State Pension Age (Women)

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman and I will touch on that point later.

The 2011 Act made women wait an extra year to a year and a half to claim their state pension. However, we have to remember and take into account the context which is women did not know about the initial 1995 Act. We have a situation where there is a whole host of women who read about the 2011 Act and went, “Oh, God. Okay, I am going to have to be working an extra two years. I’d better start making plans. Oh no, wait a minute, I’m working till I’m 66. Where did that come from?” There is a whole host of women who have been given a double whammy. The Government have not and are not giving women enough time to prepare alternative plans. There have to be better transitional arrangements.

The Conservative ethos is to encourage independence and responsible choice, but how can that happen if we do not give people the time to make the responsible choices? By continuing this policy at such a high speed, the Government are knowingly and deliberately placing another burden on women who are already trying to deal with consequences of an Act passed 21 years ago that they have only now found out about. To put that into context, I am 21—that’s how old this is.

One of my constituents told me that she began working at 17 and chose to pay the full rate of national insurance on the basis that she would retire at 60. Other options were available to her, but she said, “I want to retire at 60 so I’ll pay the price, through national insurance, my whole working life.” She put it in a way that I think is a very good and accurate description of what is happening. She has now found out that she is not retiring until she is 66. She says:

“The coalition and this present Government have stripped us of our pensions with no prior warning and with no regard to the contract we all entered when we were 17.”

She uses the term “contract”. That is an important point, because pensions are not benefits; they are a contract. People enter into them on the basis that if they pay X amount of national insurance they will receive Y at a certain age.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

That is also the case for my constituent who at 57-and-a-half realised she would no longer be able to retire at 60. She is a care worker doing an extremely physically demanding job. She now has to work until she is 66. She has had a low income throughout her life working as a care worker and now has to carry on doing this demanding job for a further six years.

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more. Every Member, if they contact their constituents, will recognise that this problem spreads across the whole of the UK and affects women of all classes, from different backgrounds and with different jobs.

In criminal law, if we want to send someone to jail, it has to be agreed beforehand how long that person is going away for, and if that needs to change, there are appropriate measures to deal with it. In civil law, if we enter into a contract, there are terms and conditions stating, “If you want to change this contract or break out of it, there will be a price to pay.” Why are pensions any different? This is a contract people have entered into, but it is now being broken and nothing is being done to allow them to transition. These women have done exactly what was asked of them—they have worked hard all their lives and paid their national insurance—but it is now being taken from them behind their backs.

What is worse, if the Government choose to continue with the policy, they will be completely ignoring the years of gender inequality these women have lived through. Another constituent of mine, Kathleen Birney, explains that she worked until her children came along. Her husband could no longer work because of a disability, but she was determined not to depend on state benefits, so she studied and became a primary school teacher. She cared for her husband and her children, and she never claimed a penny. She has based all her life plans and financial plans on the basis that she would be retiring at 60. She has now found out that she cannot retire until she is 66. Unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of our economy. They have saved consecutive Governments an absolute fortune time and again. Sadly, women in our society have had to live with years of performing gender roles, meaning that the vast majority of unpaid carers are women. They are the type of people this policy is hitting: people who cannot afford to go another six years without a pension. Some women, such as Kathleen, are being left penniless. They have nothing and are being forced to turn to the state for benefits. How does that fit into the logic of reducing public spending?

We will most likely hear the Government say, “It’s all okay because women will do better under the new single-tier state pension”, but there is a campaign called CARIISP—the collection against real inequality and injustice of the state pension—which is a collection of women rightly pointing out that a person only receives the higher rate of the new pension if they have paid 35 years of national insurance, but many women have not had the chance to build up that level of contribution. It is a separate issue; I mention it, first, to raise awareness and, secondly, in the hope it will earn a debate on its own merits.

The Government have said:

“The policy decision to increase women’s state pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women.”

That is a strange definition of equality: I am being shafted and short-changed purely because of when I was born and because I am a woman. That is not my definition of equality.

To conclude, there are two problems at the heart of this. First, there is the poor communication over the years, but all we can do is learn from that. I accept that the 1995 Act has happened, and all we can do is reflect on the mistakes made and not repeat them. The second issue, however, is the 2011 Act and the rapid changes the coalition and this Government have made. We can do something about that. Unlike most things that come from this Government—I mean this sincerely—I do not believe that this policy was vindictive or done in the knowledge that it would hurt people. I genuinely think we have ended up in this mess purely because of mistake after mistake, but any mess can be cleared up. If they continue with this policy, however, in the full knowledge of everything that has been and will be outlined, it will become vindictive and deliberate, and it will be done in the full knowledge that people will be hurt.

I understand that we have to work in tandem and with responsibility when it comes to the economy, but that does not mean punishing people who are about to retire. Every topic we speak about in this Chamber comes down to: “Where are you gonna find the money?” I understand that, but the answer is always austerity, no matter how brutal or who it affects. In this Chamber since I was elected we have had a go at people on low wages, the disabled and women, and now we are having a go at pensioners. We can afford to send airstrikes to Syria and to pay for nuclear weapons, but we cannot afford to look after our pensioners? I just do not buy it. The women up in the Gallery right now did not cause the financial crash, they are not responsible for the state of our economy and they did not make the irresponsible decisions that got us here. I understand the question, “Where are you gonna find the money?”, but I refuse to accept or believe that it has to come out of the pensions of older women.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

As always, I commend my hon. Friend’s persistence on this issue. There are 10,319 foreign national offenders in custody—down from 11,153 in May 2010—and that figure is the lowest for the end of any quarter since March 2006. That is in marked contrast to the Labour Government under whom the number of foreign national offenders doubled.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Ofsted inspection of Hindley young offenders institution in my constituency rated it as outstanding, particularly in the provision of literacy and numeracy. Why was it slated for closure?

[Andrew Selous]

We are not closing it; we are re-roling it to put in adult male prisoners. I am sure the hon. Lady welcomes, as I do, the reduction in the number of young people in custody. We must take account of that and will use Hindley young offenders institution for adult male prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

1. When he next plans to announce progress on his legal aid proposals.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

10. What progress he has made on reducing the cost to the public purse of legal aid.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I welcome the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to my Front-Bench team. I also inform the House that Lord Faulks has joined my team in the House of Lords. I pay tribute to Lord McNally, who has left the Front-Bench team, for the excellent work that he did on behalf of the Government.

I will shortly publish final proposals covering the two areas that are subject to consultation in the “Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps” document: the procurement of criminal litigation services and reform of the advocacy fee scheme. I anticipate that the total saving from the transforming legal aid proposals will be £220 million per year by 2018-19. That is in addition to the £320 million that has been saved as part of the Government’s previous reforms, which were enacted in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Trafford law centre closed last week, Barnet law centre faces closure in March, and many more advice agencies and citizens advice bureaux face closure or redundancies, which will reduce services for the most vulnerable. What assessment is being made of the impact of those closures, which have been caused by the cumulative effect of cuts to civil legal aid and other cuts, through an increased demand on other public services, such as the health service?

[Chris Grayling]

We will clearly continue to review those matters. The decisions that we are making are of course difficult, but we have to make them because we have to bring down the cost of legal aid to deal with the enormous financial challenges that we face. We would not have wished to take these decisions, but given the inheritance that we received from the last Government, there is no option but to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It would be absolutely unacceptable for any charity to behave in a way that breached its regulatory requirements. The Government would not accept any behaviour of that sort or condone such activity. If he remains concerned, I advise him to take the issue up with the forum, the Charity Commission or both.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Government have cut by almost 70% the budget of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which funds the work of the EDF. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of those cuts on the EDF’s work and the work of the other bodies it supports?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes, there have been changes, but the EDF is still capable of doing all the activities it needs to do. The forum is a valuable component that does valuable work. I have, on occasion, been lucky enough to be invited to attend meetings and to speak at them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. As I said, spreading information about best practice is extremely important. That is the basis of many of the reforms that we are introducing through the criminal justice system. If she perceives an information gap somewhere, I will be happy to discuss this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is the Minister with responsibility for veterans and who has significant overall responsibility in this area.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

We have heard a lot this afternoon about our plans for transforming rehabilitation. It is worth restating to the House what I believe is a crucial part of those reforms: the alignment of the prison service geographically to areas into which people are going to be released, through the creation of a network of resettlement prisons. I think that will make as big a difference to the process as any other part of our reforms.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

A recent report from the Charities Aid Foundation welcomed the opportunities that payment by results will create for the voluntary sector, but it also warned that many organisations will need support to ensure that they can become credible providers of services on a much larger scale. What help is the Minister putting in place to ease this transition?

[Chris Grayling]

We are doing two things. First, through the Cabinet Office, which has responsibility for liaison with the voluntary sector, we are putting in place widespread support to help the voluntary sector prepare for this process. We have also put in place a justice data lab, which is designed to allow smaller voluntary sector organisations that have a track record in working with offenders to quantify the impact of their work on rehabilitation so that they can sell a story about what they can do to partners in the bidding process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend’s point about mediation is important and highlights the fact that when dealing with the financial challenges we face, the Government must look for innovative new ways of doing things. Mediation is certainly one of those.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

How many people do the Government expect to be able to challenge welfare benefit decisions at the highest level on a point of law in the future if they continue to claim that it is too difficult to find a way to identify cases and provide legal aid, despite the Minister’s reassurances to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee?

[Chris Grayling]

We are still in discussions about how to respond to the vote in the House of Lords, but we must accept that there are limits to what the Government and the taxpayer can provide in terms of legal support. There will always be limits to what the state can do, and we are trying to find the right balance in exceptionally difficult financial circumstances.

Claims Management Companies

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing the debate. Ironically, it was a super-complaint by Citizens Advice that partly led to the establishment of a whole new industry—claims management companies—in which the practices are almost as bad as those that the complaint was intended to redress. .

Which?, the consumer organisation, has found widespread rule breaches by claims management companies and the use of misleading statements and unfair contract terms by a significant number of companies. Initially, however, I want to deal with an issue that I now know has affected all of us in this room—I am pleased that noble Lords are not exempt from it, either. I am referring to the aggressive marketing techniques of claims management companies. I myself have received a number of calls and texts promising me large sums of money. Actually, I was promised £3,251—more than most people here—by one company that phoned me. I found that very strange, for two reasons. First, I had never had payment protection insurance, and secondly, I am registered with the Telephone Preference Service and have been for a very long time—I was one of the first people to register with it.

However, on investigating, I was horrified to find out that the Telephone Preference Service has no enforcement powers. They are the responsibility of the Information Commissioner, and only recently has the Information Commissioner acquired the power to impose fines of up to £500,000. Therefore, consumers have not only to opt in to the Telephone Preference Service, but to complain to a different body. Although the Telephone Preference Service will pass on the complaints and has been doing so in ever-increasing numbers, the situation is still confusing for consumers. I and quite a number of other consumers would prefer an opt-out rather than an opt-in service in this regard, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence of abuse for the regulator to consider banning claims management companies from cold-calling. The consumer can find them if they want them. There are plenty of adverts on daytime television, as we have heard. I believe that those people who need them will know where to go.

I come now to my other pet hate—unsolicited texts. That form of communication is not covered by the Telephone Preference Service. I wonder whether we should consider widening the scope of the service to cover it. The Information Commissioner’s Office surveyed the public in 201, and out of more than 1,000 respondents, 681 said that receiving a text caused them concern; 205 said that it was inconvenient; and 61 said that it had caused them substantial damage or distress. That is a huge majority who dislike unsolicited texts even without including me—I get into an irrational rage over them at times. I would also like to see an opt-in for that form of communication and a single point of complaint. I do not want to forward spam texts to my mobile provider.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

One difficulty with unsolicited texts is that they come from an anonymous source and if people try to ring the number that they have come from, it rings off. Surely we need to find a way of regulating that, so that someone can be held responsible for sending the text.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree. Quite often, the texts are from abroad from what is almost a harvesting service. Although companies should not be sending unsolicited texts and making unsolicited phone calls, they will go back years and years and say, “Well, you gave us your details. You didn’t tick the box years ago to say that you didn’t want to receive marketing texts.” It is very hard to disprove that. There is a system whereby people can forward spam texts to their mobile provider to get them blocked, but there are different numbers for different mobile providers, and people have to remember the code to forward them and actually take action to do that. I do not want to do that; I just do not want to get the texts in the first place.

[Jonathan Evans]

Analogous to unsolicited texts are unsolicited e-mails. One can see that many such e-mails come from abroad—in my case, from New York, curiously enough. Surely, though, what we should look for in terms of regulation is where those introductions end up. In other words, if anyone takes up cases that have been harvested in that way, should there not be some regulation to try to tackle the people who are then accepting the reference?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree. In this new world of electronic communications, there need to be new regulations to stop people being bombarded with texts, phone calls and e-mails that they spend their time deleting.

Let me move on. The consumer has contacted the claims management company; they have had the text and believe that they might get some money. As we have heard, some companies immediately demand an up-front fee in addition to a win fee. I have spoken many times in other debates of the detriment that up-front fees cause in the area of debt management plans. That applies equally in the claims management area. People are being persuaded—I hesitate to use the word “conned”, but it could well be appropriate—to give their credit and debit card details, as we have heard, and deductions are being made before any agreement has been signed and before people even know what they are signing up for. Indeed, the agreement is often vague to the point of misrepresentation.

Citizens Advice has seen clients who signed documents stating unequivocally that the service was free, but when they queried a service charge of 25% plus VAT on the award, they were sent a second, unsigned document that set out the service charge, which they had never seen before. The claims management company has then started court action to recover the service charge of about £300 from the award of approximately £1,000. The person in question believed, according to the document that they had seen, that it was a free service. I repeat that they had never seen the document that said that there was a service charge. It is obvious that all contracts should be written in clear English, be displayed on any websites and be valid only if signed by the consumer. I agree with the 81% of consumers in the Which? survey who say that up-front fees should be banned.

Some people do choose to use the services of a claims management company rather than claim themselves, despite the fact that it is an easy process. At this point, I would like to put in a plug for the MoneySavingExpert website, which has a very clear guide to claiming. It is completely free and very quick to do.

However, people should not be bullied and harassed into signing up. They should understand the terms of the contract that they are signing and be happy to accept them. They should not be subject to up-front fees and they should be able to complain if the service that they receive is not satisfactory, which it is not in a number of cases. I hope that the legal ombudsman will be able to take such complaints very soon.

Those of us who do not wish to take out a payday loan, a debt management plan or a claim against mis-sold PPI, and hopefully never will wish to, and those who have not had an accident should not be harassed by unsolicited phone calls and texts and should not need to take action to avoid them. We should simply be able to opt in to receive texts and calls if we want them. The default position should be the status quo: no call, unless requested.

The claims management industry is out of control. It preys on vulnerable people by promising large sums of money and often failing to deliver. At the moment, it is operating to the detriment of the consumer by charging up-front fees and unwarranted service charges for providing very little service. Claims management companies are getting money for old rope, as my mother would have said. It is our job to ensure that they are strictly bound and tied up in regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans]

That is absolutely right, but my hon. Friend’s point also endorses what I have said, because if the banks had been quick enough post-2004, the problems with claims management companies would not have developed. In a sense, the companies are taking advantage of the banks’ recognition of the liability, and the recognition more generally, to siphon away as much of the money as they possibly can.

Hon. Members have already drawn attention to some misgivings. Mr Kevin Rousell from the Ministry of Justice, who has responsibility for the relevant portfolio, addressed our all-party group. He said that the Government intended to change the rules on advertising on television because they recognised that many of these companies used the label “Regulated by the Ministry of Justice”, as though it were some sort of Government endorsement. Many companies that have had complaints raised against them, including some that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock referred to, use the fact that they are regulated by the Ministry of Justice as a badge of honour. The Ministry of Justice recognises that it is used misleadingly: people think that the Ministry of Justice in a sense endorses the activities of such companies, whereas the reality is that it is in the process of getting a grip on their activities.

The hon. Member for Makerfield referred to the Which? survey, which I was also going to draw attention to, primarily because it was undertaken more than a year ago, so we have known for 13 months that up to 60% of claims management companies were probably completely ignoring the rules. I reiterate that this is not an attack on claims management companies. I wish that the 40% who obeyed the rules had been the example for the whole industry. It is not good enough for the Claims Standards Council to say that debating the problems would withdraw access to justice, because it places itself in the position of excusing the failure of 60% of its members to comply with the rules.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that 60% of companies are failing demonstrates that there should be powers to suspend companies that act to severe consumer detriment? We should not allow them to have a business plan predicated on being able to carry on for a couple of years, then drop and start up again with another name.

[Jonathan Evans]

I not only agree with that point but think that it makes the case for taking much more severe action. The flow of PPI cases will undoubtedly work its way through the system and people will look for other sources of revenue, so by the time we catch up, I fear that the horse will have bolted. For that reason, we must have firm regulation.

The problem is that there is confusion about who regulates this field. We have a claims management regulator within the Ministry of Justice, but that was set up to approve, as it were, or otherwise, people engaged in the business. It has been responsible for the industry increasing from 40 companies to 3,007, according to its last annual report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock indicated, the regulator’s powers are limited, which is why the Government have been rightly looking at how they can firm up the process, including introducing an independent complaints process and placing the responsibility for it with the legal ombudsman. The chief ombudsman, Adam Sampson, also appeared before the all-party group. Hon. Members who were present will know that he is enthusiastically looking forward to looking at such complaints.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I confirm to my right hon. Friend that it will be possible for all such people to have face-to-face advice. If the people who take the call, who are expert in finding out whether a person needs face-to-face advice, feel that people need face-to-face advice, they will get it. I am not just speculating. We know that that is the case because a modern, phone-based service currently exists, namely the Ministry of Justice community legal advice helpline. Its record is one of excellent public service. In 2010-11, more than half a million calls were made to it. More than 90% of respondents to the last survey who subsequently received advice from the specialist service found it very helpful.

Concerns have been raised about accessibility. However, contrary to the claims of those opposed to the reforms, phone-based advice has been shown often to be more convenient and accessible than face-to-face advice, particularly benefiting those living in remote areas or those who have a physical disability.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that currently, the CLS gateway is a choice—people can choose to use the phone system or to have face-to-face advice? For people under stress, who cannot bring themselves even to open an envelope with their bills in, face-to-face advice is often the most appropriate route.

[Mr Djanogly]

I simply disagree that face-to-face advice will be appropriate in all cases of disability—quite the opposite. In many cases, people with disability would prefer to use telephone advice.

Such advice is also high quality. Contrary to the assumption that face-to-face advice is always better, specialist telephone advice providers are currently required to meet higher standards than their face-to-face counterparts. That will continue under the new contracts required to implement the Bill.

Under our plans, an individual seeking advice will simply need to ring the community legal advice helpline. They will be greeted by a trained operator who will assess whether they are eligible for legal aid or not. Their goal will be to ensure that people get a high quality, accessible service that delivers the right help, either by transferring them to specialist telephone advice providers or face-to-face providers if telephone advice is not appropriate, or by signposting them to other possible support if their issue does not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I value citizens advice bureaux as highly as the right hon. Gentleman, and ever since the Bill was introduced we have said that we will come forward with proposals to improve the support given by the Treasury. As I have said, at the time of the Budget there was an announcement, which was not much noticed at the time, of £20 million a year to be made available for voluntary advice.

For most citizens advice bureaux, legal aid is not the biggest source of their funding, and some do not get any legal aid funding at all. Their advice is very valuable general advice to people with a combination of debt, housing and every other problem; it is not specifically legal advice in most cases. Our Department is not the biggest Department that contributes to such bureaux; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has the biggest budget, for debt advice and other forms, and I think that it has ring-fenced its budget and still provides funding.

Most citizens advice bureaux have lost a lot of money because local government funding has been cut quite severely, and the Government are producing money from the Treasury to compensate in part for that, so we—not my Department; the Cabinet Office—are now distributing that £20 million to ensure that such valuable general advice is still available. What we cannot do is start inventing legal aid scope, or fail to narrow legal aid scope, as a roundabout way of maintaining funding for citizens advice bureaux, many of which do not receive legal aid funding now—giving them funding that is spent on general advice as much as on legal advice. Of course, the more we extend the scope to help the citizens advice bureaux, which are busy lobbying the House, the more we also help professional lawyers, who also qualify for all the legal aid scope that we are happily enlarging.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The citizens advice bureaux that are so busy lobbying are actually lobbying on behalf of their clients. Some 77% of the funding being removed from the scope of legal aid is going not from solicitors’ firms, but from citizens advice bureaux and law centres—and from specialist legal advice. The Legal Services Commission will not provide the money, which I remind the Secretary of State is £160 for a legal aid case at the early stage of a welfare and benefits case, but it prevents the case from becoming much more expensive later.

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady’s experience of citizens advice bureaux greatly exceeds my own, but I am pretty certain that fewer than half of such bureaux receive any legal aid funding at all. I have not sought to deny the financial problems of citizens advice bureaux, but we cannot solve them by being so generous in scope with legal aid when the issues involved in most welfare cases are not legal problems. What people require in these difficult times is general advice on a general combination of problems from which they suffer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Lady is right, in that we already have huge deserts in our legal aid provision. The previous Government ran down the legal aid bill substantially. I am sorry to say that a lot of the arguments about the provision of legal aid that we have heard in this place have been rather synthetic, particularly those put by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. Taking the moral high ground is a particularly dangerous position for the Opposition, given the reduction of legal aid provision over the past 10 to 15 years or more.

I return to the point about the provision of legal aid for social welfare. I remain concerned that, far too often, poor decision making on the part of the Department for Work and Pensions is leading to a rise in the number of appeals. We know that that number is rising exponentially and that it is projected to increase considerably over the next few years. I make no apology for the Government’s wise reforms on welfare benefits, but the fact is that wrong decisions will be made and they will need to be challenged and properly dealt with. That is why I am concerned that, despite the Government’s proper concessions on points of law, we are still not in a place where we need to be. Although we have welcome Cabinet Office funding, which is now year on year—another of my pleas has been listened to—right up to the end of the Parliament, we need to understand whether that will be enough to fill what I see as a gap in provision. I am not making a plea on behalf of particular organisations, although I strongly support the Law Centres Federation and my local Wiltshire law centre; this is a plea on behalf of the people who will rightly have points to raise, which will be mixed points of law and fact.

I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate before the knife falls, but I shall briefly discuss clinical negligence. I have long taken the view that matters of clinical negligence should remain within the scope of legal aid. I accept that there are constraints on Government finances, but this is one of those areas where assistance still needs to be provided for challenges to decisions and errors made by the state or its representatives—I strongly believe that that needs to be an underlying philosophy in rebalancing how we spend our legal aid budget. Clinical negligence falls clearly into that bracket. Neither of the proposed amendments in this area does the job as effectively as I would like, but I am sad to say that nor does the Government’s current amendment. I can see problems in arguments about whether the child will have reached eight weeks after birth and what the date of expected birth would be; there will be arguments about how children and babies will fit into the criteria. If we are saying that they are in the exceptional cases category in any case, the Government’s amendment does not add up to very much. I say that with respect to my colleagues. So there are still questions to be answered on two particular areas about which I have concerns. With those observations, I will allow others to enter the debate.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I wish to support the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and remind the House that there is a high level of decision-making error. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, we were told that the delay in tribunals is more than one year because of the number of people who—let us remember this—have been unlawfully denied benefit. They have been unlawfully denied their rights. When people go to a tribunal and are represented, they are 78% more likely to win. This is not just about the representation; it is about the preparation of written statements, for which they can receive legal help. They do not receive any legal help for representation, but legal help is provided for a written statement, which will help them go themselves to the tribunal. May I remind the Secretary of State that these written statements and the representation, in the main, are not provided by lawyers or generalist advisers, and they are certainly not provided by MPs? I find it really insulting to the dedicated and knowledgeable band of specialists with whom I have worked over the years for him to say, “Anyone can do this. We MPs will do it for them because we can do it better.” That is simply not the case.

I also wish to discuss the fact that many of the cases do not involve legal help. I can assure Government Members that, having been audited many times by the Legal Services Commission, I know that it does not pay its money out willy-nilly—even the £164 that is obtained for a legal aid case. If it felt that something did not fall within the scope of legal help, someone would not get the money for that case—indeed, it would possibly deduct from even more cases. It is really important to get the facts and the right sort of evidence for a tribunal, which is where specialists are important. Unfortunately, although I welcome the second tier being brought back into scope, it cannot look again at any evidence; it can look only at the point of law. So the fact that someone has not presented the right evidence and that the right facts have not been looked at cannot be considered any further.

Early advice saves money. Early advice is so important in all aspects of law in order to keep people out of the courts system, as the Secretary of State said. This measure is like telling somebody who has a chest infection, “When you get to the stage of intensive care, we will deal with you,” when a cheap course of antibiotics could help them in the first place.

The cost of reviews and appeals is 66% of the legal aid budget, or £16.5 million. That amount of money would bring these cases back into scope and it would save the country money that would otherwise go on complicated cases and on people falling on to the state in the long run. Every such case on welfare benefits saves the state £8.80 in other costs; it saves time and it saves money. To take these cases out of scope and simply leave a second-tier tribunal in scope is a false economy. It will not help the people who come to our surgeries and it will not help the people who are looking for advice from a citizens advice bureau, because, as has been said many times, the required number of specialists may not be in place. The cases left in scope will not be viable for many of the advice agencies.

I believe that keeping amendment 168 and providing help in lower-tier tribunals will in the end save money and, more importantly, will save misery for a lot of people who have been unlawfully denied benefits by the state.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I agree with much of what has been said about the Government’s change of heart on the definition of domestic violence. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), and I congratulate the Secretary of State on changing the definition to include the ACPO definition, as was urged upon him by Opposition Members, one of whom is present now and who put her argument in Committee.

I also congratulate the Government on changing the evidence gateway for those who have been affected by domestic violence. We must remember that there was never a proposal to change the legal aid provisions for people who were in need of protection. The proposed changes were about other matters that might flow from such initial proceedings, and the disagreement was not about the principle of getting legal aid, but about the sort of evidence required in order to get it.

I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, but I think we might disagree about social welfare legal aid. I agree with the Secretary of State: I do not see why a lawyer should always be required to sort out disputes about welfare benefit. I do not disagree with the argument that people might need somebody to represent them, however. As a former criminal barrister who defended far more than I prosecuted, I am familiar with the sort of people who will often end up needing somebody to represent them because, for whatever reason, they do not have the ability to advance their case themselves. There is no argument about that. I do not believe that a lawyer has to do that, however.

I pray in aid the situation in my constituency of Broxtowe. We have a citizens advice bureau but no law centre. My CAB has never received legal aid for any of the work it does. It is an outstanding organisation. It has faced substantial cuts in funding from Nottinghamshire county council, but it has gone out and got extra funds, and it is doing a remarkable job. In my constituency work, there has not been any benefit case that my team has not been able to sort out. I have yet to have such a case where I have said, “I think you need to go and see a specialist lawyer.” Many people do need good representation, however, and my CAB provides it.

I urge the Government to beware of the litigant in person. It is often said that only a fool has himself for a lawyer. Friends and former colleagues at the Bar have told me that there has been a rise in the number of people representing themselves in the civil courts, certainly in Nottingham and on the eastern circuit. The Government must look very carefully at that development. They must not take the simple view that when people represent themselves we will save money. Invariably, such people are a nightmare. [Interruption.] I do not say that in any way disrespectfully to most such people—although some litigants in person genuinely are a nightmare. Most of them need advice and support but feel that they cannot afford legal representation, and the consequence often is that the whole system grinds to a halt. Judges find that they have to intervene far more often and cases take longer, and costs therefore rise.

I welcome these proposals, and I will support the Government on them.

Not-for-profit Advice Sector

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton.

I begin with the comments made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who said that the proposed changes to legal aid are not an attack on women and children; they are an attack on fat cat lawyers. Perhaps he could say that to the 1,000 people who used the specialist welfare benefit advice service at the Bolton citizens advice bureau in the month of January alone. Perhaps he could say that to someone like Jeannie, who e-mailed last night, extremely pleased with the result in the House of Lords, saying that perhaps now people like her can leave an extremely dangerous situation and receive the financial help and support to do so before they are murdered.

The changes to legal aid will have a destabilising effect on the funding of advice agencies, law centres and citizens advice bureaux. Hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions, will lose out. The funding cuts will have a disproportionate effect on the not-for-profit sector, which the Government’s own impact assessment agrees will receive 77% of the cuts to civil legal aid. As I have often said, advice agency funding is a bit like a game of Jenga—it is complicated, it is interdependent, and small amounts removed can lead to the whole structure crashing down, leaving vulnerable clients underneath with nowhere else to go.

It is not worth looking at the new position under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill without looking at the current position. Citizens advice bureaux say that they will receive £51.3 million less in 2012-13 than in 2010-11. Law centres have had a 52% cut in their local authority funding. Coupled with the devastating effect that the legal aid cuts will have, citizens advice bureaux will lose £28.4 million, and law centres will lose £6 million and more than 85% of their current legal aid funding. Up to 18 law centres could be lost and up to 50% of citizens advice bureaux—more than 200 bureaux with 1,500 outlets—could close completely. If the changes go through, 100% of law centres and CABs say that they will operate on a vastly reduced service.

In total, the not-for-profit agencies will lose £51 million. In my borough of Wigan there will be a cut of £428,000 for specialist work: the citizens advice bureau loses £133,000, which is 3.5 caseworkers plus their admin support, and the legal aid lawyers, who provide the rest of the social welfare law help, will lose the remainder. These are not fat cat lawyers; they are lawyers working with the most disadvantaged people in their community.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

With regard to not-for-profit advice services and centres, has the hon. Lady seen the statement dated 22 November 2011 by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is the Minister for Civil Society? He says that the Government have committed £16.8 million towards not-for-profit advice centres and services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I have seen that statement. I will mention statements made by Ministers, including both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who yesterday made an announcement about advice funding.

Citizens advice bureaux alone will lose 500 specialists. Make no mistake: this is specialist work. It is not simple form-filling, which people can do by themselves. The bureau in my constituency told me that in the past three months appeals to the commissioners have increased by 50%. Surely, people are not expected to do this by themselves.

I will tell hon. Members the story of one CAB client called Sharon, who went there when she was told that her income support claim would be stopped as she was living with her ex-husband Darren, who should support her financially. After a lengthy interview with an adviser, Sharon told the specialist caseworker that she was not living with Darren, but that he used her address for financial purposes as he often did not have a permanent address for long periods and that he also stayed, on occasion, to help care for her, as she had severe and chronic mental health problems.

The adviser challenged the Department for Work and Pensions decision, using the lengthy, complex case law about the living-together test, and provided a written submission to the tribunal contesting the DWP’s interpretation of the case law, and expert evidence to show that Sharon’s relationship with Darren was a close friendship. At the appeal, the tribunal judge commented on the substantial body of evidence provided by the specialist and used it to conclude that Darren’s relationship with Sharon was

“more akin to an adult child who goes to care for a frail elderly relative who is living in their own home.”

All Sharon’s benefits were reinstated.

Where does the Minister expect people like Sharon to go for help in future?

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and support the argument that she is making so eloquently. Is it not a particularly cruel irony that these cuts happen at precisely the time when, because of benefit cuts and working tax credit loss, families are under especially acute pressure? Therefore there is double harm from these damaging cuts.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree. The need for advice will increase when universal credit and the personal independence payment come through. All evidence from the past proves that the need for advice increases when there are changes to the benefit system, particularly in the six months before and after.

There will be no places to go to pick up the slack. Age Concern, the pro bono unit and the free representation unit—all the agencies mentioned by the Minister and the Secretary of State as being able to pick up the slack—have categorically said that this is not possible. Specialist services will be lost.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. To be honest, most hon. Members would be delighted if these measures concerned fat cat lawyers.

Six paid posts will go at Citizens Advice in Wrexham, leading to an additional problem. What happens to the service that is provided for a couple of hours a week or a fortnight in the surrounding villages? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if services were cut, the impact on villages such as Rhosllannerchrugog and Chirk would be devastating for people living there, particularly those who are currently out of work or on low incomes, who would have to pay additionally for travel to the urban centre—if they could get appointments?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree. The effect on people using the services, who are disproportionately on a low income, will be devastating. Individuals will not appeal, which will end up costing the state more—hon. Members should remember that they have been unlawfully denied benefit—or may take the case themselves and be unable to present the evidence effectively or provide the right sort of evidence, or will end up at their Member of Parliament’s surgeries. I think all hon. Members will admit that we are not legal experts. However, there will be nowhere else for us to refer such people. I recommend to the Minister a report produced by the Young Legal Aid Lawyers, which demonstrates how much MPs rely on their local advice centres.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I need to make a tiny bit of progress, but I will later.

So far we have talked only about welfare benefits. Debt clients will lose access to early advice, giving the perverse result that they may be sent away and told, “If you get into more debt and are at risk of losing your home, we might be able to see you.” Clients who are unlawfully dismissed from employment will have nowhere to go and will end up claiming benefits.

This loss of specialist provision has great implications for the future. The experience of specialists will be lost, not just for this generation, but to future generations, because they are training other advisers—often volunteers—but will be unable to pass on their experience because they will not be there within the agency.

I remind the Minister of the cost of cases. A case such as Sharon’s, which has benefited her, cost £148. That is how much a welfare benefits case costs. A debt case costs £180 and a housing case costs £160. What are the knock-on costs to the other agencies of removing this small amount of funding?

The Minister has said many times that he disagrees with the King’s College and CAB figures on the savings made to the state by keeping such matters in scope. What is his estimate? Has any estimate been made by the Government of the knock-on costs of removing specialist work from legal aid?

The real tragedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned, could be the loss of whole agencies. Often, large agencies have done the right thing and diversified their funding and contracted with the Legal Services Commission. The services provided by the Manchester community legal advice service were jointly commissioned by the local authority and the LSC in October 2010. A three-year contract was awarded until October 2013, with the possibility of two more years if the targets were hit—and they have been. Some £1.2 million of legal aid funding will be directly lost by that service and that is likely to have knock-on costs of another £800,000 leading to more than £2 million being lost from that service. In addition, 34 specialist advisers will be lost and 97% of the specialist services throughout Manchester will go. Contracts have been signed for premises and other essentials, predicated on the three-year contract that was given to the service. Cuts pose a risk to the continuation of the whole CAB and community legal advice service in the city of Manchester.

In effect, Manchester could become a desert in terms of face-to-face advice. Who in the city will be affected by that? The majority of the clients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South said, are on low incomes, or have a disability, or are black and minority ethnic. They experience higher than average rates of unemployment, debt and homelessness. These are the people that the cuts will affect—not fat cat lawyers. Will the Minister please comment on the future of the community legal advice services, whose staff signed contracts in good faith and now find that those contracts are being reneged on? That is just one example.

When this matter is spoken about in the main Chamber there are many fine words from all parties, but as a feisty volunteer said to the mayor when he spoke about the CAB in respect of a funding cut, “Fine words butter no parsnips. Let’s see the colour of your money.” That is what we need.

We may talk about the transition fund—£20 million given for advice agencies—but transition, to me, means moving on. I cannot see where advice agencies are going to move to, to get specialist funding. I feel that a lot of them will be transitioning into oblivion.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She is hitting on a key issue; the continued existence of the advice agencies is obviously important but ultimately, if their clients cannot afford to access the services, the existence of the organisation itself is of little value. The legal aid funding that supported welfare claims and appeals was fundamental to many of those people continuing to access benefits to which, it turned out, they were entitled. She is generous to assume that the Government are genuine about wanting to find an alternative, but is it possible that they like the idea that a lot of people will not be able to claim the benefits in the future? That would save money not only on legal aid but in welfare. Is it possible that everything has been planned?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Were I a cynic, I might agree with my hon. Friend. Only a few weeks ago, in this very Chamber, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), mentioned that the backlog was of almost nine or 10 months, which will certainly not be the case if people do not have access to appeals any more.

I welcome the announcement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that there will be more money for advice, but I am a pragmatist and have worked for an advice agency, so the bottom line is when, how much and what for—without answers to those questions, my welcome cannot be too great. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, is it a coincidence that the funding will be removed at the same time as the need for advice will increase? What assessment has been made of the need for specialist advice in the period of change? Finally, has the Minister—I know it is not his area—discussed with his colleagues when the advice review is due to be published? I thought it would be essential to publish the results of the advice review before the decisions are made on the removal of legal aid from advice agencies.

I welcome the vote in the other place that people should have access to legal services that meet their needs effectively. Citizens Advice and other advice agencies have been offering such services for more than 70 years, which are as vital now as they were then.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Advice services such as Citizens Advice have expressed concerns about the effect of the Bill. Citizens Advice stated that

“what’s left…of legal aid will be…unworkable for too many advice providers.”

Is that the opinion of the hon. Lady as well?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

It is, because of what is known as a critical mass in the area. We should not forget that advice agencies have already suffered an unplanned 10% cut in the rates of such cases this year. To remove legal aid completely would be to destabilise; for the small amount of work left in scope, it might not be worth employing an adviser—in fact, an adviser could not be afforded.

I have always believed that a thriving advice sector contributes to a healthy society with fairness and access to justice for all at its heart. The changes to legal aid rip the heart out of the advice sector and will leave the vulnerable lost and alone, knocking at the doors of cash-starved local authorities and of MPs’ surgeries. The changes are not only heartless but economically unsound.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing the debate, and on her contributions to a vigorous and informative discussion of an important issue. I understand and share the strong concerns expressed, and the high level of interest, in debates on the value of the not-for-profit advice sector throughout consideration of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in both Houses. Today, I would like to deal with the concerns expressed on behalf of Jeannie, Sharon and other vulnerable people, and assure the hon. Lady that we have listened and are taking action.

The Government value highly the important role of not-for-profit organisations such as Citizens Advice and law centres in delivering advice services locally. The Government want to support such organisations, particularly at the current time. Reforms to the legal aid system will, as the hon. Lady is aware, reduce the organisations’ income, and my colleagues throughout Government and I appreciate that times are difficult for free advice services, which are understandably concerned about their future. Given the financial climate, however, any Government today would have to take difficult decisions and make major changes to the services that they fund. Legal aid expenditure is approximately £2.2 billion per annum, which is 25% of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. Legal aid must play its part in fulfilling the Government’s commitment to reduce the fiscal deficit and return this country’s economy to stability and growth. The proposed legal aid reforms therefore have the additional aim of achieving substantial savings.

We are not making the changes lightly, although the importance of seeing them in context cannot be overstated. Our structural deficit, which we inherited from the Opposition, and their mismanagement of the economy present a range of challenges to our economy and to our ethos on public service provision. I am, however, confident about, and stand by, the criteria that we have employed in determining what areas should attract funding under the Bill.

In the Bill, we have sought to define clearly those areas that the Government believe should attract public funding in future under a reformed legal aid scheme. That will allow at least some certainty as to the areas in the legal aid market that we will continue to support and that, I hope, will thrive. We are aware and fully acknowledge that there will be implications for future provision: fewer legal aid providers are likely to be needed; the methods through which many services are delivered will change; organisations might change; and advice provision will also change. That is alongside other changes to the legal market, such as alternative business structures. The full impact assessment has been published, but the hon. Lady also asked about the knock-on costs, and it is true that those are sometimes difficult to define because they often depend on behavioural change, such as people switching from family courts to mediation.

The result of the changes is not necessarily the decline of a thriving legal aid market; the market can still thrive if it adapts. We must acknowledge the need for acceptance and recognition of the fact that the market will be different. We must consider constructively how best people can be assisted, and how sustainable voluntary organisations can be run under the new framework. The important issue is whether services will be available for clients, rather than whether that service is provided by any particular type of provider in a particular way. The expansion of telephone-based advice, to which the hon. Lady referred, will create contracting opportunities, and we already have examples of providers, including those from the not-for-profit advice sector, that run face-to-face contracts alongside centralised telephone advice contracts as part of their business model.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

How would the Minister answer Steve Hynes from the Legal Action Group, who said that if we wanted to create a system that removes access to advice, we should make it a telephone-based system?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have spoken to the gentleman about that, as I have to the hon. Lady, who made the same point in Committee. The Government are determined in their view that telephone advice, if used appropriately and provided for the right clients, can be a helpful service, not least for those who are disabled or live in remote rural areas, for instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes. The work that is being done through the Cabinet Office is looking at local CABs. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and also for highlighting that NACAB is funded quite separately from local CABs. It is mainly funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; that is bringing a new player into the debate. That point also highlights the complexity of the debate. One of the problems we have had in the run-up to and passage of the Bill was confusion when people misunderstood the nature of legal advice, and the general advice that is the core of CAB provision, which we are so keen to maintain.

With regard to the issue of existing contracts for law centres—community legal advice centres and networks—which was raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield, we will honour those contracts and review how best to implement the Bill when contracts need to be re-let. The needs of Manchester and the local area will be carefully considered as part of that review.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I do not think there is a lot of confusion between generalist and specialist help in the minds of the people who use and provide it; it appears to be just in the mind of the Government. The specialist help is needed for areas such as welfare benefits. The Government have tried on many occasions to say that that is about simple form-filling. It is not. There are 8,690 pages of Department for Work and Pensions guidance given to its decision makers.

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Lady knows, where there is a risk to someone’s security or liberty, or where someone is at immediate risk of losing their home, we are not ending legal aid for civil advice. There seems to be a misconception that we are taking away all legal aid for civil advice. That is simply not the case. We are prioritising our help for those who are most vulnerable, given the overall funding that we have to work with.

I can confirm that my Department is working closely with colleagues across Government, and particularly with the Cabinet Office, which is leading on this area, to support this important cross-Government work. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are aware of the ongoing work; I hope that will assure hon. Members that the Government are listening to the concerns being voiced about the not-for-profit sector, and are urgently taking work forward to address those concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Tackling domestic violence is an absolute priority of this Government, and we are co-ordinating action with the Home Office. Indeed, my hon. Friend appeared in a debate that was held in Westminster Hall only a few days ago, and she will have seen the full picture at that time.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

In the Ministry of Justice’s own impact assessment of the cuts to civil legal aid, there are 15 statements that the Ministry does not have evidence for the savings and 30 admissions that the savings are based on speculation. Should not the Secretary of State listen to Citizens Advice and King’s college London, which can demonstrate that the cuts will cost the taxpayer more than they will save?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have seen the King’s college figures, and we do not agree with them. The fact of the matter is that we have published full impact assessments, and we stand by them.