British Airways (Pensions Uprating)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her promotion to the shadow Cabinet, which I am sure will bring her much excitement, as well as much busyness? I also congratulate her on securing this debate. It is clear from this evening’s turnout, on both sides of the political divide, that this is certainly a popular issue, and one that affects many people, and therefore many Members of Parliament, in a wide variety of constituencies.
I trust that the hon. Lady, and colleagues throughout the Chamber, will appreciate that it is not appropriate for a Minister to comment on the running of individual schemes or individual trustee decisions. Moreover, I hope she will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on matters that are subject to ongoing legal proceedings, as is the case here. She will be aware, as will other Members, that the case brought by British Airways against the trustees is scheduled for a hearing for 25 days in February next year.
Kate Green
As I explained, there are two separate matters. I am not discussing the matter that is before the courts—it would be wholly inappropriate to do so in this House tonight—but raising a separate matter that is not the subject of litigation.
Mr Vara
The trust and British Airways—the whole organisation—have been the hon. Lady’s subject in this debate. Both are taking part in a debate concerning the trust that was originally set up in 1948. I think it is inappropriate to comment, because there is a huge overlap. She has been in the House for long enough to know, as have other Members, that in such a situation where there is pending litigation it is inappropriate and wrong for Ministers to comment. However, I can speak in a general way and, I hope, address some of the issues she has raised.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I understand that the Minister is unable to comment directly, but does he accept that the High Court has described BA’s behaviour as entirely unrealistic and unreasonable?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend will be aware that the judiciary are completely independent of the Executive and, indeed, Parliament. It is not appropriate for me to comment on what the judiciary say because they are completely independent and entitled to say what they want in relation to court decisions.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Tomlinson
I understand the comments that the Minister has made, but will he none the less accept the frustration felt by many people, including my constituents, at obtaining less than they had anticipated when saving for their retirement?
Mr Vara
I fully appreciate the frustration—indeed, anger—of people who were expecting something on their retirement but who will no longer receive it. I hope, however, that colleagues will recognise that the pension scheme was set up in 1948, at a time of nationalised industries when nationalisation was the norm, and we now live in a totally different climate with a totally different economy where the industry is not nationalised any more. We have to abide by the rules of the set-up of that pension scheme. As a trust, it is at arm’s-length from anything that the Government can do. People here who know trust law will appreciate that.
Legislation provides for a minimum level of indexation that applies to certain pensions. Currently, schemes must increase defined-benefit pensions that are in payment and were accrued between April 1997 and March 2006 by inflation capped at 5%. Pensions accrued from April 2006 onwards must be increased by inflation capped at 2.5%. The exact measure of inflation is not defined in legislation. It is for the Secretary of State to make a judgment each year on the measure to be used from those available.
The rules of an occupational pension scheme may make more generous provision than is required in legislation, either regarding pre-1997 accruals or providing for increases above the level of the statutory minimum. However, these are matters for schemes and the trustees; the scheme will have met its obligations under pension law by paying the statutory minimum.
I understand that the APS rules provide for the rate of increase to be the same as those specified in orders issued under section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which provides for public sector pension increases. Every year, public service pension increases are set out in an order issued by Treasury Ministers under section 59, which requires the Treasury to provide the same level of increase as the additional state pension that is set out in the social security benefits uprating order made by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
The legislation, however, does not specify a particular index as the appropriate measure of price increases. The increase in the general level of prices has always been a matter for the Secretary of State to decide every year, and to help him make that decision he will look at the various indices of price increases. However, he only has to choose a suitable index—he does not have to choose the index that gives the highest possible increase.
In the past, the Government used the retail prices index as the measure of inflation. However, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has said, in 2010 the Government decided that the consumer prices index is a more appropriate measure of changes in the cost of living than the RPI for public service pensions, certain state pensions and benefits, and the statutory minimum increases for occupational pensions. Therefore, if the Secretary of State decides to use CPI as the measure of the general increase in prices, as is currently the case and has been since 2010, any scheme whose rules required increases under section 59 would find itself making increases on the same basis. I must emphasise that any payments in addition to that level will depend on scheme rules and the powers available to the trustees.
James Berry
Does the Minister agree that, while there is little the Government can do in a private trust matter that is currently before the High Court, there is much that British Airways could do for its 28,000 pensioners on the APS scheme, including my constituents, by facing up to either the letter or the spirit of its responsibilities?
Mr Vara
I am sure that British Airways is keeping a watchful eye on the Chamber and has noted the presence of not only those who have had the opportunity to speak, but the many others who support them.
Having explained the switch to CPI, I would like to return to the role of trustees in running pension schemes, including setting pension increases. I have explained that any increases above the statutory minimum are a matter for scheme rules and the trustees. In some cases, the increases will be at the discretion of the trustees; in others, the rate will be written into the rules. The House will appreciate, however, that in view of the issues in the ongoing High Court proceedings, I cannot comment on either the ambit or use of powers by the APS trustees.
Trustees of pension schemes are the same as those of any other trust, and much of what they do is governed by trust law. They have to act in line with the trust deed and scheme rules and they have to act impartially, prudently, responsibly and honestly, and in the best interests of beneficiaries. Those obligations apply regardless of whether trustees are nominated by the employer or by members. That means that trustees may have a potential conflict of interest, and the Pensions Regulator issues guidance on how trustees should manage them should they arise.
Trustees are also required, under pensions legislation, to undertake certain actions to ensure that the scheme is funded to meet its liabilities and that it can pay the right amount of benefits to the right people at the right time. Having set those parameters, the Government do not interfere in the running of individual schemes. Regulation of occupational schemes is undertaken by the Pensions Regulator. If it appears that trustees are not carrying out their duties correctly, the regulator may intervene. Alternatively, members may have recourse to the pensions ombudsman or the courts, which is the route being taken at present.
However, another party is involved: the sponsoring employer. The employer is ultimately responsible for putting enough money into the scheme to pay the benefits due under its rules, which is why it is essential for trustees and sponsoring employers to work together when agreeing the level of employer contributions—even more so if the scheme is in deficit and the employer has to pay in extra contributions to make good the shortfall. Inevitably, employers and trustees sometimes cannot resolve disputes, so it falls to the courts to determine the outcome. Sadly, that is the case here.
Kate Green
Will the Minister comment on the appropriate balance between the responsibility to the interests of the company and the trustees’ fiduciary responsibility to scheme members?
Mr Vara
It is a complex legal matter. There certainly are responsibilities, but they extend to trying to build a good working relationship with all concerned, as well as relationships that are in law. Having such a working relationship—it is not defined in law, but is common sense—is critical if we are to reach a proper solution. Sadly, that has not worked out in this instance, so we have this 25-day hearing, which is a significant amount of time. It is a very complex case about which much will clearly have to be said in due course. However, much has already been said.
I have but a few seconds in which to speak, so I simply say to the hon. Lady and colleagues that it is good to see so many Members in the Chamber for an Adjournment debate. Given that we were threatened with up to four votes, it is fortunate that we will all be able to get away this side of midnight. I commend the hon. Lady again for raising this matter. We await the result of the court case in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Cold Weather Payments Scheme 2015-16
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 5 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 pleased to announce that the Department for Work and Pensions intends to lay amendments to the cold weather payment scheme regulations by the end of September 2015. The changes detailed in these regulations will come into force on 1 November this year, in time for the beginning of the winter period.
This year the Met Office has recommended the replacement of two primary weather stations.
First, Tibenham airfield is proposed as a replacement for Norwich airport which is likely to have reduced availability. Tibenham airfield is a similarly representative station for the region and therefore a suitable replacement for Norwich airport both geographically and climatologically. As a direct weather station replacement all postcodes currently linked to Norwich airport will be moved to Tibenham.
Secondly, Llysdinam is proposed as a more suitable station for those areas currently covered by Sennybridge. Llysdinam is geographically and climatologically closer to the main populated areas of the region in and around Llandrindod Wells and Builth Wells. As a direct weather station replacement all the current postcode links will be transferred to this new station.
The regulations also make other minor changes to the alternative weather stations. This will ensure that the weather stations to postcode links are as representative as possible.
I will be writing to each Member whose constituency will be affected by the changes in the scheme, to make them aware of the advice from the Met Office.
Cold weather payments are separate from, and in addition to, winter fuel payments.
The amendments resulted from the Department’s annual review of the cold weather payments scheme. The review drew on expert advice from the Met Office and took account of representations from benefit claimants and Members of Parliament.
For winter 2015-16 the cold weather payment rate will continue to be £25 for each seven day period of very cold weather.
[HCWS192]
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Second sitting)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
Q 6 May I ask one last question? It has been suggested that some people who do not return to work—perhaps people who are on long-term sickness or disability benefits and do not become well enough to return to work—will never make repayments of the loan as a result of returning to employment, but will be able to do so when the house is sold. For some of those people, the sale is likely to take place at the point when they become so disabled that they need to make adaptations and perhaps downsize to release equity to do so. How will the market respond and what are the risks of those people being unable to fund a move to more suitable supportive housing?
Paul Smee: I think that any lender would want to talk to the borrower about the circumstances in which they found themselves. There might be ways, using conventional lending instruments of one form or another, to find a way through. Whether the Government at that point decide to exercise their second charge and in effect demand repayment of the loan would be up to them, but I believe the lending industry would want to work with the borrower to come to some sort of acceptable outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Q 7 Welcome, gentlemen. It would be the Government’s intention to have comprehensive advice for claimants who are in the position of having interest that is to be converted into a loan—by way of advice on the accrual of interest and on the impact of the second charge. It could be a third or fourth charge depending on how many debts they have. It is our intention to give comprehensive advice. Is there anything that we should be mindful of when considering the advice to give? What would you emphasise that we should make clear to claimants?
Paul Smee: The first point I would make is that the advice that you will be giving will not be regulated advice within the regulatory framework to which my lenders are subject.
Mr Vara
I appreciate that. This is just to inform them of the consequences of what we are doing.
Paul Smee: Yes, and lenders would be constrained if that was the case so we accept that. In the giving of advice, people should understand where the Government are coming from in being able to claim repayment of the loan and where they stand with their mortgage lender—they should understand that the Government do not take the place of the mortgage lender as a first charge holder. There is some basic understanding around the framework.
There will then be a need to explore whether it is in the financial interests of a particular individual, particularly at the end of a waiting period, to claim support for mortgage interest. It will be important to ensure that the provider of that advice has the ability to walk a borrower through the available options so that they come to the best solution in their circumstances.
Paul Broadhead: It is ensuring that the advice is available in a way that people want to receive it and can understand it. I agree with my colleague that this is not regulated advice and is more about guidance and understanding the impact of taking what was a benefit and is now a loan. I would equate it more to the money advice out there at the moment if somebody is in financial difficulty. There are channels that do that face to face, online and over the telephone. A study of how that market works currently would be helpful in finalising the channels for providing that advice to consumers. One thing I would say is that 167,000 people are in receipt of this as a benefit now. That is a big group of people to get through advice between now and April 2018. Care needs to be taken there.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Q 8 Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. Why should homeowners be forced into extra debt when the renting sector has access to housing benefit? That seems somewhat iniquitous given that many of those people are already struggling financially and are on benefits. Will the measure mean that people on low incomes and in insecure jobs will be disadvantaged or excluded from getting on to the housing ladder as a result of the change?
Paul Smee: On the first point, I think that the rationale is that the individual concerned has an asset, and that that asset is realisable and, at the moment certainly, appreciating in value. I can understand when, at a time when policy choices are being made, the argument is that, given the existence of that asset, it is better to have some claim back of any money that is paid out.
When it comes to getting on the housing ladder, particular checks are already in place to ensure that people do not over-borrow and get into financial problems. That is enforced by the regulators of the financial services system. I do not believe that the change in SMI proposals will in any way add to the protections or inhibitions that the current regulatory system imposes.
Paul Broadhead: I agree with what Paul just said. The only thing I would add is that, in a case where it is not repaid from the sale of an asset—either on death, on the sale of the property or whatever it may be—and someone moves back into work, it is vital that they are not put under undue pressure, having been in financial difficulty and got themselves back on their feet with their mortgage payment, to make contributions that are perhaps not affordable in their circumstances at that time. Because we are in primary legislation mode, the detail of that is not yet clear, but it is an important consideration for later down the line.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of Torquay magistrates court on witnesses and other court users.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
No decision has been taken to close Torquay magistrates court. A full assessment of the potential impact will be made once the consultation closes and responses have been properly analysed.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for that answer. In Torbay there are real concerns that the closure of the court could see an end to justice locally, with victims and witnesses having to travel long distances for cases. Is he willing to consider options that would help retain some local justice within Devon’s second largest urban area?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend and I have spoken about this, and I commend his diligence in campaigning for his constituents. If there are other options, such as using other civic buildings—town halls and the like—I am very keen to consider them, so I hope that he will contribute to the consultation.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the recent reorganisation of HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The infrastructure supporting the administration of the courts and tribunals is in desperate need of reform to deliver faster and fairer justice for all citizens. The way the service operates is inefficient, disjointed and based on technology that is simply out of date. The reform programme, which is strongly supported by the senior judiciary, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient courts and tribunals service.
Rebecca Pow
Although I am aware of the proposed integration of Taunton tribunal service with the nearby magistrates court just down the road that will enable greater efficiency to the service, could the Minister kindly broaden the picture by confirming how many courts and tribunals were empty for more than half of their hearing time, which highlights other areas where efficiencies might be made?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to note the integration of the two sites in her constituency, which are within half a mile of each other. In 2013-14, 170 courts and tribunals—more than a third of the total number—were empty for more than half their available hearing time. The current court estate is clearly inefficient and underused. Our reform programme is an opportunity to create a modern, more user-focused and efficient service that better serves the taxpayer.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Workington court in my constituency is one of the courts up for closure. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the impact that that will have on my constituents getting to courts. He recently said that when looking for courts up for closure:
“What we tried to do was to make sure that the time it will take for any citizen to travel to court remains less than an hour.”
Currently, it takes less than half an hour for 83% of my constituents to get to court.
Sue Hayman
I will be very quick.
If the court is closed, 58% will take up to two hours if they have a car, and 43% will take over two hours by public transport. Does the Minister consider that acceptable, and will he look at it again?
Mr Vara
May I first assure the hon. Lady that this is a consultation and that no decisions have been taken so far? We want to be modern and to move into the 21st century, during which many people will simply not have to travel to courts, whatever the distances. We are moving to using video conferencing facilities, particularly for victims and witnesses. Courts are already doing that with prisoners, so the travel element will diminish.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is now a considerable time since the Government closed down Keighley magistrates court in Bingley in my constituency and moved the operation to Bradford. However, the magistrates court in Bingley is still lying idle, costing the Government money in maintaining it and not doing anything for the local economy in Bingley. Despite my badgering the Minister about this on many occasions, not a great deal seems to have happened. May I urge him to pull his finger out and get on with selling this building and bringing it back into use, which is much needed for the local economy?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Minister agree that the proposed closure of magistrates courts in rural areas, such as Dolgellau, where it is impossible to reach alternative courts in time by public transport, will in effect shift the cost of justice on to victims and witnesses, who participate in the justice system through no fault of their own?
Mr Vara
I assure the hon. Lady that we have been particularly careful to take account of rural areas, such as those in Wales. I reinforce the point I made earlier that many people will not be required to attend court; that will apply only in some cases. Where people have such difficulties, they can speak to court officials to try to ensure that their cases are listed at a more acceptable time.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
13. What assessment his Department has made of the effect on travelling distances and catchment areas when considering closures of magistrates courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Under the current consultation proposals, it will still be the case that over 95% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car, a change of just 1% for Crown and magistrates courts and 2% for county courts. The proportion able to reach a tribunal within an hour by car will remain unchanged at 83%.
Tom Pursglove
If Corby magistrates court is closed, some of my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire would have to drive for more than an hour to get to the nearest magistrates court, and many of those journeys would be impossible by public transport. I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and local magistrates to talk about this, but what consideration has been given to this particular problem in Corby?
Mr Vara
As my hon. Friend says, we have corresponded about this problem and we have agreed to meet some of his constituents. I reassure him that this is a genuine consultation and that no decisions have been taken. If he has concerns, I very much hope that he and his constituents will make submissions to the consultation, which I assure him will be given very careful consideration. I hope he will contribute to that.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
The consultation document on proposed court closures in Greater Manchester discusses the future use of non-court buildings, which I would support, particularly for pre-recording the cross-examination of evidence from vulnerable child witnesses. Will the Minister give us more detail of his thoughts, because it is important for the protection of vulnerable witnesses that the right courts are closed in the right places?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for echoing the support for what we are trying to achieve. We are not setting any limitations at the moment; we are in listening mode. Where there is an under-utilised court, I envisage facilities being used for a couple of days in a town hall, for example. Perhaps the chamber or another available room may be rented. It does not have to be a public or civic building, but such buildings come to mind instantly. Currently, people can go to nearby facilities and give evidence via video conferencing so that they do not have to go to court, which is particularly helpful for vulnerable witnesses and victims.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister should listen to Members from all parts of the House on this issue. Although he says that this is a consultation, he is already assuming that an hour by car is a reasonable distance. Of course, many people, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to a car. Cases in magistrates courts are taking a week longer than they did four years ago and dozens of magistrates are resigning over the unworkable courts charge. Is not the Government destroying local justice?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman speaks about listening. Perhaps he might take his own advice and do some listening as well. The Government are proposing to undertake a once-in-a-generation reform of the courts system and estate. It would be helpful if he co-operated and supported us in achieving what will be of ultimate benefit to the consumer and the public. They will benefit by getting faster and better justice, and Britain will remain world renowned for legal services.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of the effect on the provision of justice of proposed court closures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The current courts system is unsustainable and we want to create a more modern, user-focused and efficient service that is better for all. Ensuring that the public can access courts when they need them will be uppermost in my mind when considering the future of any court, once the consultation closes.
Gareth Johnson
It is disappointing that my local court in Dartford has been earmarked for closure. Will the Minister please assure the House that when he decides which courts will be closed, he will give weight to the valid argument that local justice is at its best when meted out by local people in a local courthouse?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is another Member who is doughty in speaking up for his constituents and I commend him for that. Again, as far as Dartford magistrates court is concerned, I assure him that no final decisions have been taken. Local justice is important and I am open to suggestions of other venues. I reiterate that we have the potential to use video conferencing. Lawyers are already using telephone conferencing. Two sets of lawyers will have a three-way conversation with a judge in chambers, rather than going to court as they did in old times. We must make use of modern technology if we are to keep pace with the 21st century.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I remain concerned about the proposed closure of Feltham magistrates court, following the closure of Brentford magistrates court. I am concerned that it will break the fundamental link between local people and the justice system, and not just because of the travel issues. Feltham magistrates court has been successful in running school competitions to increase understanding of the justice system. Is the Minister concerned about the collective impact of the proposals, alongside the closure of police stations, on people’s relationship with the justice system and on its effectiveness in our communities?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady and I have spoken about the proposals in her constituency. I am confident that the connection that police and the local justice system have with the local community will remain strong. The only thing that will happen is that we will move to a 21st-century legal system. I emphasise that the proposal has the total backing of the senior judiciary. They are the people who operate within the courts and they support the proposals.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
15. What steps his Department is taking to ensure the (a) timeliness and (b) accuracy and quality of the content of answers to parliamentary questions by his Department.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
T3. Skegness court is one of the most underused in the country and one of the least able to cope with vulnerable prisoners. I am not sentimental about the building, but will the Minister assure me that we can still dispense justice locally in Skegness, perhaps in another facility?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I very much look forward to hearing of any options he has when he responds to the consultation.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T4. The National Audit Office has estimated that between 160,000 and 220,000 careworkers are illegally paid below the national minimum wage, but if they seek redress, those workers, without money, are expected to pay hundreds of pounds in employment tribunal fees. Does the Secretary of State accept that his Department’s tribunal fee policy makes a mockery of the Prime Minister talking tough on poverty pay?
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
T7. When the criminal courts charge was introduced, Labour warned that the lack of judicial discretion would result in miscarriages of justice, with people pleading guilty to avoid additional cost. It concerns me that people may be pleading guilty to save money in the short term. That will have a longer term impact on employment opportunities. Does the Minister think that is right and fair?
Mr Vara
I very much hope that if people are innocent, they will plead innocent. It is important to remember that the charge is levied at the end of all the other charges—costs, compensation, victims’ surcharge and so on. The charge is also based on ability to pay, so if people are having difficulty, they will not be forced to pay. If they do keep to their payments, no matter how minimal they are, then after two years the rest of the sum is actually scrapped.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
T6. Does my hon. Friend agree that on a complex constitutional Bill, such as the British Bill of Rights, it is important that time is taken and there is proper consultation so that all the issues can be considered, unlike in 1997 when the Human Rights Act was introduced?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
T9. Lambeth county court serves my constituency. Will the Minister clarify whether the court met the Department’s definition of underused or surplus, if 50% of its available hearing time went unused? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of its potential closure on my constituents?
Mr Vara
No firm decisions have been made at the moment. The consultation document has individual papers as far as each individual court is concerned. They are quite comprehensive. If the hon. Gentleman has issues and concerns, I am happy for him to write to me and I am happy to correspond with him while the consultation is taking place.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
T8. Last week, the Youth Justice Board announced that the contractor running the Rainsbrook secure training centre in my constituency will change shortly. What discussions has the Minister had to help to ensure that the centre and its staff have a smooth and timely transition to the new contractor?
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
A key value of Tottenham magistrates court, which is earmarked for closure, has been the delivery of local, visible justice. Will the Department seriously consider Enfield’s civic centre, or other community buildings, so that young people in particular can see it as a place where first hearing youth courts can take place and deliver effective local justice?
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
There are serious concerns about the proposed closure of St Helens county and magistrates court. It is a well- used, fit-for-purpose building and it was only in 2012 that £1.7 million was spent to accommodate the county court. The consultation document states that 95% of attendees will be able to travel within an hour, but no consideration has been given to outlying areas of our borough. Although there is a direct transit bus and rail, there is no direct—
Mr Speaker
What, that I ever learnt? [Laughter.] Topical questions are supposed to be a little shorter.
Mr Vara
I am pleased that the hon. Lady was able to get her contribution in at the end. As I said, this is a consultation and no firm decisions have been taken. I know she has written me a comprehensive letter, to which I have responded, but that was a while ago, so I am happy to have further correspondence with her, if necessary.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister already knows my views on the unacceptability of the proposed closure of Lowestoft court. Is he aware that if the proposed closures of Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds go ahead, Suffolk will be the worst English county in terms of magistrates courts per square mile, with one court covering 1,466 square miles, compared with 692 square miles in Norfolk, 355 square miles in Essex and 655 square miles in neighbouring Cambridgeshire?
Mr Vara
It is clear that people in Suffolk are more law-abiding. My hon. Friend and I have of course met and corresponded, and I am happy to continue that engagement. No firm decisions have been taken, and I commend him for the conscientious way in which he speaks up for his constituents.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
If the proposed closure of Scunthorpe magistrates and family court goes ahead, people living in Hibaldstow, Scawby and Redbourne will have to travel more than two and a half hours by public transport each way to access the courts system. Will the Minister take up the challenge from Mandy Talbot, the chair of the local bench, to come to Scunthorpe and look at the practical effects of these proposals on the delivery of local justice before he makes a decision?
Mr Vara
As I have said a few times already this Question Time, it is intended that many people who currently travel to courts will not have to do so. Access to justice does not simply mean an actual physical presence in a court. If, however, the hon. Gentleman and his constituents want a meeting, I am more than happy to meet them.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Court users in Bury realise that the best use has to be made of the court estate, but will the Minister confirm that if they come up with an alternative set of proposals to reorganise the court structure in Greater Manchester, they will be given genuine and serious consideration?
Mr Vara
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will be treating all submissions carefully. No decisions have been made yet. We are proposing a radical new direction for the future of our courts system, and if sensible proposals are made, we will certainly consider them.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that in their programme for government 2015-16 the Scottish Government said that they would abolish employment tribunal fees using powers to be devolved under the Scotland Bill. Will he now recognise that the introduction of those fees has prevented access to justice and follow the Scottish Government’s lead by abolishing those fees across the UK so that all workers in the UK can afford to have their cases heard?
HM Courts & Tribunal Service
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice (Lord Faulks QC) made the following written statement on 22 July 2015.
“I am today announcing the Government’s response to the consultation on proposals for increases to court fees, which was published on 16 January 2015, and also launching a new consultation on further proposals.
The courts fulfil a vital role in an effective and functioning democracy. They provide access to justice for those who need it, upholding the principle of the rule of law. That is why we need to make sure that the courts and tribunals are properly funded.
The Secretary of State and the Courts Minister have set out separately plans for reform to the courts and tribunals where we will be investing in reforms that will deliver a modernised, leaner, and more efficient system.
To deliver this vision, we need a strong, secure and effective economy. This Government were elected to continue our work to fix the economy, by reducing public spending, eliminating the deficit and reducing the national debt. The courts and tribunals must continue to play their part in this national effort as much as any other public service.
There is, however, only so much that can be delivered through efficiency measures alone. If we are to secure sustainable funding of the courts and tribunals, we must also look to those who use the system to contribute more where they can afford to do so.
That is why we have to look again at court fees. Despite the fees already introduced, HMCTS still costs £1 billion a year more to run than it receives in income. In considering the changes outlined below, we have been determined to:
deliver faster and fairer justice for all;
protect the weak and vulnerable;
promote equality of all before the law.
Following a consultation launched by the coalition Government in January 2015, today’s Government response confirms that we will:
increase the fees for issuing a possession claim in the county court by £75, from £280 to £355. Our analysis of the available evidence suggests that this increase will not deter anyone who would otherwise have taken their claim to court;
increase the fees for general applications in civil proceedings by £50, from £50 to £100, for an application by consent and by £100, from £155 to £255, for a contested application. In order to ensure the most vulnerable are not affected, we are excluding from this fee rise applications such as those to vary or extend an injunction for protection from harassment or violence.
In December 2013, the coalition Government also consulted on increasing the fee payable to issue divorce proceedings from £410 to £750. Today we are announcing that we will: increase the fees for issuing divorce proceedings to £550. We have carefully considered the concerns raised during the consultation and decided not to increase fees by 80% as originally proposed. Instead we will press ahead with a more affordable increase of about a third. We are also protecting the most vulnerable by ensuring that fee remission is available for those who need it, such as women in low wage households.
These three measures are estimated to deliver over £60 million in additional income each year but the drive to reduce costs is ongoing. We are therefore also announcing today a consultation on further proposals:
an increase in the maximum fee for money claims from £10,000 to at least £20,000. Fees are currently payable on 5% of the value of a claim up to a maximum fee of £10,000. This change will only affect the highest value claims, worth £200,000 or more. There are 1.2 million money claims each year, of which 5,000 will be affected. That is just 0.4% of the total, or one in every 240 money claims. Many of the claims brought for higher values will involve large multi-national organisations or wealthy individuals, and we believe it is right to ask them to contribute more. In order to protect the most vulnerable, personal injury and clinical negligence claims will be excluded from this higher cap and fee remissions for those of limited means will continue to apply;
introducing or increasing fees for certain tribunals. We are proposing to double fees in the immigration and asylum chamber, while applying exemptions to protect the most vulnerable. We will not be applying any fees to the social entitlement chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, where most applicants do not have the means to pay, or to the Mental Health Tribunal, which deals with especially vulnerable individuals. We will, however, introduce fees to the property, tax and general regulatory chambers. In the property tribunal, we are proposing fees at low levels for the majority of applications, while setting higher fees for leasehold enfranchisement cases where there are often large sums of money at stake. In each of the tribunals being consulted on, we aim to recover 25% of the total cost of the service through fees with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill;
a general uplift of 10% to a wide range of fees in civil proceedings. These are small increases and only apply to fees which are not already above full cost.
These further proposals are estimated to generate around £48 million a year in additional income.
We are committed to protecting access to justice for all and so we will: make the remissions scheme more generous. We will increase the amount of disposable capital those who need to pay a larger court fee are allowed to have in order to qualify for remission. We are also considering whether other forms of payment or benefit should be excluded from the disposable capital test. The HMCTS remission scheme will apply across all the courts and tribunals on which we are consulting, with the exception of the immigration and asylum chamber where separate arrangements are in place.
Full details are set out in the consultation paper which is available on the MoJ website. The consultation will close on 15 September.”
We recognise that fee increases are not popular but they are necessary if we are to deliver our promises to fix the economy and bring the nation into surplus. At every stage we have sought to protect the most vulnerable by ensuring they will not have to pay new and higher fees and by making the remissions scheme more generous. We have also sought to ensure that those who can afford to—such as wealthy individuals or large corporations making very high money claims—will make a bigger contribution. Every pound we collect from these fee increases will be spent on providing an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals.
[HCWS176]
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
On 23 June 2015 the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice announced his intention to work with the judiciary to reform the courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Reform will bring quicker and fairer access to justice and create a justice system that reflects the way people use services today.
Progress towards a modernised service is already being made. Wi-fi and digital screens have been introduced into many court buildings and a digital case management system for the administration of criminal cases is well under way.
This is encouraging progress, but more needs to be done. There is a broad consensus that the current system is unsustainable and that we have an opportunity to create a modern, more user-focused and efficient service.
Increased use of technology such as video, telephone and online conferencing will help drive these improvements. Straightforward, transactional matters, such as paying a fine and obtaining probate can be dealt with using digital technology to make the processes as straightforward as filing a tax return. Many straightforward cases do not need face to face hearings which should be reserved for the most sensitive or complex cases.
We can only provide better access to justice if we take difficult decisions to reduce the cost of our estate and reinvest the savings. As the Secretary of State told Parliament, this means,
“a significant number of additional courts will have to close.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 755.]
I am today announcing a consultation on the closure of 91 courts and tribunals in England and Wales. I am also announcing the integration of 31 courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service operates 460 courts and tribunal hearing centres across England and Wales. The estate costs taxpayers around half a billion pounds each year, and at present, it is underused. Last year over a third of all courts and tribunals were empty for more than 50% of their available hearing time.
Today’s consultation puts forward proposals that aim to reduce this surplus capacity. The buildings being consulted on represent 16% of hearing rooms across the estate which are, on average, used for only a third of their available time. That is equivalent to fewer than two out of five days in a week.
The majority of these courts are not used for at least two thirds of their available time, and one in three is not used three quarters of the time.
Attending court is rare for most people. It will still be the case that, after these changes, over 95% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car. This represents a change of just 1 percentage point for Crown and magistrates’ courts and 2 percentage points for county courts. The proportion of citizens able to reach a tribunal within an hour by car will remain unchanged at 83%.
To ensure that access to justice is maintained, even in more rural locations, we are committed to providing alternative ways for users to access our services. That can mean using civic and other public buildings, such as town halls, for hearings instead of underused, poorly maintained permanent courts.
We are reforming the courts and tribunal service so that it meets the needs of modern day users.
As we bring in digital technology for better and more efficient access to justice, fewer people will need to physically be in a court.
This means that we will need fewer buildings, and with many already underused and in poor quality, now is a good time to review the estate.
The consultation will begin on Thursday 16 July and run for 12 weeks. A response to consultation will be published following proper consideration of all views submitted.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS28]
Judicial Diversity Taskforce (Annual Report)
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The judicial diversity taskforce has today published its fourth annual report, which details the progress the group has made in addressing the 53 recommendations of the advisory panel on judicial diversity. The taskforce comprises of senior members of the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and the Ministry of Justice.
Our judges are rightly held in high regard around the world, and it is important that they reflect today’s diverse society, which is why we are pleased such significant progress was made by members of the taskforce over 2014. In large part this was driven by our collaborative approach to improving diversity and engaging in new ways of working across the legal and judicial professions.
Some of the achievements of the taskforce include:
Successful implementation of the equal merit provision; which allows for a candidate to be recommended for appointment for the purpose of improving diversity within the judiciary in instances when two or more candidates are of equal merit.
Extending the opportunity for salaried office holders to sit part time in the High Court and above.
Identification of ways to improve the selection and recommendation process for judicial appointments through an external review.
Improvements in statistical reporting, and in data collection and management, to better monitor and evaluate progress on judicial diversity.
Arranging a series of workshops and training programmes aimed at encouraging under- represented groups to enter the judiciary.
Increasing the amount of Diversity and Community Relation Judges, who play a key role in outreach events and act as figureheads for diversity and community engagement.
The judicial diversity taskforce held its last meeting in November 2014 and this will be its final annual report.
The oversight function of the taskforce will now be the responsibility of the Judicial Diversity Forum, which brings together most of the parties who were in the taskforce. The forum will continue to review progress against the outstanding and ongoing recommendations listed at the end of the report, and will work to identify new opportunities for action. This will ensure that the goal of improving judicial diversity continues to be embedded in the working practices of the judiciary, legal professions and Government.
Copies of the taskforce’s report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The report is also available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/judicial-diversity-taskforce-annual-report-2014
[HCWS60]
Oral Answers to Questions
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
3. What plans he has for the future of the court estate in Gloucestershire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The court estate in Gloucestershire, and across England and Wales, is a major asset of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Any new proposals on the future of the courts will be subject to consultation.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Will my hon. Friend, as part of the Courts and Tribunals Service reform programme, consider establishing one purpose-built building to house all court services?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I have discussed the issue of the courts in Gloucestershire—and in Gloucester in particular, where we have a Crown court that predates the battle of Waterloo—with the Minister and his predecessors for several years. As my neighbour and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), has said, our courts are in a dire position. Will he confirm today that the Department will look very closely at the state of the courts and take advantage of the opportunity to use the site we have reserved free of charge in Blackfriars?
Mr Vara
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election. I know the issue of the court structure was a key element in the general election. It is good to see that, post-election, he continues to battle for that cause. We have met and corresponded on this issue, so he will be aware that, as we speak, officials are engaged in considering the best way forward.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
4. What progress he has made on ensuring that prisoners undertake work in prisons.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Government recently announced that they were going ahead with a further 8.75% fee cut to criminal legal aid, the second in a year. The existing system, especially the online Crown Commercial Service system, is already wholly inadequate. What justification is there for further cuts, other than to further reduce access to justice for those most in need?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I first welcome the hon. Lady to the House?
It is important that we recognise that we have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, and that it needs to be sustainable. It has to be fair to the people who need legally aided advice, fair to the providers and fair to the taxpayer, who ultimately pays for it. As far as the latest 8.75% cut is concerned, we have made sure that there will be proper access for all those who need legal advice.
Legal Aid
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 8 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 am today confirming next steps for the criminal legal aid market.
Maintaining access to justice and upholding the principle that those accused of a crime have the right to representation in their defence is vitally important. We recognise and value the reputation our legal profession enjoys internationally. We must preserve that reputation while enhancing the quality of advocacy in our courts.
We cannot escape the fact, however that there is a pressing need to ensure our criminal justice system performs more efficiently. Last year we spent £1.7 billion on legal aid. Although that is down from the 2009-10 peak, it is still far higher than many other developed economies. As a proportion of GDP, we spend more on legal aid than any other EU nation outside the UK. And per capita, we spend more on legal aid than most other common law jurisdictions––double the amount spent in Australia, Canada and the Republic of Ireland.
Of course no two legal systems are identical, but there is no doubt we still have a generous system compared to other countries. The continuing need to reduce the deficit means that we must make further progress. We must secure greater efficiencies while maintaining a high quality service and guaranteeing that everyone accused of a crime has the same access to a legal aid lawyer as they do now.
The coalition Government announced a series of changes to secure savings in criminal legal aid, including:
Reducing litigators’ fees by 17.5%, with last year’s initial reduction of 8.75% followed by a further reduction of 8.75% this year.
Proceeding to introduce 527 new duty provider contracts, the tender for which was put out prior to the election.
Reducing advocacy fees by £10 million per year.
In considering the programme set in train by the previous Government for the criminal legal aid market, we have listened very carefully to the concerns of the profession. We share the view that we must protect the quality of the service provided by litigators and that we must make sure that this high quality service remains sustainable in all parts of England and Wales. We recognise that changes in the litigation market have the potential to affect the provision of advocacy, and agree that high quality advocacy also must be preserved and enhanced. We will be taking steps to work with the profession to explore measures to achieve this.
Having considered the findings of Sir Brian Leveson’s report into the efficiency of the criminal courts, the impact of broader criminal justice reforms, and the impact of changes already introduced, we have decided to press ahead with the second 8.75% reduction to litigators’ fees announced by the coalition Government.
Before reaching this conclusion, we examined changes to our forecast legal aid expenditure, changes to the existing market, provider withdrawal rates and reasons, contract extension acceptance and early information from the duty provider contract tender. This reassured us that legal aid reforms so far have not had any substantial negative impact on the sustainability of the service.
The statutory instrument implementing this reduction will be laid today, and the change will come into force on 1 July.
We will also proceed with the new duty provider contracts, the tender for which is already well underway. The Legal Aid Agency is currently assessing bids and is on track to announce decisions in the autumn. As intended by the coalition Government, these changes will help mitigate the impact of the cut to litigators’ fees. Organisations that are awarded duty provider contracts will have exclusive access to duty contract work and will benefit from economies of scale. Together, these changes will ensure there is a sustainable duty solicitor service across England and Wales.
We are particularly keen to ensure we retain a vibrant independent bar and protect the high standard of advocacy which is a hallmark of our justice system. Having listened carefully to the case put by the profession, we have decided not to reduce advocacy fees at this stage. Instead we want to work closely with the profession in order to explore alternative ways of securing savings through greater efficiencies in criminal proceedings. That will include implementing the findings of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, which contained wide-ranging recommendations to deliver more efficient criminal courts.
Taken together, these changes must be closely monitored in order to ensure we preserve access to justice and high quality advocacy. We will therefore establish a review to assess the impact of the litigators’ fee reduction and the dual contracting model on access to justice and the quality of litigation and advocacy provision. This review will be undertaken by an individual independent of Government, and will commence in July 2016.
Although the transition will be challenging, the changes we are pressing ahead with today are designed to ensure that we have a system of criminal legal aid that delivers value for money to taxpayers, that provides high quality legal advice to those that need it most, and that puts the profession on a sustainable footing for the long term.
[HCWS22]
Property/affairs: Missing Persons
Shailesh Vara Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written statement.
“I am pleased to announce that following its consideration of the responses to the consultation paper published by the Ministry of Justice on 27 August 2014 the Government have decided to create the new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person.
The Government strongly support the creation of the new legal status and will now prepare the necessary primary and secondary legislation and guidance to enable the proposed scheme to be implemented as quickly as possible. In this task we will continue to work with stakeholders to design a scheme that can be implemented at minimum cost and operated with minimum problems.
The timing of the introduction of the legislation will be decided by Ministers in the next Parliament. Nonetheless, given the importance of this measure, the strong support to date from all sides and its own commitment to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, the Government hope that legislation will be brought forward without delay in the new Parliament.
The key features of the proposed scheme will be:
A guardian will be required to act in the best interests of the missing person and in this respect will be subject to duties similar to those of a trustee.
The guardian will be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and will be required to file accounts in much the same way as a deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
A guardian will be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest in the property and affairs of the missing person.
The appointment will be for a period of up to four years with the possibility of applying for an extension for up to another four years.
The replies to the consultation are described and analysed in the response paper published by the Ministry of Justice today.
I have placed a copy of the response paper in the Library of each House of Parliament. It is also is available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk.”
[HCWS449]