18 March 2014
Shailesh Vara responds to back bench MPs’ questions on the courts and legal aid.
1. Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): What his future plans for legal aid are. [903093]
3. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): What his future plans for legal aid are. [903095]
11. Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): What his future plans for legal aid are. [903103]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): We are implementing the reforms of litigation procurement and Crown court advocacy fees that we announced last month. Although making fee reductions is unavoidable, we have listened to the professions wherever we can and taken concrete steps to ease the impact of the changes. Moreover, the Justice Secretary has given a personal commitment that this Government will not seek further savings from criminal legal aid.
The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency keep the operation of both the criminal and civil legal aid schemes under continual review. The Government plan to undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within three to five years of implementation. That review will include an assessment of the impact of the reforms implemented during that period.
Stephen Timms: The cost of legal aid came in at £56 million less than was budgeted last year, and research commissioned by the Law Society from Oxford Economics argues that falling crime will reduce the legal aid bill by £80 million by 2018-19. What assessment has the Minister made of the argument that the spending cuts will be delivered without the scale of service reductions he is currently proposing?
Mr Vara: We need to look at the bigger picture and recognise that legal aid expenditure in this country—for England and Wales—is some £2 billion, which makes our system one of the most expensive in the world. Even after the reductions have gone through, the bill will still be one of the most generous in the world. We have to ensure that these reductions go through so that the legal aid budget remains sustainable.
Paul Blomfield: After a legal aid-funded judicial review of a negative reasonable grounds decision, the Home Office agreed that a Sheffield resident was a victim of trafficking. Under the new regime she would not pass the residence test for legal aid. The Government have been making much recently of their commitment to tackle human trafficking, so will they now reconsider their decision to reject the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to exempt from the residence test all cases where the status of a trafficking victim is contested?
Mr Vara: We have made it absolutely clear that for the residence test it is important that they are our people—that they have some link to this country. We have set out where there are exceptions, and that has been made abundantly clear.
Andy McDonald: Is the Secretary of State worried by the increasing number of defendants in serious cases who cannot access legal advice following the 30% cut in advocates’ fees?
Mr Vara: It is important to put things into perspective. The 30% reduction applies to only a tiny number of criminal cases—they are called “very high cost cases” and constitute less than 1% of Crown court cases. The reductions we are making will ensure that the barristers who do that sort of work are still receiving good fee income.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): It is generally recognised that the criminal legal aid provider market is fragmented, underinvested and unsustainable, so has my hon. Friend yet been able to assess whether his reforms will lead to the necessary market consolidation?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend makes a good point: it is important to recognise that the legal market has changed and we need to change with it. We very much hope that our proposals will ensure that we have a sustainable legal aid budget which ensures that those who need legal aid assistance will be able to get it, from both solicitors and advocates.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how much of the criminal legal aid budget is spent on cases where the defendant maintains they are innocent only to plead guilty at the last minute before the trial?
Mr Vara: I confess that off the top of my head I do not know what the figures are, but I will try to find out the relevant information and I will happily write to my hon. Friend.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD): In their response to the JCHR report on legal aid reform, the Government agreed to exempt sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the residence test. However, that exemption will not include judicial review, despite the fact that it is often the only remedy available, thereby apparently undermining the exemption that has been made. Will the Minister look closely at expanding the exemption to include judicial review?
Mr Vara: The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is in Committee, will look at judicial review in considerable detail.
20. [903113] Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): On how many occasions has the Attorney-General had to appoint an amicus curiae as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts?
Mr Vara: That is a matter for the Attorney-General and not for the Ministry of Justice.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): Statistics show that the number of non-molestation orders issued by the English courts has recently increased, and there is some suggestion that they may be used as an additional route to obtaining legal aid. Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate that further?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will happily look into the matter.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), that the Government’s cuts to legal aid are “unarguably harsh”? Will the Minister correct his own overestimate of the earnings of legal aid lawyers, which the UK Statistics Authority yesterday called “potentially misleading”? Is it not time that the Ministry of Justice ministerial team put themselves in order?
Mr Vara: It is rather rich of the hon. Gentleman to speak about legal aid. The Opposition’s manifesto made it abundantly clear that they would cut legal aid. He and his colleagues lack any credibility unless they put on the record what cuts they would make and, more importantly, whether they would reverse the cuts that we are making.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Will my hon. Friend look at the workings of the Legal Aid Board, so that we never again see a case such as the one in which the board in Essex awarded legal aid to a violent husband to employ a private detective to pursue a battered wife to my constituency?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I will be more than happy to ensure that everything is done properly in his case or, indeed, others.
| Hansard
5. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): What progress he has made in ensuring that the judiciary provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with reasons for their conclusions in appeals against employment and support allowance. [903097]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): The hon. Lady will appreciate that the provision of this information is a matter for the judiciary. However, they have agreed to provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with summary reasons for their decisions in employment and support allowance appeals. That approach was successfully piloted at four tribunal venues from June 2013 and will be rolled out later this year.
Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the most recent statistics show that 45% of ESA appeals are successful. That is a slightly higher figure than in the previous set of statistics and suggests that the flow of information that could ensure that the decisions are right first time is still not happening. When will we see a published proper evaluation of what is going on?
Mr Vara: The pilot programme is now being rolled out and we need to see its full impact. The DWP has found the information it has been given very useful and as a consequence it is in the process of revising the guidance for decision makers. It is to be hoped that the decisions taken as a consequence will be of a much better standard.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): In Kettering, benefit claimants who appeal against refusals sometimes have to wait for more than 40 weeks for their appeals to be heard. That is completely unacceptable and involves some of the longest waits in the whole country. What is being done by the Department to tackle these long waiting times?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the legacy of the previous Government and that the backlog is being dealt with—[Interruption.] I appreciate that this is difficult for the Opposition, but the truth often hurts—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of very raucous noise from those on the Opposition Benches. The Minister is a very courteous fellow and he is trying to address—[Interruption.] Order. He is trying to address the House. Let us hear him.
Mr Vara: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure my hon. Friend we are dealing with the backlog, which is going down.
| Hansard
7. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): What his future plans are for access to judicial review. [903099]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): Judicial review is, and will remain, a vital means of holding public authorities to account, but the Government are concerned about the potential for unmeritorious judicial reviews being used to frustrate decisions that have been properly made, to generate publicity and to cause delay. Last month we announced a package of reforms designed to reduce the number of unmeritorious claims and speed up the process for those claimants who have arguable grounds and a genuine case to put. Most of our reforms will be given effect through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently in Committee—a Committee on which the hon. Gentleman is serving.
Mike Kane: Last week, the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill heard evidence from 17 leading experts in the field of judicial review. Is not the Minister just a little concerned that not one of them agrees with the Government’s position as set out in that Bill?
Mr Vara: I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at that evidence, he will find that one of the very last people to speak—I am thinking of only one person who comes to mind—said that the reforms would be helpful for development. Judicial review is a very good system of holding the Executive to account, but it is our intention to ensure that unmeritorious claims are dealt with so that those that are genuine can go through to help the economy and the taxpayer and ensure, ultimately, that those who want jobs can get them.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that unmeritorious judicial reviews not only bring the judicial system into public disrepute but are frequently a significant financial burden on democratically elected local authorities, which might find their attempts to carry out the wishes of their electorate frustrated?
Mr Vara: That is absolutely the case. Some local authorities are trying to help the economy through projects, only for them to be frustrated by unmeritorious claims. The taxpayer loses out because of the extra costs, the efforts of those who wish the projects to make progress or to have employment in them are stifled and, ultimately, the economy does not recover in the way that it ought to. That is what we are trying to achieve, to put right the consequences of the Opposition’s time in government.
| Hansard
9. Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): What further plans he has to close courts before 2015. [903101]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure it meets operational requirements. Any new proposals to close courts or tribunals beyond those already announced would be subject to consultation.
Mr Crausby: For too many years Bolton magistrates court has been dogged by rumour of closure, when what the court needs is stability. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no further change of mind on the future of Bolton magistrates court?
Mr Vara: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, there are no plans at present as regards Bolton magistrates court, but he will appreciate that the court estate has to be kept under review to ensure that it meets operational needs. In the event that anything happens, there will be a consultation. Nothing is planned for Bolton magistrates court.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): How many magistrates courts does my hon. Friend think could be closed if they no longer had to deal with television tax evaders?
Mr Vara: I do not have the answer off the top of my head, but I am happy to look into the matter and try to provide one.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Proposals to merge Wrexham and Flintshire magistrates court benches are being carried forward without public consultation. Does the Minister think that is appropriate?
Mr Vara: That is a local decision for the local justices.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): In relation to court closures, Medway magistrates court has an excellent virtual court scheme. However, funding has not been renewed for the scheme, which has received national recognition. Will the Minister review that and confirm the Government’s commitment to virtual court schemes?
Mr Vara: Absolutely.
| Hansard
14. Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques. [903106]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): We have received a small number of representations on pleural plaques over the past few months, including some from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
Mr Hepburn: Does the Minister agree that the current system of compensation for pleural plaques is grossly unfair? People with pleural plaques living in Scotland or Northern Ireland qualify for compensation, but those living in England or Wales do not. Does he think that is unfair, and is he going to do anything about it?
Mr Vara: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are different legal jurisdictions, which means that there will occasionally be differences. In the light of the current medical evidence, the Government do not consider it appropriate to overturn the House of Lords judgment that the condition of pleural plaques is not compensatable under the civil law.
| Hansard
T2. [903119] Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): Legal aid used for injunctions and stays pending judicial review has been vital in preventing ordinary families from spiralling into homelessness and, indeed, in saving the public purse the costs of incorrectly made homelessness decisions by local authorities. Will Ministers confirm whether the changes made to legal aid in regulations last week have retained that specific protection?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): The provisions are there and there are exceptions. The hon. Lady will be aware that the argument constantly put forward that legal aid is being taken away from everyone simply does not match up. For those who are in need and when people’s individual liberty is at stake, legal aid is provided, as is the case with other provisions.
| Hansard
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The recent orchestrated action by self-employed barristers in protection of their commercial interest is prima facie evidence of an anti-competitive cartel. Such a cartel would be illegal under EU and UK competition law. What can we do to uphold the law in this area?
Mr Vara: The action taken by barristers recently is very regrettable. It caused a lot of inconvenience to victims and witnesses. I just want to assure the legal profession that the door of the Secretary of State for Justice and my door are wide open, and we hope that we can engage in constructive dialogue.
| Hansard
Legal Aid
1. Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): What his future plans for legal aid are. [903093]
3. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): What his future plans for legal aid are. [903095]
11. Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): What his future plans for legal aid are. [903103]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): We are implementing the reforms of litigation procurement and Crown court advocacy fees that we announced last month. Although making fee reductions is unavoidable, we have listened to the professions wherever we can and taken concrete steps to ease the impact of the changes. Moreover, the Justice Secretary has given a personal commitment that this Government will not seek further savings from criminal legal aid.
The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency keep the operation of both the criminal and civil legal aid schemes under continual review. The Government plan to undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within three to five years of implementation. That review will include an assessment of the impact of the reforms implemented during that period.
Stephen Timms: The cost of legal aid came in at £56 million less than was budgeted last year, and research commissioned by the Law Society from Oxford Economics argues that falling crime will reduce the legal aid bill by £80 million by 2018-19. What assessment has the Minister made of the argument that the spending cuts will be delivered without the scale of service reductions he is currently proposing?
Mr Vara: We need to look at the bigger picture and recognise that legal aid expenditure in this country—for England and Wales—is some £2 billion, which makes our system one of the most expensive in the world. Even after the reductions have gone through, the bill will still be one of the most generous in the world. We have to ensure that these reductions go through so that the legal aid budget remains sustainable.
Paul Blomfield: After a legal aid-funded judicial review of a negative reasonable grounds decision, the Home Office agreed that a Sheffield resident was a victim of trafficking. Under the new regime she would not pass the residence test for legal aid. The Government have been making much recently of their commitment to tackle human trafficking, so will they now reconsider their decision to reject the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to exempt from the residence test all cases where the status of a trafficking victim is contested?
Mr Vara: We have made it absolutely clear that for the residence test it is important that they are our people—that they have some link to this country. We have set out where there are exceptions, and that has been made abundantly clear.
Andy McDonald: Is the Secretary of State worried by the increasing number of defendants in serious cases who cannot access legal advice following the 30% cut in advocates’ fees?
Mr Vara: It is important to put things into perspective. The 30% reduction applies to only a tiny number of criminal cases—they are called “very high cost cases” and constitute less than 1% of Crown court cases. The reductions we are making will ensure that the barristers who do that sort of work are still receiving good fee income.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): It is generally recognised that the criminal legal aid provider market is fragmented, underinvested and unsustainable, so has my hon. Friend yet been able to assess whether his reforms will lead to the necessary market consolidation?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend makes a good point: it is important to recognise that the legal market has changed and we need to change with it. We very much hope that our proposals will ensure that we have a sustainable legal aid budget which ensures that those who need legal aid assistance will be able to get it, from both solicitors and advocates.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how much of the criminal legal aid budget is spent on cases where the defendant maintains they are innocent only to plead guilty at the last minute before the trial?
Mr Vara: I confess that off the top of my head I do not know what the figures are, but I will try to find out the relevant information and I will happily write to my hon. Friend.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD): In their response to the JCHR report on legal aid reform, the Government agreed to exempt sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the residence test. However, that exemption will not include judicial review, despite the fact that it is often the only remedy available, thereby apparently undermining the exemption that has been made. Will the Minister look closely at expanding the exemption to include judicial review?
Mr Vara: The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is in Committee, will look at judicial review in considerable detail.
20. [903113] Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): On how many occasions has the Attorney-General had to appoint an amicus curiae as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts?
Mr Vara: That is a matter for the Attorney-General and not for the Ministry of Justice.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): Statistics show that the number of non-molestation orders issued by the English courts has recently increased, and there is some suggestion that they may be used as an additional route to obtaining legal aid. Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate that further?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will happily look into the matter.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), that the Government’s cuts to legal aid are “unarguably harsh”? Will the Minister correct his own overestimate of the earnings of legal aid lawyers, which the UK Statistics Authority yesterday called “potentially misleading”? Is it not time that the Ministry of Justice ministerial team put themselves in order?
Mr Vara: It is rather rich of the hon. Gentleman to speak about legal aid. The Opposition’s manifesto made it abundantly clear that they would cut legal aid. He and his colleagues lack any credibility unless they put on the record what cuts they would make and, more importantly, whether they would reverse the cuts that we are making.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Will my hon. Friend look at the workings of the Legal Aid Board, so that we never again see a case such as the one in which the board in Essex awarded legal aid to a violent husband to employ a private detective to pursue a battered wife to my constituency?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I will be more than happy to ensure that everything is done properly in his case or, indeed, others.
| Hansard
Employment and Support Allowance
5. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): What progress he has made in ensuring that the judiciary provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with reasons for their conclusions in appeals against employment and support allowance. [903097]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): The hon. Lady will appreciate that the provision of this information is a matter for the judiciary. However, they have agreed to provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with summary reasons for their decisions in employment and support allowance appeals. That approach was successfully piloted at four tribunal venues from June 2013 and will be rolled out later this year.
Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the most recent statistics show that 45% of ESA appeals are successful. That is a slightly higher figure than in the previous set of statistics and suggests that the flow of information that could ensure that the decisions are right first time is still not happening. When will we see a published proper evaluation of what is going on?
Mr Vara: The pilot programme is now being rolled out and we need to see its full impact. The DWP has found the information it has been given very useful and as a consequence it is in the process of revising the guidance for decision makers. It is to be hoped that the decisions taken as a consequence will be of a much better standard.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): In Kettering, benefit claimants who appeal against refusals sometimes have to wait for more than 40 weeks for their appeals to be heard. That is completely unacceptable and involves some of the longest waits in the whole country. What is being done by the Department to tackle these long waiting times?
Mr Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the legacy of the previous Government and that the backlog is being dealt with—[Interruption.] I appreciate that this is difficult for the Opposition, but the truth often hurts—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of very raucous noise from those on the Opposition Benches. The Minister is a very courteous fellow and he is trying to address—[Interruption.] Order. He is trying to address the House. Let us hear him.
Mr Vara: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure my hon. Friend we are dealing with the backlog, which is going down.
| Hansard
Judicial Review
7. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): What his future plans are for access to judicial review. [903099]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): Judicial review is, and will remain, a vital means of holding public authorities to account, but the Government are concerned about the potential for unmeritorious judicial reviews being used to frustrate decisions that have been properly made, to generate publicity and to cause delay. Last month we announced a package of reforms designed to reduce the number of unmeritorious claims and speed up the process for those claimants who have arguable grounds and a genuine case to put. Most of our reforms will be given effect through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently in Committee—a Committee on which the hon. Gentleman is serving.
Mike Kane: Last week, the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill heard evidence from 17 leading experts in the field of judicial review. Is not the Minister just a little concerned that not one of them agrees with the Government’s position as set out in that Bill?
Mr Vara: I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at that evidence, he will find that one of the very last people to speak—I am thinking of only one person who comes to mind—said that the reforms would be helpful for development. Judicial review is a very good system of holding the Executive to account, but it is our intention to ensure that unmeritorious claims are dealt with so that those that are genuine can go through to help the economy and the taxpayer and ensure, ultimately, that those who want jobs can get them.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that unmeritorious judicial reviews not only bring the judicial system into public disrepute but are frequently a significant financial burden on democratically elected local authorities, which might find their attempts to carry out the wishes of their electorate frustrated?
Mr Vara: That is absolutely the case. Some local authorities are trying to help the economy through projects, only for them to be frustrated by unmeritorious claims. The taxpayer loses out because of the extra costs, the efforts of those who wish the projects to make progress or to have employment in them are stifled and, ultimately, the economy does not recover in the way that it ought to. That is what we are trying to achieve, to put right the consequences of the Opposition’s time in government.
| Hansard
Court Closures
9. Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): What further plans he has to close courts before 2015. [903101]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure it meets operational requirements. Any new proposals to close courts or tribunals beyond those already announced would be subject to consultation.
Mr Crausby: For too many years Bolton magistrates court has been dogged by rumour of closure, when what the court needs is stability. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no further change of mind on the future of Bolton magistrates court?
Mr Vara: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, there are no plans at present as regards Bolton magistrates court, but he will appreciate that the court estate has to be kept under review to ensure that it meets operational needs. In the event that anything happens, there will be a consultation. Nothing is planned for Bolton magistrates court.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): How many magistrates courts does my hon. Friend think could be closed if they no longer had to deal with television tax evaders?
Mr Vara: I do not have the answer off the top of my head, but I am happy to look into the matter and try to provide one.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Proposals to merge Wrexham and Flintshire magistrates court benches are being carried forward without public consultation. Does the Minister think that is appropriate?
Mr Vara: That is a local decision for the local justices.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): In relation to court closures, Medway magistrates court has an excellent virtual court scheme. However, funding has not been renewed for the scheme, which has received national recognition. Will the Minister review that and confirm the Government’s commitment to virtual court schemes?
Mr Vara: Absolutely.
| Hansard
Pleural Plaques (Compensation)
14. Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques. [903106]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): We have received a small number of representations on pleural plaques over the past few months, including some from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
Mr Hepburn: Does the Minister agree that the current system of compensation for pleural plaques is grossly unfair? People with pleural plaques living in Scotland or Northern Ireland qualify for compensation, but those living in England or Wales do not. Does he think that is unfair, and is he going to do anything about it?
Mr Vara: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are different legal jurisdictions, which means that there will occasionally be differences. In the light of the current medical evidence, the Government do not consider it appropriate to overturn the House of Lords judgment that the condition of pleural plaques is not compensatable under the civil law.
| Hansard
Topical Questions
T2. [903119] Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): Legal aid used for injunctions and stays pending judicial review has been vital in preventing ordinary families from spiralling into homelessness and, indeed, in saving the public purse the costs of incorrectly made homelessness decisions by local authorities. Will Ministers confirm whether the changes made to legal aid in regulations last week have retained that specific protection?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): The provisions are there and there are exceptions. The hon. Lady will be aware that the argument constantly put forward that legal aid is being taken away from everyone simply does not match up. For those who are in need and when people’s individual liberty is at stake, legal aid is provided, as is the case with other provisions.
| Hansard
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The recent orchestrated action by self-employed barristers in protection of their commercial interest is prima facie evidence of an anti-competitive cartel. Such a cartel would be illegal under EU and UK competition law. What can we do to uphold the law in this area?
Mr Vara: The action taken by barristers recently is very regrettable. It caused a lot of inconvenience to victims and witnesses. I just want to assure the legal profession that the door of the Secretary of State for Justice and my door are wide open, and we hope that we can engage in constructive dialogue.
| Hansard
