further increase at this stage, but keep this option under review.
Introduce a fee of £20 for an appeal against a financial penalty in the tax chamber. Some respondents felt that it was unfair to charge an issue fee of £100 for an appeal against a financial penalty of £100 or less imposed by HM Revenue and Customs, so we have decided to introduce a lower fee than initially proposed.
Introduce fees of £100 to issue proceedings in the Property Chamber and £200 for a hearing. There will be an exception for proceedings relating to rent levels and pitch fee applications, where a lower fee of £20 will apply. This will mean fees are more proportionate to the amount in dispute. We will not implement the higher fees for leasehold enfranchisement proceedings that were proposed in the consultation paper at this stage, so these proceedings will be subject to the standard fees in the chamber.
Defer any decision on whether to introduce a fee for bringing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner until the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information reports next year.
HMCTS’s remissions scheme will apply to all of the new and increased fees, with the exception of those in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal where there is a separate exemptions policy to protect vulnerable users. As proposed in the consultation document, we will introduce an additional exemption for those whose humanitarian protection or refugee status is at risk of being revoked.
Fees are never popular, but they are necessary if we are to reduce the burden of the courts and tribunals on the taxpayer.
We have sought to protect the vulnerable at every stage. We have also listened very carefully to concerns raised during the consultation and modified our proposals accordingly.
This balanced package will put the courts and tribunals on a more sustainable footing as we create a modern efficient service, fit for the 21st century.
Full details of how the Government intend to take forward these proposals are set out in the consultation response document which has been published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS438]
Sale of Ministry of Justice Land: Gloucester
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
As always, Mr Nuttall, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate on a subject that is vital for the residents of Gloucester. I also take this opportunity to put on the record the huge amount of work that he has done for the people of Gloucester, not only regarding this particular piece of land but more generally. As far as this issue is concerned, he has engaged with me on a regular and active basis, and he has also been instrumental in ensuring that the many other stakeholders and key players involved in the whole of this transaction have been engaged with one another. He has been instrumental in ensuring that all the threads are woven together to make one canvas, so that hopefully in the new year we will be able to arrive at an agreeable solution.
Of course, my hon. Friend and I have met on a number of occasions to discuss this issue and we have also corresponded about it. He has a terrific vision for Gloucester. My officials have engaged extensively with representatives from the many other interested parties on how the land owned by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in Great Western Road can form part of the wider regeneration of the city.
Let me explain at the outset that the piece of land in question was purchased quite some time ago with the intention of building a new Gloucester court. The freehold interest in the site was one of a number of magistrates courts and other properties transferred to the Courts and Tribunals Service under the Transfer of Property (Abolition of Magistrates’ Courts Committees) Scheme 2005. Since that time, the site was used temporarily as a car park by the national health service and was later used as a store to facilitate works to the adjacent railway. As my hon. Friend indicated, for quite some time it has not been in use.
Following an approach by Gloucester City Council, the Courts and Tribunals Service considered a request to transfer the land. In support of its request, the council asked that we take into account the wider economic development of the area and its importance for the city as a whole. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Ministry of Justice and Gloucester City Council have a duty to achieve best value for the taxpayer at large and for the citizens of Gloucester. As part of that duty, the Ministry of Justice is obliged to work within Her Majesty’s Treasury guidelines for managing public money. That means that, when disposing of surplus property assets, we must always seek best value for the taxpayer. The council, for its part, has to consider the potential return on its investment in a future lease arrangement.
After careful consideration of the representations made by my hon. Friend, the council and others, it was decided that the land was no longer required for a court or tribunal building. That cleared the way for the Courts and Tribunal Service to move towards a sale of the land, at market value, to Gloucester City Council.
I understand that the council intends to enter into an agreement that would see the site being used as a car park, which, as my hon. Friend highlighted in his speech, would improve access to the nearby railway station. The redevelopment of the land is an important part of the vision to regenerate the city. Of course, the use of the site as a car park also has broader implications for the highways and traffic management within the area. This is not a simple issue but one that is complex and that involves a number of other agencies.
The Ministry of Justice has been in regular and constructive dialogue with the council, and I am pleased to say that much progress has been made. However, both parties have produced their own valuations of what the property is worth. Nevertheless, we may now be nearing some sort of agreement. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I cannot divulge the final details of the valuations or the negotiations. He will understand that, as is the case in almost every transaction of this kind, there are many aspects of the proposal to discuss, including the future development potential of the site; the current and future planning status; whether there should be any conditions attached to the completion of the sale; the timing of any such conditions; whether any overage or clawback should be applied, and if so, how much and over what time; what price should be paid; and whether that price should be paid in one lump sum or in staged payments.
While there remain technical details to resolve, I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for seeing the matter settled, and both parties continue to work towards achieving a deal that is acceptable to all concerned. I emphasise that there is no lack of willingness on our side to achieve a mutually beneficial sale.
I turn briefly to the wider changes that we are making to courts and tribunals in England and Wales as part of our court reform programme. We have conducted a consultation on the possible closure of 91 courts and tribunals across England and Wales. The HMCTS estate is a major asset, but many buildings are underused. Indeed, around a third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. Our proposal is to close the less efficient buildings and to transform the way that courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public in the future.
Those improvements cannot be secured without some difficult decisions having to be made, but I genuinely believe that the court reform programme offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient Courts and Tribunals Service.
Richard Graham
The Minister is kind to give way. I promised him that I would not extend this debate to cover the issue of the future of the courts, but I just thought it would be helpful to him if I were to put on the record the offer that Gloucester has made to the Ministry of Justice. Effectively, it is to provide land free of charge in the wonderful central area of Blackfriars, very close to the current Crown court, the families courts and the magistrates courts, to create a single justice centre for all the courts and tribunals in the city, which will provide justice for the people of Gloucestershire. I hope he will consider that offer.
Mr Vara
In his usual eloquent way, my hon. Friend has managed to sneak into this debate another angle, which obviously also involves his speaking up for constituents in Gloucester. I commend him for that. I am mindful of the submission that he and the people of Gloucester have made, and we are reflecting on it. No decisions have been made so far regarding the wider consultation.
As far as the court reform programme is concerned, we must recognise that the world outside the courts is changing rapidly. In the 21st century, we expect to be able to transact our business online, quickly, efficiently and at a time that suits us. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smartphone apps. The Courts and Tribunals Service has already established alternative ways users can interact with its services, such as the use of video links, and it is looking to expand the provisions to provide more choice than is currently available. That includes exploring whether appropriate use can be made of civic and other buildings for certain types of hearings. My hon. Friend is aware that Gloucester magistrates court is included in the consultation. The proposal is for criminal work from the court to be transferred to Cheltenham magistrates court. As he is aware, we are analysing all the responses to the consultation, and we have not made up our mind or made any decisions so far.
For the sake of good order, I assure my hon. Friend that the sale of the land at Great Western Road does not impact in any way on the decisions that will need to be made following the consultation. He will understand that I cannot give him notice of the finalised transaction, for the reasons I have given. I very much hope, however, that he and his constituents will be in no doubt that I support the positive vision that is regeneration in Gloucester—a matter that he has so forcefully put across. The Ministry of Justice is keen to be a part of that vision, and we are taking steps to ensure that we do not stand in the way of progress. At the same time, he will appreciate the importance of my Department faithfully discharging its duties to taxpayers and ensuring that we deal with valuable assets responsibly.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I very much hope that, in the new year, there will be some resolution to all the hard work that he has put in on behalf of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Welfare Cap
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Summer Budget 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 resulting from the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits, as laid out in the Autumn Statement 2015, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
The motion is about the Government accounting to Parliament and the public for decisions about welfare spending. It is something we on this side of the House take very seriously. That is why in 2013 the Chancellor announced we would be bringing forward a welfare cap to control welfare spending in a way that has never been done before. The cap would be set shortly after each new Parliament and assessed each year by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Any breach of the cap requires my Department to come to the House to set out one of three courses of action. The first would be to propose measures to reduce welfare spending to within the level of the cap. The second would be to seek the approval of the House to increase the level of the cap. The third would be to explain why a breach of the cap was justified. The House will be aware that, following the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the cap is forecast not to be met in the short term. The motion seeks agreement that this is justified.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Even this early in the debate, the Minister is saying that he is going to justify breaching the cap. Is he not somewhat embarrassed about that?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman obviously did.
In making our case, I want to set out the circumstances that have led to this forecast. The cap was initially set in line with the OBR’s March 2014 forecast. In the summer Budget, the Chancellor set a lower welfare cap to help to reflect our move to a lower tax, lower welfare and higher-wage economy. Since then, as part of the autumn statement, the Chancellor took the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits. This will give families longer to adjust as we make work pay and provide better support for people in work.
This change has been possible partly because of improvements in the nation’s finances, including improved tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. These are not free choices, however, and as a result of this change, we will be spending more in the shorter term than had been forecast in the summer Budget. That means that, based on current forecasts, the cap will not be met for the next three years: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am not embarrassed or concerned. The Minister might be, but I am not.
Mr Vara
If we are talking about embarrassment, perhaps it is the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), along with those on the Opposition Front Bench, who ought to be embarrassed. They ought to be embarrassed about the millions of people who lived in misery because they were forced to become unemployed. They ought to be embarrassed because, under Labour, the welfare cap was out of control. They ought to be pleased that this Government have the guts to take the difficult decisions to bring the welfare cap back under control.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is Christmas, and I think the Minister would like to know that his Government have won first prize for being the first Government ever to breach £1 trillion in welfare spending over five years. That is £130 billion more than the Labour Government spent in their last five years. You have won the prize!
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman speaks of Christmas spirit. In that spirit, perhaps he would like to apologise to the House on behalf of his party for the mess that it left us. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the people out there—yes, the public—who endured misery and ended up being unemployed under Labour’s policies. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the taxpayers for letting the welfare budget get completely out of control. As a result, we are having to take the tough decisions. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) if he would like to apologise. [Interruption.] I have given him the opportunity to apologise but he would rather not do so.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On the subject of Christmas, I would just encourage all of us, please, to remember that there are people at the heart of these decisions, and this should not be the moment for political footballs. We are here to say that things have changed and that our view, policies and outlook have changed. I implore every Member in this House to remember that we are speaking on behalf of people, not our own personal political agendas.
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and let me put on the record the fact that it is our welfare programme that is improving people’s lives. It is no bad thing occasionally to ask the people who created the mess to apologise. I think the public outside would welcome an apology, because they have had to endure quite a lot of misery as a consequence of the people who took the decisions earlier on. She makes a good point when she says that people are watching, but I would also say to her that those people want an apology. I make no apology to the House for requesting that apology from the Opposition.
Owen Smith
I rise in the spirit of the intervention made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and to say that I absolutely welcome the decision by the Government today to breach the welfare cap in order to reverse-ferret on the cut for 3 million recipients of tax credits—low-wage workers right across Britain. It is an excellent thing the Government have done and we will be fully supportive of it. I hope that she will be supportive of us when we call for a similar reversal on universal credit work allowances.
Mr Vara
The House will have noted, as will the people who are watching at home, that still we have no apology.
The Government are determined to continue the work that we have done to date and to honour the mandate from the British people at the general election, so that we can tackle welfare dependency and fix the nation’s finances. Despite this short-term additional spending, we have made sure that, through our welfare reforms, the cap will be met later in this Parliament—by 2019-20. Let me be clear: the Government are committed to the welfare cap, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the cap is met in the medium term. The OBR also forecasts that welfare spending within the cap will fall as a proportion of GDP from 6% to 5% over the welfare cap period. That is a fall of 1%, in line with the 1% fall forecast at the summer Budget. By 2019-20, therefore, we will still achieve the £12 billion a year welfare savings that we said we would achieve—
Mr Vara
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given him plenty of opportunity to apologise, and he is not doing what the nation wants. If he is not going to do that, he needs to sit quietly and contemplate what policies his party is going to produce. On policies, it is worth noting that he, along with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually supported the measure that introduced this cap, as did several other welfare Cabinet Ministers when Labour was in government, so it is ironic that they now seek to make cheap political points. As I say, by 2019-20 we will have achieved our £12 billion welfare savings. That is what we pledged at the election, that is what the public gave us a mandate for and that is exactly what we will deliver. We can do this because of the permanent savings that we have already made and the long-term reforms that we are making.
The simple fact is that Labour completely overspent on welfare during its 13 years in power. Under Labour, welfare spending went up by almost 60% and the benefits system cost every household an extra £3,000 a year. Spending on tax credits increased by 330%. That is £24 billion—
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
You are still spending more than us.
Mr Vara
The Labour party is a little slow in hearing, so I will repeat the figure for the Opposition’s benefit: £24 billion. We had a welfare system that did not incentivise work and left some people getting more in benefits than they would in work. That was not fair to the hard-working taxpayers who paid for it and it certainly was not fair to those who had become dependent on the state, with no hope for a brighter future. What did Labour have to show after all that spending? Nearly one in five households had no one working. The number of households in which no one had ever worked had nearly doubled. Some 1.4 million people had been on benefits for most of the previous decade, and close to half of all households in the social rented sector had no one in work. Ever more spending on welfare just is not the answer.
We were right to bear down and get a grip on a welfare bill that was simply out of control. The introduction of the cap has brought greater scrutiny and challenge around welfare spending, and that is the way forward. The Chancellor said that he would listen on tax credits, and he has. This one-nation Government are determined to move to a lower tax, lower welfare and higher wage economy. We are doing so in a way that ensures families have more time to adjust to the changes. I commend the motion to the House.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Let me start by wishing a very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and all the Ministers on the replete Front Bench, especially the Secretary of State who I had hoped would lead the debate today. Indeed, I had hoped that it might be the Chancellor, because I seem to recall—
Owen Smith
I will certainly give way. I had not really started, but the hon. Gentleman can carry on.
Owen Smith
I was here in the Chamber, and I saw the Secretary of State arrive just before the Minister rose to speak. While we are on the subject, perhaps the Minister can clear up this matter. He said to us on Monday at Department for Work and Pensions questions that the Secretary of State had visited a food bank. We submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister asking when that had taken place. The interesting answer—in truth it was a slightly slippery answer—was that Ministers, not the Secretary of State, have attended lots of things, including food banks. I gather there is another question. Perhaps he could tell us when the Secretary of State went to a food bank. [Interruption.] Clearly, he does not want to say.
As I was saying before the Minister intervened on me, it was a year ago when, to a packed House, the Chancellor unveiled his latest wheeze, the welfare cap. He had a mile-wide smirk on his face like one of the famous cats from his Cheshire constituency. He was positively purring as he laid down what he thought would be a trap for a future Labour Chancellor. He said:
“The welfare cap marks an important moment in the development of the British welfare state…and ensures that never again can the costs spiral out of control”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 374 and 381.]
He wanted Labour Members to stand up
“and say exactly what they think of the welfare cap, and tell us that they support it, and that they should have introduced it when they were in office. They look such a cheery bunch.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.]
Well, we are cheery this afternoon, as we look for the soles of the feet of the Cheshire cat Chancellor who has carelessly and ignominiously fallen into his own welfare cat trap. It is less a case of being hoist by his own petard, as slipping on his own smirk. Where is he today to answer these questions? A year ago, he was insistent that it would be he who would be called to account in this House for the breach in the welfare cap. He said in the same debate:
“The charter makes clear what will happen if the welfare cap is breached. The Chancellor—
not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or one of his Ministers, but the Chancellor—
“must come to Parliament, account for the failure of public expenditure control, and set out the action that will be taken to address the breach.” —[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.]
But cometh the hour, there is no sign of the cat. He has disappeared. Even the smirk has disappeared.
Owen Smith
I would trust my shadow Ministers with my life. However, I thought that this was a very important subject. I thought that the welfare cap was one of those things that—what did I say earlier on?—was a great step forward in the British welfare state. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should respond, and I cannot understand for a minute why the right hon. Gentleman wanted his junior Minister to do this belittling debate. The shadow Chancellor is not here. He has disappeared, much like the Cheshire cat—better than that, like Macavity the cat.
Owen Smith
I know, okay, the Chancellor: the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), in Cheshire—the Cheshire cat—and given that he is rather like Macavity, rather than the Cheshire cat, I thought that I would give the House a treat. I read that there were no Etonians on the Front Bench among the new intake, and I was worried that the lack of classical education from which the Treasury Bench normally benefits might mean that the Macavity reference went over Ministers’ heads, so I brought a little book with me, and I shall read a section from it. [Interruption.] It is not Mao; it is T.S. Eliot’s collected poems. It gives us Macavity the mystery cat, who is, of course, the Chancellor:
there’s no one like Macavity…
he’s very tall and thin;
You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in—
I think that is the 5:2 diet—
He’s outwardly respectable
although
(They say he cheats at cards.)—
I bet he does—
And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled…
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatever time the deed took place—MACAVITY WASN’T THERE!
Macavity is not here today, is he? And the deed that he is ducking, of course, is this embarrassing, humiliating U-turn. The cap has been breached, and the Government have done it, of course, because of the spectacular, screeching U-turn on tax credits.
Automatic Enrolment Annual Thresholds Review
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) has made the following written statement.
I am today announcing the proposed automatic enrolment thresholds for next year.
It is intended to lay an Order before Parliament in the new year which will include the following: £43,000 for the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band.
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will be frozen at £10,000. The lower limit of the qualifying earnings band will also remain frozen at £5,824.
I will also be placing a copy of the analysis supporting the proposed revised thresholds in the Library of the House and a copy can be found online at: www.gov.uk
[HCWS392]