The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): As always, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I thank my three hon. Friends for their contributions today. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate, but I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for her contribution and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for his intervention.

 

Let me make one thing absolutely clear. There is no doubt that all three Members have been diligent and conscientious in how they have spoken up for their constituents. They have corresponded with me and met me. Indeed, they have enforced the point by having this debate. I have to say that I have learned a lesson. I tried to jest a little in oral questions when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that the figures he cited reflected the low levels of crime in Suffolk. I had the last word in the Chamber, but that has rebounded, because he has been able to come back to me this morning. Nevertheless, he has eloquently put forward the arguments for his constituents, as have the other Members.

 

I again emphasise that the consultation on the reform of the court system in England and Wales is genuine. Indeed, the consultation asks people to make submissions if they can suggest alternative places where the court can sit. There is this notion of the majesty of the court building as we have all known it for centuries and decades, but the 21st century has brought about enormous changes, and with those changes we must recognise that the traditional court building can also change. That is why I have specifically asked for contributions from members of the public and the legal profession if they can suggest alternative venues, such as town halls or other civic buildings, where we might not need to sit for five days a week, but where we could sit simply for a day or two.

 

James Cartlidge: I accept the Minister’s point; we all support the overall principle of trying to achieve efficiency savings in public services and so on, but does he appreciate that if there is no alternative, it is about having a minimum level of access to justice and the concern that we might be going beyond that? If that is the case, we should accept that we may simply have to preserve the current building, for example in Lowestoft.

 

Mr Vara: I hear loud and clear what my hon. Friend says, but I will come on to what access really means in the 21st century shortly, if he bears with me. I make clear that any proposals from the consultation will be seriously considered by me and my officials. I take on board the figures that have been mentioned for the number of courts in Suffolk and the surrounding areas and the concerns expressed on the physical building being in Suffolk.

 

I also take on board what my hon. Friends say on travel times, but I turn to what precisely “access to justice” means. Access to justice in 21st-century Britain is different from what it has meant in centuries and decades before. Before, it meant proximity—the ability to go physically to a court, with all the majesty that goes with it—but the world has changed. People now work online. They do things from the comfort of their sitting room. People can now sit on a Saturday evening in the comfort of their armchair and, by use of their mobile phone, go online and plead guilty to low-level offences in a magistrates court, such as low-level traffic offences or the avoidance of payment of a TV licence. Likewise, people will be able, by use of their mobile phones, to pay any fines that may be imposed.

 

In like manner, access to justice can mean that victims and witnesses, particularly those who are vulnerable, do not have to go to a court and experience all the stress that goes with that. They can go to a room in their locality and, through video conferencing, access a court located elsewhere. Solicitors and barristers no longer have to go to court and hang around for two or three hours to have a five or 10-minute hearing before a judge. They can arrange a telephone conference. Lawyers on both sides of the case can sit in the comfort of their offices and a judge can sit in the comfort of his chambers, and at a given time the three of them can teleconference. That is happening. That is access to justice without moving, from people’s homes and offices.

 

James Cartlidge: Will the Minister give way?

 

Mr Vara: I am mindful of time. If my hon. Friend will bear with me—

 

James Cartlidge: What if people have no broadband?

 

Mr Vara: I am coming to modern technology. I appreciate the difficulties of broadband. I appreciate the IT teething problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned. The Ministry of Justice is spending £130 million to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service will have an efficient communications system, fit for the 21st century. Of course there will be problems. Nothing will ever be perfect, but that is not to say that when we encounter a problem, we step back. Judiciaries and legal systems across the rest of the world are moving on. If Britain is to stay as a global legal player, we must move and recognise the way that access to justice, technology and the legal process now operate. We are working on the IT problems.

 

My hon. Friend spoke of his concern that the trials were being carried out only in metropolitan areas and said that that reflected badly on the service that people get in rural areas. Let me be absolutely clear: the service that people receive throughout England and Wales will be uniform. The pilots are carried out in metropolitan areas to ensure that the technology is tested against a whole range of cases, and that is more available in metropolitan areas than in rural areas, where volumes tend to be lower.

 

In the limited time remaining, which is about 90 seconds, I hope I can sum up by saying that the consultation is genuine. I welcome alternative proposals, whether they are on the siting of courts, the use of video conferencing or other measures that we may not even have thought of. I reassure my hon. Friend that this is a genuine consultation. I have taken on board all that he and my other hon. Friends have said, and I again commend him for having taken the trouble to secure this debate. I hope that I have given him some comfort that I will reflect carefully on all that he and my hon. Friends have to say.

 

| Hansard

 

| Consultation

 

4. Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP): What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that people accessing new pensions freedoms receive appropriate advice. [901149]

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): Ministers in this Department have met and continue to meet the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers to discuss this and other matters. My Department works closely with the Treasury, as well as with the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that the requirement for individuals to take independent financial advice works as intended.

 

Ian Blackford: Has the Minister read the report from the Strategic Society Centre which points out a link between guaranteed retirement income and wellbeing? I am deeply concerned that we are not offering adequate protection to pensioners, given the choices that they face, and I ask the Government to look again at the question of promoting guaranteed income in retirement and to accept their responsibility to protect pensioners.

 

Mr Vara: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we are not taking our responsibility seriously. He will be aware that Pension Wise offers free impartial guidance that can be given by telephone, online or in face-to-face meetings, and that the Money Advice Service provides a free directory with more than 2,250 firms registered on it. That equates to more than 6,000 individuals who can give advice. In Scotland, there are 162 firms that can give such advice to people, so there are plenty of people out there, but if the hon. Gentleman knows of individual cases, I would be happy to hear from him.

 

Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): Is the Minister aware that certain savers who have old, with-profits policies are being forced to pay for financial advice and to get a sign-off, sometimes on an insistent client basis? It can often cost them a lot of money to access their money under the new freedoms. Would the Minister be prepared to look at this matter again, in order to strike the right balance between providing the right advice and not pricing people out of the market?

 

Mr Vara: My Department is keen to ensure that the consumer does not miss out, and we are working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that the rules and regulations are fit and proper. If my hon. Friend would like to bring any particular cases to my attention, I would be happy to look at them.

 

Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): Will the Minister tell us when the Government are going to publish the information on the take-up of the Pension Wise service, and what action they are taking to combat the scammers, who have scammed £4.7 million out of people in the first month of the new scheme?

 

Mr Vara: If the hon. Lady has any specific information on that, I would be happy to receive it from her. We will be publishing the figures on the take-up of the Pension Wise service in due course, but I do not have them at the moment. It is a relatively new operation, and we need to give it some time. In relation to dealing with scams, we are working with the Financial Conduct Authority and we are seeking to stem these scams and any others that there might be.

 

| Hansard

 

 

 

7. Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): What steps he is taking to increase public awareness and understanding of the new state pension. [901153]

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): We have begun a new media campaign for the new state pension. It will use the full range of communication tools, including press, radio and digital means. Material has been updated to be clearer, to engage people and to help them better understand what the changes mean for them.

 

Graham Evans: The basic state pension would have been £560 a year higher by the end of the last Parliament if it had been uprated by earnings alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that maintaining the triple lock gives pensioners the greater certainty about their security that they definitely deserve?

 

Mr Vara: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for making that point in this House. It is important to remember, notwithstanding the tough economic climate, that we on the Conservative Benches have looked after the pensioners. We have given them security and the protection that they need, and I can assure the House that they will continue to have that protection with the triple lock.

 

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Does the Minister understand that a great number of women who were born in the 1950s feel that the Government did not adequately inform them not only about the changes to the state pension age affecting their retirement, but about the speeding up of that process? Will he look again at that basic unfairness for a group of women who have paid in but who are getting nothing out?

 

Mr Vara: May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the original increase in ages was started under a Labour Government? We have relaunched the campaign to ensure that the target group of people—those who are within 10 years of retirement from April 2016—take an active role in trying to find out how they will benefit under the new state pension.

 

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): The Minister will be aware that the Association of British Insurers published figures this summer about the new pension freedoms which show that people with big pots are buying income drawdown and that people with small pots are cashing out. He knows that women live longer than men and that they have smaller pots than men, so what is he doing to ensure that women’s income in retirement is properly protected?

 

Mr Vara: Let me be absolutely clear: this Government will not dictate what anybody should do with their pension pots. What we have put in place is the means by which people—both men and women—can seek advice. As I mentioned earlier, there is the Money Advice Service, which has on its books more than 2,250 firms across the country that can give advice. It is for people to take that advice and then to decide. We will not dictate how people should deal with their money.

 

| Hansard

 

 

 

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government agreed to lift the Pension Protection Fund cap imposed on long-serving employees’ pensions when a pension fund collapses. Will he tell the House when he will bring forward the appropriate legislation to make that happen?

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He will appreciate that I am not prepared to make an announcement about that at the moment. When I do make an announcement, he will be the first to know.

 

| Hansard

Shailesh Vara MP has written to Mike Petrouis, Managing Director of Planet Ice in Peterborough, asking him to review the planned increase in fees for Figure Skating coaches.

 

Planet Ice has recently changed the conditions under which the facilities can be used by figure skating coaches, substantially increasing their weekly rent to £300. As a result a number of coaches will find it not viable to continue to work at Planet Ice. A parking charge has also been introduced at times that will only affect figure skaters.

 

Planet Ice is used by skaters of all abilities and ages and also by those with medical conditions such as Asperger’s syndrome or Crohn’s disease for whom the sport is of immense benefit. Mr Vara feels that the plans could have serious implications for both figure skaters and their coaches.

 

Mr Vara has also written to Jennie Price, Chief Executive of Sport England, concerning the fee increase and asked her if there is any way in which Sport England can help local skaters.

 

Mr Vara said:

 

“I am very concerned about the changes made by Planet Ice. The increased fees will have a negative effect on Figure Skating in the area as we have a number of Figure Skaters set to compete at the British Championships later this year. This change in the rent will severely limit the chances of those hoping to compete at the event.

 

Access to sporting facilities, particularly for the young, so that people can pursue their interests and maintain healthy lifestyles is important. In the case of Figure Skating this is also something of immense benefit to those with medical conditions such as Asperger’s syndrome or Crohn’s disease. This move by Planet Ice may well lead to a reduction in the number of people taking part in the sport and I very much hope that there will be a review of the rent increase.”

 

Shailesh Vara MP has written to Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County Council, asking him to review plans to switch off street lamps in Bury at night.

 

Bury has been chosen as one of sixteen parishes in Cambridgeshire which will be controlled by a Central Management System. This will mean that the street lights can be controlled remotely, via mobile internet signal, and would be switched off completely for a certain period each night.

 

Mr Vara along with local councillor, Cllr Peter Bucknell, and Mr John Prestage, Chairman of Bury Parish Council, are concerned about the plans and feel that there could be serious implications for both pedestrians and motorists.

 

Mr Vara said:

 

“I am very concerned about the council’s plans to move Bury to a part-time lighting system which works remotely and I am working with local councillors and the Parish Council to oppose this change. Bury has a busy, winding and narrow road running through it and switching off street lights at night could pose a serious risk to pedestrians and motorists alike.

 

I have written to Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County, asking him to review the decision and I very much hope that common sense will prevail.”

 

Cllr Peter Bucknell commented:

 

“I was totally shocked to read the proposals to switch-off the majority of the street lights in the village of Bury and have requested justification from the County Council.  Why do seventeen parishes have Central Management Systems whilst, thankfully, the other sixty seven Huntingdonshire parishes do not?”

 

Mr John Prestage, Chairman of Bury Parish Council added:

 

“I am alarmed that whilst we are offered consultation, the only option is how many lights the village wishes to fund. There is to be no discussion on the designation of major traffic routes through our village – yet again the local voice is ignored as irrelevant.”

 

Shailesh Vara MP has written to Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County Council, urging him to consider putting safety barriers along the River Nene in Ramsey.

 

Two years ago, Natalie Scotchford tragically drowned in the River Nene and her friends are now campaigning for the location of the accident to be made safer. Rebecca Elliott-Peck has contacted Mr Vara following which he has written to Mr Lloyd asking him to look into the feasibility of putting up safety barriers along this treacherous piece of road.

 

Mr Vara said:

 

“This is a site on the River Nene which took away the life of Natalie Scotchford, a young woman who had so much to live for. It is important that we do all we can to prevent future tragedies and I have therefore asked the county council to look into the feasibility of putting up safety barriers along this part of the river.

 

I commend Rebecca and her friends in trying to ensure that future tragedies are avoided.”

 

Rebecca Elliott-Peck added:

 

“To put into words how much this campaign means to myself and so many others is not done with ease. However, I will start by saying we are not the first to fight for such protection along this river and until something has been done I can assure you we will not be the last.

 

Protecting the community from any more devastating losses in future is the reason for this campaign and we fight for those who have lost their lives. Many blame the drivers, but never will we be able to 100% guarantee that people will drive with the utmost care. That being the case, the punishment for those that may have had that moment of not being in control should never be a high risk of death.

 

Barriers, no matter the cost, will save lives and provide safer roads for those living in the area, I and many others believe that is vital. How many more will we have to lose before we realise enough is enough? We need to act now.” 

 

Shailesh Vara MP has today spoken with Mr Graham Perry, President of MasterCard Prepaid Management Services, following the company’s announcement of proposed redundancies at its centre in Hampton, Peterborough.

 

Mr Vara urged Mr Perry to give a precise figure as to the number of people who will be affected and whilst Mr Perry would not commit to this, saying that he wanted his staff to be told first of the numbers involved, he said it was substantially less than the figure that has been previously referred to.

 

Mr Perry also assured Mr Vara that MasterCard had every intention to continue in Peterborough and given that some of their work is of a seasonal nature, he hoped the impact on permanent staff would be kept to a minimum.

 

To the extent that there will be redundancies, Mr Vara sought assurances that the individuals affected would receive all the help possible to find alternative employment and where necessary individuals would be offered retraining. Mr Perry gave this assurance. He also confirmed that MasterCard would organise jobs fairs to which other local employers who are seeking to take on more people would be invited.

 

Mr Vara commented:

 

“I had a very constructive conversation with Mr Perry and whilst I remain disappointed that he will not provide a specific number of the people affected, he has given me his assurance that it is substantially less than the figure that has previously been referred to. I have made clear to Mr Perry that in the interests of transparency and certainty, he should disclose the number as soon as possible.

 

“It is of course regrettable that there will be some redundancies. I am however pleased that Mr Perry has given me his assurance that those affected will receive help to find alternative employment, including having jobs fairs to which other local employers will be invited. Additionally, Mr Perry has agreed to provide retraining for some individuals where it is appropriate to do so.”

 

Shailesh Vara MP has written Mr Simon Ridley, the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, following an appeal by Hamerton Zoo Park to the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government for permission to build two further wind turbines at the Zoo Park.

 

Mr Vara is concerned that the time period for members of the public to make their submissions (5 weeks from 24th July 2015) is during the peak holiday season and he has asked for an extension to this timeframe. Moreover, Mr Vara has made clear that although the consultation period commenced on 24th July, local residents only received notification of this on 5th August 2015, nearly 2 weeks already into the consultation period.

 

The appeal by Hamerton Zoo Park follows a decision by Huntingdonshire District Council to turn down an application for two 50 kW turbines with a hub height of 36.4m and height to the tip of 46m.

 

Mr Vara said: - 

 

“This application is hugely unpopular locally and the original application was rightly turned down by Huntingdonshire District Council. Hamerton Zoo Park is entitled to make an appeal but in the interests of fairness, members of the public should have a proper opportunity to make their submissions and to be told they have a 5 week period to do so during the peak holiday season is simply not right. Nor is it right that residents were informed of the consultation nearly 2 weeks after the consultation period had started. I hope common sense will prevail and there will be a suitable additional period allowed for the public to make their views known.”

 

Mrs Fiona Anderson, Chairman of Hamerton & Steeple Gidding Parish Council added:

 

“The Parish has made its views very clear about this proposed development and is sure that Huntingdonshire District Council’s decision to reject the original application was the right one. This small village is in a peaceful and beautiful part of the Northern Wolds with rare species, including Red Kites, two listed Churches and a medieval settlement and views are already dominated by the Woolley Hill turbines as well as the existing ones at the Zoo. HDC turned down the application as they recognised their cumulative impact on the landscape and the lack of a full ecological assessment for the site. We hope the Secretary of State will respect the views of local people.”