House of Commons

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Friday 19 October 2012

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3).

Mobile Homes Bill

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

09:35

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I was fortunate enough to be drawn fifth in the ballot for private Members’ Bills on 17 May, I immediately received requests to introduce Bills on many subjects. The request to sponsor a Bill on park homes stood out from the other suggestions for a number of reasons. First, the request came from a wide variety of colleagues from both sides of this Chamber and from the other place. Secondly, based on my experiences in my constituency, I was fully aware that the law on park homes was in urgent need of reform and updating. Thirdly, drawing on experiences in my career as a chartered surveyor, it was clear that park home owners in many places have been denied the basic right to live peacefully in and enjoy their own homes, a right that those in most other property sectors with different tenure arrangements take for granted.

The sector comprises 0.38% of the country’s housing stock—approximately 160,000 people living in 85,000 park homes on 2,000 estates. It is the fact that these numbers are relatively small, not any party political differences, that explains why the sector has been overlooked for so long and why there has been a lack of progress in bringing forward legislation. There is, in fact, a remarkable degree of agreement on all sides that the legislative framework governing park homes is today not fit for purpose. It neither deters unscrupulous site owners nor provides local authorities with effective powers to monitor and help improve site conditions.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend’s proposals to allow the sale of mobile homes to be in the control of the occupier, not the owner of the site. This will come as a particular relief to those people on sites on the Isle of Wight and beyond that have been sale blocked. People have come over to the island specifically to block sales of park homes and sites. Most owners set sensible limits, such as restricting parks to over-60s, but does my hon. Friend believe that protecting the rights of mobile home owners will prevent sale blocking by rogue site owners?

[Peter Aldous]

Yes, I do agree, and the Bill seeks to address the concerns that my hon. Friend sets out. His constituency, like mine, is a coastal constituency, and it is in such areas that this is a particular problem. I am grateful to him for drawing that to my attention.

It is appropriate to mention some of those who have campaigned so tirelessly to address the unfairness that my hon. Friend outlined. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who chairs the all-party group on mobile homes, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has campaigned vigorously for reform, and the noble Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has championed the cause of park home owners over many years.

A particular feature of the sector is that most residents are elderly and often vulnerable, with approximately 70% being over the age of 70. At present, they face a confusing array of laws and regulations that offer little or no protection. The existing legislative framework is flawed and has many loopholes that enable unscrupulous site owners unfairly to take advantage of residents.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that many of these elderly home occupiers came to what was to them an idyllic home in an attractive setting, often with a very friendly and helpful owner, but have then seen the site bought by somebody else who does not understand or co-operate on their problem at all?

[Peter Aldous]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Consumer Focus has just produced a report on park home sites entitled “Living the Dream?”. For many people these homes were a cherished ideal and somewhere they could retire to, but their dreams have been shattered and we need to pick up the pieces.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and support everything in his Bill. He has described how the concerns about park homes relate particularly to coastal areas and to the elderly. May I point out that there are two park home sites in my constituency in Northumberland that are landlocked and that the residents, who are in no way elderly, are robust, strong and intelligent people? However, even the fact that they robust, strong and have their full capacities does not stop them being completely subject to landlords and the problems my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) identified.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. There are some very responsible site owners, but there are also some unscrupulous rogue operators—gangsters, dare I say it?—against whom everyone needs the right protection.

The problem we have identified has been recognised by the Prime Minister, who, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) during Prime Minister’s questions last November, said:

“There are some extremely good park home owners, who not only obey the rules but demonstrate responsibility and compassion, but there are some who do not. We are committed to providing a better deal for park home residents by improving their rights and increasing protection against bad site owners.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 283.]

It is in that spirit, and with full Government support, led by the former Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), that I present the Bill for Second Reading. In summary, the problem park home owners face is that in recent years many sites have been acquired by rogue operators who, in pursuit of obscene windfall profits, exploit the piecemeal regulatory framework to make the lives of many elderly and vulnerable people a misery.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Bill to Second Reading and hope that we will get it through today—I am sure that we will. Many rogue operators have come in and bought up sites in idyllic places. In South Derbyshire we have some very good site operators, but there are also some people who have come in more recently who do not care about the residents and basically want them off the sites. It is a really poor show. The Bill will hopefully remedy the situation.

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend summarises well the situation and the challenge we face.

The exploitation takes a variety of forms: the deliberate miscalculation of pitch fee increases and utility charges; poor, or even a complete lack of, site maintenance, as is the case at the Waveney residential park in Beccles in my constituency; and the abuse of the right to approve new buyers, known as sale blocking, which rogue site owners often use as a device to buy park homes at knock-down prices before selling them for windfall profits. There has even been a case involving terrified home owners being forced to sell their home, which had a market value of £80,000, for £1—a peppercorn.

The existing legal framework, which dates back over 50 years, is outdated, does not deter unscrupulous site owners and does not provide local authorities with effective powers. Local authorities have a limited ability to revoke licences when site conditions are being breached and, indeed, the granting of licences is at present little more than a rubber-stamping exercise. Moreover, the fines that local authorities can impose to deter operators are inadequate, and some site owners will risk the threat of small financial sanctions rather than maintain sites properly.

Demands for reform are sometimes made on the back of an isolated case, but that is not the situation with regard to the Bill. The case is compelling and overwhelming. The Department for Communities and Local Government carried out a consultation earlier this year, to which there were over 600 responses, and the Communities and Local Government Committee has carried out a full and comprehensive inquiry and come forward with recommendations, many of which are included in the Bill. An issue that I found particularly disturbing about that inquiry was that, of the 250 people who made representations, some asked for their names to be withheld as they were scared about possible reprisals.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Bill this far. In gathering evidence, has he found examples, as other Members have, of unscrupulous site owners deliberately using bullying tactics so that people are afraid? I have seen that in my constituency again and again over many years. One individual in particular—I dare to name him—Mr Sines, owns many parks across the country and has engaged in exactly the sort of behaviour my hon. Friend has just described, and has done so for over a decade.

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend makes her point well. A particularly unscrupulous type of site operator has moved into the sector and is making life a misery for an untold number of people.

Earlier this week, Consumer Focus published its report, “Living the Dream?”, which confirmed the abuses and iniquities taking place in the sector. The conclusions of these reports and inquiries are underpinned by the experiences and findings of colleagues in this Chamber and in the other place, drawn from what they have been told and what they have seen for themselves. I anticipate that during the course of this debate we will hear some shocking examples—we have heard some already—of what some park home owners have had to put up with.

The Bill’s objectives are threefold. The first and foremost objective is to drive out the rogues. Secondly, the Bill aims to ensure that responsible site owners, such as my constituent, David Westgate, who runs the Beach Farm park at Pakefield, are not unfairly penalised and burdened with regulations and so can make a fair return on the time, effort and financial investment they put into their properties.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this excellent Bill, by driving out the rogue operators, will allow the legitimate and responsible park owners to have much better businesses, to be much more respected and to do much more to improve and enhance their sites in future?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She summarises the position well. The objective behind the legislation, as she says, is to ensure that the responsible site owner can move forward and run a sensible business.

The Bill’s final objective is to ensure that park home owners can enjoy their homes without fear of retribution or harassment. In drafting the Bill, I have concentrated only on those issues where legislation is needed. It contains measures to achieve the following objectives: reform of the licensing system that applies to park home sites; preventing site owners from blocking residents’ sales on the open market, including the misuse of site rules; clarifying the law on harassment and making it an offence to say something that is untrue to prevent a home from being sold; making pitch fees more transparent and setting new rules on what should be taken into account in reviews so that fees are fair and accurately reflect the condition of the site; and, finally, should it prove necessary, allowing the Secretary of State to introduce a “fit and proper person” registration scheme in future.

This Bill has, in many respects, been difficult to draft—the devil is very much in the detail—and I am grateful for the support that I have received. There are many points of detail that will need to be addressed in Committee. There also remains other work to do in the sector, including helping park home owners themselves to obtain a better understanding of their agreements and of their rights and obligations. The fact that at present only 1% of buyers take legal advice when buying a park home means that they are particularly vulnerable when faced with an unscrupulous site owner. The Government need to help the legal profession, including citizens advice bureaux, to improve their understanding of the sector and its legislative framework.

In a week when rising energy bills are making the headlines, it is important to remember that fuel poverty is a very serious issue on park home sites, which are usually off mains gas and where residents invariably do not have a contractual relationship with their energy company. Any proposals that the Government bring forward to address the challenge presented by rising fuel bills need to take account of the particular vulnerability of park home owners.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for introducing this Bill. There is a statutory instrument in place that restricts the amount of extra charges that can be passed on to mobile home owners by the site owner, but only for electricity and water and not for liquid petroleum gas, for example. Would he be prepared to consider in Committee an amendment to his Bill to change that, because it is affecting the people who are suffering the most from fuel poverty in many of our constituencies?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. This is a very serious concern that does need to be addressed, and we can consider that point if we get to the Committee stage. The Bill has been difficult to draft in terms of its length and succinctness. I am not sure whether it is the right place to deal with the matter, but we can consider doing so.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Fuel poverty is a massive problem for park home owners. The Bill would place an obligation on the site owner to be transparent with the fee arrangements. Will my hon. Friend consider extending that to the fees charged for energy, perhaps in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk? This is very important in relation to the recommendations in the Consumer Focus report that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned, which would enable park home owners to benefit from the measures that are being introduced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change through the energy company obligation and the green deal, enabling people to improve the insulation of their park homes and to access the best tariffs to get them out of fuel poverty.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has clearly studied the Bill in some detail and taken on board the issues raised by Consumer Focus. Her point is well merited, and we can certainly consider it if we get to the Committee stage.

This Bill is a vital step forward in addressing the criminality, abuse and intimidation that has evolved in this sector in recent years. I thank colleagues for their encouragement and support, and I hope that the Bill can move forward in order to address the injustice that a vulnerable group of people have had to suffer for too long. I commend the Bill to the House.

09:53

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am absolutely delighted to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I am very pleased that he has chosen this subject for his Bill, and I hope that it will progress through Second Reading and Committee and then become law. Like many others in this House, I have campaigned on the issue for many years, as did my predecessor, Harry Barnes—I pay tribute to him—who was MP for North East Derbyshire for 18 years. I continued the campaign when I took over seven years ago. That shows how long it has been going on and for how long this injustice has been building.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), without whom we would not have got this far. She has campaigned tirelessly, along with her constituent, Sonia McColl, to whom great tribute must also be paid. She has been a lifeline to many people; without her, their lives would have been even more miserable than they are today. I thank her very much. I will not steal the hon. Lady’s thunder by saying any more.

The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who was until recently the Housing Minister, and had been since the general election, did a lot to take the Bill forward and gave great deal of support to those of us in the all-party group on mobile homes who have been campaigning to make these proposals a reality. I am very grateful for that.

I will not go into the details of the Bill, because it will, we hope, go into Committee, where it can be scrutinised in detail. Instead, I will explain a bit of the history of why we have arrived at this point. There are very good reasons why. It is no surprise given that the previous legislation on which the sector is based is called the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. That indicates a complete misunderstanding of the sector. These units may not be made of bricks and mortar, but they are people’s homes. They do not move—they are static—and they are homes like everybody else’s. To call them mobile homes or caravans is completely to misunderstand what this is about. Interestingly, a lot of people who do live in homes of bricks and mortar have joined the campaign because they can see the injustice of saying that somebody who does not have such a home should have to live under completely different rules. It is very important that we support the progress of the Bill to make sure that they enjoy the same privileges as those living in homes of bricks and mortar.

In previous generations, a long time ago, the people who owned park home sites were decent people who looked after the sites and made them idyllic places to live in. Their houses were usually adjacent to the sites. They grew up on the sites, and their children grew up on them, inherited them, and carried on looking after the people who lived there—all aged 50 or over, and almost always a lot older. A couple will downsize their home and move into one of these fabulous small units to live with like-minded people in small semi-rural communities; it is idyllic. Then the husband or wife dies and the person who is left becomes very frail and vulnerable. That is where the site owner comes into their own by looking after that person. For example, in the past, site owners charging people who live in the homes for their electricity, water and gas have bought in bulk in order to pass the savings on to them. However, that benefit has recently been abused.

In the snows of last year and the year before, people often became isolated in their units; they could not leave their site because it was not well maintained and the paths had not been cleared. In one case, because these people are very elderly and frail, somebody knocked on the site owner’s door and asked him to put some grit into the grit bins, saying that they would do the gritting themselves. The previous owner had always put grit into the bins. The site owner said “Grit bins? I didn’t realise we had them”, and took the bins away. Next day, outside his unit, he was selling bags of grit at twice the market rate. People bought that grit because they had nowhere else to go—they could not leave the site because they were too old and frail and scared of walking outside. Instead, they bought the grit at twice the price. That shows exactly what these site owners can be like.

The generation of people who used to care for and look after sites passed them on to their children, who did not want to look after them and sold them. They sold them on to what seems to be a generation of people who not only do not care but are trying to screw the very last penny that they can out of elderly and vulnerable people. Those people therefore need our protection. Because they live in such isolated communities it is difficult for people who do not live on such sites, and have not been there, to see exactly what is happening.

[Mrs Laing]

I agree with every word that the hon. Lady has said, and she has described exactly what happens on both park home sites in my constituency. Does she agree that the reason why the law has not worked up to now is that owners such as those she describes are deliberately getting around the law and finding a legal loophole to make the lives of park home residents a misery, simply for the sake of making money? They are using disgusting bullying tactics to do that, which is why the Bill is so important. Previous Governments have tried to close the loophole and failed, but today we must succeed.

[Natascha Engel]

That is absolutely right. The hon. Lady says that owners are making money, and indeed they are making considerable amounts. I know of a lady whose husband died, and she became frail and vulnerable and wanted to move into a home. She put her unit up for sale, and the owner blocked every sale. She was an elderly and vulnerable lady, but he used to go round in the middle of the night and rattle the windows. That might not seem to Members the most frightening thing, but a rattling on the windows in the middle of the night was terrifying for her. The old lady phoned the police, but they have better things to do than to go round and see somebody who has had their windows rattled in the middle of the night. That poor woman ended up absolutely terrified and wanting to do anything she could to leave her home. When a letter from the site owner popped through her letterbox, offering her £10 for a unit that was worth £100,000, she took it and left, and she died very soon afterwards.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. The economics of the industry have allowed a criminal class to enter it and exploit vulnerable people who need our protection. The Bill will deliver an end to sale blocking, extra transparency in pitch fees and protection for the people whom she mentions.

[Natascha Engel]

That is absolutely right. Because park home sites are in semi-rural locations, the problem has been hidden away and not many people talk about it. It is therefore really important that the Bill goes forward today.

[Sir Alan Beith]

When it comes to sale blocking, is not a further problem that the site owner is often in competition with the mobile home owner and therefore does not allow or encourage prominent advertising? The site owner probably has other units that he would rather sell to an incomer.

[Natascha Engel]

Absolutely; that is another huge problem and a huge money-spinner. The owners also buy people’s units at cut-price rates and sell them on for huge profits.

I wish briefly to touch on the role of local authorities, which are the licensing authorities. That role is dealt with in the Bill and needs further scrutiny. One big problem has been that local authorities have had neither the capacity nor the ability to enforce the licences on park home sites. Because those sites are isolated, and because they are run by a group of people who really know what they are doing—they pass licences around and change site rules—it is difficult to get hold of the problem. Local authorities have a lot on their plate already, so they cannot commit much time to the problem. The fact that local authorities will be given money to do that, through the awarding of fees, represents huge progress and will make the Bill enforceable.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s comments reflect the problems that my constituents have experienced, and she is right to say that this exploitation of the vulnerable and elderly must be stopped. Her points are apposite, because the Bill needs to be practical so that our constituents can use it to hold landlords to account. The most important aspect of our scrutiny of it will be whether it is useable by the lay person as well as by local authorities and the police, so that it can protect vulnerable residents.

[Natascha Engel]

That is absolutely right. One big problem is that when a bad site owner moves in, residents who have been living together in an idyllic community where everybody knows each other stop talking to each other. When the lady I mentioned just now told people about the owner rattling her windows in the night, they did not help her. They stopped talking to her, because they were worried that the same would happen to them. It was a terrible thing to happen. Not only was she trapped in her home when she wanted to leave, but all her friends fell by the wayside, although for understandable reasons. It is important that the Bill advances from a human perspective as well as stopping the criminality that is happening.

I finish by making a point that I will wish to raise in Committee—I hope that the hon. Member for Waveney will look favourably my way when the Committee members are selected. It is about the definitions of repair, maintenance and improvement in site rules, which are important to every person who lives on one of the eight sites in my constituency. The owners often do not make basic repairs, but when they do they call them “improvements”. We are worried that they will then charge a fee for them, which absolutely must not be allowed. We are dealing with a criminal-minded set of people, so we must ensure that the Bill is drafted as tightly as possible so that nothing can fall between two stools.

It is important that there is a fit and proper person test in the Bill. The residential tribunal service has led to a massive improvement for people who live on park home sites, but the process takes a very long time and requires huge organisation. We need to find a more flexible system, and I believe that local authorities will be better able to carry out the process. That is a matter for the Committee stage. Today we are discussing the principle of allowing the Bill to progress to Committee, and I hope that it will. I look forward to listening to other Members, but there is no reason for anybody not to support the Bill.

10:07

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who has worked with many of us on the Bill over many years to get us to this day.

Like many other Members, I tend to be in my constituency on a Friday doing a surgery and numerous other engagements. I therefore often do not have the pleasure of being present on private Members’ Bill Fridays, unlike some other Members. In fact, the last time I came here on a Friday was to support the Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill—the Daylight Saving Bill—and that somewhat dates it. I remember that I had to get through an ice storm in Winchester, and I broke my paternity leave for my second child—I am still paying for that. I hope that gives the House and the promoter of the Bill some indication of the importance that I place on it. That is why I am here to speak in support of it today.

As others have, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on his success in the ballot and on taking up the cause. It is a complex issue, and he has taken to it with his usual gusto. We have had many conversations in which we have communicated to him how we have got this far, and it has been good to have him on board.

If I had a pound for every Member who has said to me in the two and a half years since I was elected that they have a lot of park homes in their constituency, I would be a very wealthy man. People sometimes think that this is a marginal issue that affects a small number of people living in coastal areas. Not so. There have been varying estimates of the park home population, and the Consumer Focus report that has already been mentioned many times this morning, and will be mentioned many times again, states that about 160,000 people in England live on just under 2,000 sites. I think that is about right, and it is the most up-to-date figure that we have seen.

I represent eight sites across Winchester and Chandler’s Ford in Hampshire, and I reckon that in the six and a half years for which I have been in post there, including the two and a half years since my election, I have knocked on pretty much every single door. I soon got a pretty good feel for what park home residents are saying, and I found that they—like most of my constituents —were not exactly shy in coming forward.

Let me be crystal clear: not all park home owners are rogues or difficult people. I have met many in my constituency, and elsewhere through the mobile homes all-party group, and most are decent people running legitimate businesses and providing genuinely affordable homes to many of our constituents. Furthermore, park home residents do not talk to their MP only about park home issues; they use the health service, schools, and experience the benefit system much like all our constituents, and we should remember that.

As I have said many times in the House and in meetings upstairs, my constituency contains good and bad site owners. It is fair to say, however, that by no means do I see the worst of the situation, and some might ask what my interest in the subject is. Having talked to park home residents over many years, I could see that there was a problem and a need to tighten the law. Since becoming an MP and dealing with my post bag and holding surgeries, I have seen this problem time and again. I have spoken to constituents who are frightened and intimidated, and who just want a bit of peace and quiet to go about their lives like the rest of us. That is not too much to ask.

During my short time in the House, many Members have asked questions about park home living. Already in this Parliament, questions have been raised with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, and there have been debates in Westminster Hall and a Backbench Business Committee debate in this Chamber. As we have heard, and will no doubt hear again today, such debates are peppered with appalling stories of park home residents who are far from living the dream—they are living a nightmare. The trick is to make those stories count, and to get a real response so that we can change the law. My fellow vice-chair of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), has done more than most to get us to this point today, and we are incredibly grateful.

Hon. Members will hear a lot about the all-party group this morning. It is a real working group and I remember a meeting at the Department for Communities and Local Government that was held just before Christmas last year with the former Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), and also attended by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We started to see the Bill coming together, and it was exciting to see years of work beginning to go down on the page. Let me recognise again the work of Consumer Focus in this area. Its report, “Living the Dream?”, launched last Tuesday, is a significant and first-class piece of work, and we should thank Consumer Focus for it.

It is a pleasure to support this Bill, which I hope will bring to an end years of uncertainty and suffering for thousands of mobile home residents across the country. I do not think it is perfect, and there are issues concerning the timing of some of the provisions and when they will become a legal reality. It does, however, contain many positive provisions for which we have long campaigned, and I will touch on a couple of those and highlight the experiences of some of my constituents.

Although many mobile home residents are content with the condition of their sites, a recent survey by Consumer Focus found that a quarter of all residents reported problems with maintenance, safety or security. Those issues often involved badly maintained roads or paths, inadequate street lighting, or problems with residents’ private or communal gardens. In some circumstances, the appalling condition of site roads can mean that rubbish trucks, and even ambulances, are unable to access the site.

Many park home residents in Winchester have written to me about their sites on a range of issues. One constituent wanted to draw poor parking facilities to my attention, as well as a badly maintained drainage system that resulted in water pouring into and flooding his garden on an almost daily basis. There was poor quality workmanship on parts of his plot and his home and, to make matters worse, the owner of the site refused to rectify any of those faults, and subjected my constituent to verbal abuse and barely concealed threats when he dared to complain. It is almost as if we have become desensitised to such stories, but they are real and should never be underplayed.

Another constituent wrote to me outlining serious concerns about the upkeep of the site on which he had lived for nearly eight years. During that time, no improvements had been made to the site, which he understandably found pretty frustrating. Perhaps more worryingly, since the site had been sold to a new owner, conditions had deteriorated further with potholes on the road becoming an increasing problem. On top of that, much of the street lighting was not in working order, making it pretty much pitch black in winter evenings. My constituent told me that he no longer felt safe taking the dog round the block after dark. One e-mail I received was sent on behalf of many residents on the site, some of whom, as we have heard, are elderly and have no access to e-mail. I was assured that the majority of residents felt the same way, although, as other hon. Members have said, many did not want to come forward and speak to their MP—that tells a story in itself.

Such problems are not minor inconveniences; they have a profoundly negative impact on the quality of life of residents in our constituencies, and that is why this Bill is important. Surely, as constituency MPs we are interested in the quality of life of our constituents, and time and again I have heard that that is being affected for those living on park home sites. That is not good enough.

The current licensing arrangements are inadequate because—perhaps understandably—local authorities often seem to place greater importance on breaches of licenses that pose a risk to the health and safety of the residents, as opposed to those relating to maintenance that do not on the surface appear to pose the same risk. Park home residents in my constituency frequently mention the provision of utility services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, they are often left with much less consumer protection than individuals living in other sorts of homes, owing to the lack of any direct relationship with the provider of gas, electricity or water. I have been made aware of many examples across the country where residents pay for electricity through the site owner, but that way of operating is obviously open to abuse and leaves residents with little clarity. That is why, if this Bill gets to Committee, I will support calls by some of my colleague to increase the transparency provisions of the Bill to cover utilities.

Under the current law, if conditions attached to the granting of a licence are breached, the local authority has the power to prosecute the site owner only in the magistrates court, and they are not able to serve notice requiring works to be undertaken prior to prosecution. Many local authorities are therefore reluctant to prosecute because the statutory set fines are low—they were set in stone in the previous legislation; we would have required primary legislation to change that, which is another reason the Bill is important—and the resources required are considerable.

The Bill seeks to address those issues in several ways. Clause 4 amends section 9 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by providing that where a site owner fails to comply with a licence condition, the local authority may serve a compliance notice on the owner, outlining the steps that need to be taken to meet the licence condition. It is vital that a greater range of enforcement tools are available to local authorities, as that will make it easier for site conditions to be maintained. We have longed campaigned for that, and it is welcome in the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 enhance that measure by stating that a site owner who has been served with a compliance notice that has become operative under the proposed new section 9H, is guilty of an offence if they fail to take the steps outlined in the notice within the required time frame. Both changes provide local authorities with better enforcement powers and will go a long way to improving site conditions where necessary.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. At the moment, the only option available to local authorities is that of prosecution in the magistrates court. That is costly, the maximum sentence is quite low, and that deters enforcement authorities from taking action and provides an incentive to the site owner to evade his or her responsibilities. The powers in the Bill are essential if we are to improve enforcement against unscrupulous site owners.

[Steve Brine]

Absolutely. As usual my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. I hope that local authorities will not become litigious organisations as a result of the Bill, and I like to think that some of the sticks that have been brandished today will be noted loud and clear across the country. The provisions in the Bill are critical.

I welcome the fact that local authorities will be allowed to demand expenses when a compliance notice has been served under section 9A of the 1960 Act. It is crucial that local authorities are able to recover any expenses incurred, to ensure there is no disincentive for them to issue such notices. The provisions in the Bill that provide local authorities with the power to carry out works on a site in certain circumstances are also welcome, as that will surely put an end to some of the worst cases of neglect. I hope that a message goes out from the House that such actions should be the last resort for local authorities, and that the new powers will act as sufficient warning to site owners who continue to ignore their responsibilities. I suspect, however, that I am being naive in that regard, and that is why those clauses are in the Bill.

Under the current law, all privately owned sites are required to be licensed by the local authority. The conditions attached to the licences are designed to ensure that the site is in a suitable state of habitation and maintained to a good standard. However, because local authorities are currently unable to charge for their licensing role, such functions are often under-resourced. A Select Committee on Communities and Local Government report published in June found that the current law is inadequate because it does not provide local authorities with effective powers to monitor or improve site conditions.

I welcome the reforms to the licensing system in the Bill. By allowing local authorities to charge fees for the issue or varying of licences on relevant protected sites, the Bill will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the licensing regime. In doing so, the Bill recognises the importance of creating a self-funding model under which local authorities are not burdened with the costs of administering the licensing system. An effective licensing regime hinges on the cost of the licence being adequate to cover an appropriate inspection arrangement. An annual licence fee will act as a useful income source for local authorities—as we have heard, they can use it to offset the cost of enforcing licensing conditions. By providing better resources to police the system, the fee will help to raise maintenance standards and ensure that the licensing conditions are adhered to more thoroughly.

Although the Bill allows for the annual licensing fee to be recoverable through pitch fee increases—I recognise this is controversial—rather than through a new licence application, park home residents should not be liable for any costs that result from the new requirement for site operators to pay a site licensing fee annually. Ultimately, the revenue from the sale of park homes—the 10% commission that owners receive—should provide revenue to site owners for the licence fee. In an ideal world, the Bill would remove the 10% rule altogether—I have argued for many years that the rule is a scandal—but it does not. That is the context.

Under current legislation, park home residents who want to sell their home must have the new buyer approved by the site owner before any sale can proceed. The process can occasionally be used by site owners, in effect, to block the sale of a home in an attempt to get the current owner to sell their property back to the owner, which is clearly totally unacceptable—we have heard many examples of that, although I have thus far not heard of any from my constituency. Park home residents should have the right to sell their home freely and without unfair interference from the site owner. I am therefore very pleased that the Bill includes provisions to remove the requirement.

A number of constituents and many more park home owners across the country have written to me because they are worried about the bullying or intimidation that often accompanies such unfair interference.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I might pre-empt my hon. Friend’s point, but does he agree that we should not raise the expectations of current park home owners, because the Bill does not apply retrospectively? Could the promoter and the Government work to ensure that it is applied retrospectively?

[Steve Brine]

The all-party group discussed that point this week, and my hon. Friend will want to take that up with the promoter of the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that the Department’s legal advice says that applying the measures retrospectively is not possible, which is regrettable.

One site owner from my own constituency wrote to me this week on the subject of site owners’ involvement in park home sales. For the record, he said:

“Dear Mr Brine…We have read the details of the proposed changes in the Mobile Homes Bill and are most concerned about the change that negates the need for site owner’s approval of purchasers. Solicitors are not normally involved when a home is sold and the only way a purchaser can obtain correct information on their future rights and responsibilities is from the site owner. The site owner also ensures the correct procedures are followed so that the rights are properly assigned. Sellers have a vested interest in omitting and even misrepresenting the facts and it is not practical for a purchaser to rely on civil proceedings…once the seller has his money and has left the park (and is often not traceable)…If the proposals become law, we can foresee a situation where elderly purchasers will pay large sums, for the ‘home of their dreams’ only to find out, at a later date, that they have been cheated by the seller and their rights and responsibilities are not as envisaged. Major problems will occur if the purchaser finds they are not able to abide by the Park Rules and as a result, could face eviction.”

I can see that site owner’s point, but I take issue with one line, although some might wonder why I have chosen only one. The line I take issue with is this:

“Solicitors are not normally involved when a home is sold.”

The Bill’s promoter eloquently told us that solicitors are involved in only around 1% of park home sales. That is crazy. Although the Bill does not—and legally could not—demand a change, I suggest in the strongest terms possible that it must change. Many park homes sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds. To make such sales without the involvement of a solicitor is a most unwise move, and the park home community must face up to that inconvenient truth.

I should like to highlight a couple of cases from my constituency that illustrate the extent to which site owners are able to take advantage of residents by significantly raising pitch fees, year after year. In one case, a constituent who happily accepts that pitch fees increase with inflation wrote to me expressing his concern that his pitch fee was rising by £500 per year, well over the rate of inflation. Another constituent who wrote to me on this issue was careful to point out that he had no problems with the site owner—we have heard that before—but did have concerns about how pitch fees were calculated. There is currently little transparency over what expenses are covered by the pitch fees or how increases are calculated. I therefore warmly support clause 11, which amends parts of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to require a site owner who serves a pitch fee review notice proposing an increase in the pitch fee to provide the resident with an accompanying document that meets the requirements set out in paragraph 25A. That transparency is most welcome.

I am an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Government’s energy policy and the green deal, having served in Committee on the Energy Act 2011—the green deal is one of the best things the Government have done. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in March 2011 whether park home owners would be eligible for the green deal, and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has said:

“Park homes will be able to apply for the Green Deal as long as they fulfil the same criteria as other types of eligible buildings.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 616W.]

However, it is my understanding—Consumer Focus says this in its report this week—that park homes will not be eligible, because the new green deal assessors will not be able to carry out their standard assessment procedure, and because park homes are exempt from requiring an energy performance certificate.

Green deal finance is also not available to some park homes because, as I have said, owners pay for their utilities through the site owner’s joint electricity Bill. I mentioned that to the Minister earlier, but I urge him speak to his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and find a way to make the green deal work for park home owners, because they are among the most fuel poor in our country and they deserve better.

Park home owners deserve better across the board. They deserve better when it comes to buying and maintaining their homes, and better when it comes to enjoying the environment around their homes. They deserve a lot better when selling their homes and, as I have just said, when it comes to staying warm. In short, park home owners should be able to live the dream like anybody else. The Bill will help. It could be a dream-making Bill in some important respects, which is a great thing. I urge Members to join me in supporting it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.

10:28

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the House has voted unanimously that my speech should be given a public airing. I hope I can prove to be worthy of that honour.

I congratulate the promoter of the Bill, which I am delighted to sponsor. I have been dealing with the matter for the 20 years I have been in Parliament—I joined in 1992, along with your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker. The problem affects a wide variety of constituencies. When discussions on it first took place, there was a perception that the problems occurred only in seaside areas, but they occur across the country and there are many substantial sites in inland areas. There are common threads to the problems in all parts of the country.

There is a substantial number of good park home sites that are run by good owners in partnership with tenants associations. I congratulate the park home owners and the National Association of Park Home Residents on the work that they have done collectively to try to set standards. Unfortunately, the law—and this is the trouble with all law—is made not to deal with the good people but with the rogues. We come across a number of rogues in this area, and some of their behaviour is desperately poor. We must bring that to an end. To a substantial extent, we have done that in the housing sector. There are still rogue landlords in the private rented sector, but park homes have been a neglected area over the years. Despite the sterling efforts of many, including my dear friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has done so much to bring this issue to the attention of both Houses, we have not got far enough. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on pressing this matter.

In my constituency, I have the case of a site that is owned through a complex series of companies. I am not even sure to whom the site fees are paid. If HMRC staff would like to contact me, I will tell them whom they should be chasing, because I have a feeling that the structure is a neat tax dodge. This is the same chap who has sent me letters saying that he is going to take me to court for the things I have said about him. I am still waiting for the writ, and I look forward to my day in court with him. This is a case of consistent threats and bullying, and attempts are regularly made to carve any resident with a problem away from the rest by insinuating to the rest of the tenants that if they raise the issue too, it will be a black mark against them in terms of their relationship with the landlord. For example, the communal electricity supply to the site has electrical safety standards that even I, with my modest knowledge of electrical safety, would not approve of. I have asked a friend of mine, who is qualified in electrical safety and was then a local councillor, to drive round the site to have a look. He was horrified. We raised the matter with the local authority, but very little has happened. It is all very well having a regulatory structure, but we have to have the enforcement that goes with it.

The other practice that is remarkably common is the deliberately wrong interpretation of the law, in particular the use of Daily Mail-style myths about health and safety. People are told, “You must do this, on the grounds of health and safety”, when in fact the site has been inspected by a fire safety officer from the local fire authority. The owner has been given the nod that A, B and C need doing, but that does not amount to an instruction to the tenants. It needs to be clear where the responsibility lies in such cases.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) raised an interesting point about the role of solicitors in the procurement of mobile homes, and I have spoken to the hon. Member for Waveney about the line we need to develop on this. Philosophically, we should be trying to ensure that a park home owner is in the same position as the owner of a leasehold property. By definition, that would mean a need to move towards transactions conducted by legal process. The idea that the involvement of the law would be a burden on park home owners and residents—I think that solicitors are always a burden on people, but that is another matter, with apologies to those present who are members of that profession—is wrong, if the issue is dealt with properly, sensitively and in a structured way.

When the Bill is in Committee, I invite those on the Treasury Bench to think carefully about drawing parallels with rights that exist for leasehold occupants of conventionally built homes, because therein lies the key to some of the problems that we have faced for many years.

I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak on this important measure, so my final point is about enforcement. There is no point having a regulatory structure if it is not accompanied by an effective, but appropriate enforcement structure. We need to ensure that we create a structure that does not make it impossible for local authorities or fire authorities to do their work. We need not “light touch”, but “right touch”. We do not want a heavyweight regulatory structure: we want one that works properly in the context. Legitimate complaints have to be investigated, but frivolous complaints must be sidelined. A proper complaints process will work in the interests of individual park home owners as well as the collective group on the site

All the evidence suggests that where there is a good tenants’ association on the site, and a landlord who is acting rationally, a good working relationship can be achieved, even to the extent that in case of a dispute, the owners and the landlord jointly invite the local authority to adjudicate in terms of the legal position. We have come across this on issues such as spacing of homes and transitions when owners move on. On the other side of the coin, some sites still give rise to huge concern.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney, and I wish his Bill every success. As I have said, those on the Treasury Bench need to look carefully at the Bill in Committee and invite officials to draw as many parallels as possible to give this group of home owners the same status as owner-occupiers of leasehold properties.

10:38

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on his success in the ballot and, even more, on his selection of this issue for his Bill. I am sure that he will go down in history for his wise and splendid choice. Like the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), I cannot quite believe that we are today to start the introduction of much-needed legislation to protect park home owners, so many of whom are vulnerable and have suffered financial and other forms of abuse over many years.

I pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Sonia McColl, a park home owner who set up the national park home owners justice campaign, particularly to stop sale blocking, who deserves to be honoured for her work, persistence and readiness to run a campaign of this magnitude, especially given that she had to learn on the job. She reminded me that three years ago this week the first petition to the Government to stop sale blocking went out. Almost 10,000 people signed it before Christmas 2009. She has also organised several mass demonstrations in London, and we have organised meetings in the House so that MPs can hear at first hand the dreadful experiences of many park home owners.

Initially, it seemed that the then Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), was not inclined to introduce new and extra regulations—after all, the Government initially intended to cut regulation—but then came progress, as the evidence showed that the industry had been infiltrated by rogues and that action needed to be taken for the sake of the whole industry, as well as for park home owners.

[Heather Wheeler]

I praise the hon. Lady for her work. I am proud to be a member of the all-party group on mobile homes and to have my name on the Bill. Does she agree that our work on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, bringing this issue forward and taking enormous amounts of evidence, was a turning point that gave the final nudge to get the Government to do something? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), too.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will refer specifically to the Committee later.

Sonia has carried out a massive survey, Consumer Focus has proceeded with an investigation and, latterly, the Communities and Local Government Committee has conducted an inquiry. Throughout, there has been enormous support and help from the park home owner associations. Many parliamentarians have been involved over the years, although I can only mention a few today. First, of course, I want to congratulate the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield for bringing these proposals together and the noble Lord Graham for his unstinting support for park home owners over many years. More recently, there has been the truly cross-party work of the all-party group and, in particular, the meetings between Ministers and me, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire. This is the very best type of legislation, with strong cross-party support.

To prove that malpractice is widespread, Consumer Focus carried out independent research to back up the anecdotal material that we all had. This provides some incredible background—this is an evidence-based Bill—and makes it clear that we are not dealing with a series of isolated events, but that the problem goes right across the whole industry.

I am pleased with the structure of the Bill, although of course we will have to scrutinise each clause closely in Committee. On licensing reform, local authorities must have the resources to do what I believe most of them want to do. Consumer Focus reports in its survey that local authorities want more power, so let us give them the necessary resources. They are on the spot, and it is fairly easy for park home owners to go and find someone at their local authority.

According to Consumer Focus, 25% of people surveyed reported problems of maintenance, security and safety, which is why it is important to have a site licence and site licence conditions, to enforce those conditions and to ensure that the site owner does not carry out vital work but that the local authority is empowered to do it and recover costs. I agree with the hon. Member for Winchester that this should be a last resort, however, and let us hope that the Bill sends out the message that we need a better and more consistent approach throughout the industry. I am a little concerned, however, that the clauses on licensing might not be brought in operation before April 2014. That is a long time to wait, if, as I hope, the Bill is enacted in 2013.

On clause 8, we must thank the Select Committee for its recommendation regarding the “fit and proper person” rule, which would not be in the Bill had it not been for the Committee’s important work. It is a clever device to have in our back pocket ready to introduce. We have been calling for it for many years. There are reservations—will it work?—but it is excellent that it is now in the Bill.

Clause 9 deals with site rules. It is important that park home owners know exactly what the rules are, that the rules are printed in the pitch agreements and that the agreements are transparent. We must have certainty. I have come across cases of the age clause in site rules being very conveniently changed after a purchaser has been turned away for being the wrong age. I suggested that site rules be lodged with the local authority, so I am pleased that such a provision has been included. One of my local authorities requires residents associations to lodge their constitutions with it, and does not invite associations that do not do so to consultative meetings. So there is a precedent. This would get a grip on the problem of people changing the rules as they go along. Having said that, some park home owners have expressed concern about how the licence fee will be paid, but we will talk about that in greater detail later.

Sale blocking is what first got me involved in this issue. We had the most appalling incident in my constituency where £15,000 was offered for a home that could have gone for £150,000 on the open market. The problem is widespread. Consumer Focus showed that 28% of residents thought they could not buy or sell their homes freely, and that 10% reported problems of intimidation, violence, vandalism and damage to property.

[Natascha Engel]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, stark as those figures are, a lot of people were, worryingly, too frightened to tell Consumer Focus the truth, which means that the figures are an underestimate, rather than an accurate picture?

[Annette Brooke]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is the tip of the iceberg. I keep referring to the figures, however, because they are evidence—that is what is important. We relied on anecdotes for a long time, but it got to the point where we were not going to make progress without evidence.

We have a two-tier approach to sale blocking comprising existing agreements and new agreements. We have to look at that closely. Consumer Focus recommends a targeted campaign to ensure that prospective and current park home residents are fully aware of their rights and obligations. This will be really important. We say that park home owners do not want to speak out, but we are not convinced that we have reached the majority of park home owners. It is especially important that the home owner provides the purchaser with the regulations. I agree that citizens advice bureaux need to be more proactive in making much more information available to park home owners, and that we need to encourage purchasers to use a solicitor. The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield made a very good contribution when he proposed to increase fines. We are now talking about fines of £50,000, which will make a difference, because in one very bad case in my constituency the fine was £1,000, which was just not enough in the overall context.

Other Members have probably, like me, received representations from park home site owners who have expressed concerns, because there are a lot of unknowns for them, with a lot of references to things being covered in regulations. I understand that uncertainty, particularly on the part of our good site home owners—like everybody else, I have good site owners in my constituency. It is important that we should have a good dialogue, because we want this to be a good industry overall. That means ensuring that we do not pass bad legislation, and there are fears that we might do that. We need to reassure those concerned that we will scrutinise the proposed regulations in Committee in the utmost detail, because we want the Bill to work for everybody.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work. Does she agree that park home owners/residents associations have an important part to play in having good dialogue with the owners? I had a problem in getting recognition for a residents association. It was a great comfort to me to know that the hon. Lady and her group were batting for everybody on the issue, which eventually gave me the incentive to persevere until we secured that recognition.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; that is absolutely right. We have to move towards co-operation and working together, rather than coercion. However, because we have the evidence—all the horrible stories—we have got to act today. Metaphorically, I raise my glass to justice for park home owners.

10:58

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am delighted to support a Bill that for many of us has been long overdue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing a favourable position in this year’s ballot and on having the good sense to take on this cause, not only for his constituents, but for all the constituents—the thousands of people—we represent, many of whom have been suffering for too long as a result of the actions and the inactions of unscrupulous site owners.

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). She and I have been working on this matter since my arrival in this place some two and a half years ago. Alongside the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), we have, I think, worked together very well as part of the all-part group on mobile homes, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and others. However, the real tribute should go not only to Sonia McColl, who has rightly been mentioned, but to all those residents who not only have raised the issue with their Members of Parliament and their councils, but have come to this place and spoken, very eloquently indeed, about the issues they face. I include in that the residents of Brook Meadow Park in my constituency, in Wroughton, near where I live. They have come to this House on several occasions and have spoken up very powerfully indeed about the problems they experience.

It is sad to note that, in the years since I first became concerned and involved with these issues prior to my election to Parliament, apart from one or two items of progress—most notably the transfer of jurisdiction from the county court to the tribunal system last year—progress has been altogether somewhat slow. This Bill marks a welcome further stage in the process of recognising the fact that park homes are not merely goods or chattels to be bought and sold, but are the homes of thousands of our residents. We have heard the statistics; we know what the expectations are of people who live in mobile homes. What they want is security, safety and that well known legal phrase “quiet enjoyment”. It is that principle which we should adhere to strongly when we consider legislation in this area.

As a parliamentary candidate, I was particularly concerned with the issue of sale blocking. I am delighted to see that the various provisions in clause 10 mark a welcome change in this area. I accept that a distinction is to be drawn between agreements that are made or assigned after the commencement of the legislation, if it is to be enacted, and existing agreements. Hon. Members have already quite rightly raised the issue of whether that could be made retrospective. I would urge the Government and everybody concerned to consider the matter carefully when the Bill goes to Committee. At this stage it is right just to outline where we are with the provisions.

For existing agreements, although the right of objection by a site owner is not to be removed, there is welcome change. It is important to emphasise that, because the effect of the new provisions will be to reverse the burden of proof. The prospective buyer will no longer have to demonstrate their suitability; rather, it will be for the site owner to demonstrate, via use of the tribunal, that the prospective purchaser is unsuitable. That is an important point to make. The change is one that we should welcome warmly, and it is one that will give some comfort to all our residents who have existing agreements. Obviously the position is dramatically different for new agreements, which is an extremely welcome initiative.

When it comes to one of the most fundamental issues in the campaign waged by residents and others, I am absolutely delighted that a “fit and proper person” test for licensing is now part of the Bill. That is something that we have heard about from residents time and again, and I know that they will be as pleased as I am to see those words in the Bill. At long last, the Bill gives a benchmark against which local authorities can work and a benchmark for every site owner to reach. It also gives certainty to all residents concerned. That test will go a long way towards resolving some of the abuses that have taken place in far too many parks.

The question of enforcement has already been raised. It is important to note that, sadly, there is often a disconnect between what the statute says and what the powers of local authorities may be, and the economic realities that apply. As I said in an intervention, the sad truth is that for many local authorities the cost and resource implications of taking on prosecutions are often too high for them to bear. The low penalties that have applied until now are a further disincentive to local authorities in bringing prosecutions for infringement.

[Guy Opperman]

In the past my hon. Friend has, like me, done cases on behalf of residents of park homes acting against landlords. Does he agree that, just as there is a need for local authorities to pursue criminal actions, it is manifestly the case that all matters would be so much easier if, when the original purchase took place, there was a solicitor involved?

[Mr Buckland]

I entirely take on board my hon. Friend’s point. This is a plea not for more work for lawyers—I declare my interest as a lawyer—but for all residents to ensure that they are fully and properly advised about their rights in the purchase of park homes, as well as their rights pursuant to any sale of them and their rights when it comes to the enforcement of an existing licence.

I know from my own discussions with residents how frustrated they feel when the local authority says, “It will be very difficult for us to do anything, because we do not have enough resources to mount a full prosecution.” If, for instance, a private building has become so dilapidated and dangerous that it poses a health and safety problem or a threat to the environment, the local authority can issue an enforcement notice, but it has no power to do so in the case of park homes. The Bill deals with that very effectively.

At long last, local authorities can take advantage of further stages before prosecution to enforce licence agreements. The issuing of a notice will often do the trick. It will place the onus on the site owner to make good any dilapidation, or to deal with a problem caused by a poor access road, a dangerous tree or an item on the site that is causing a potential or real nuisance to park home owners. It will give the site owner an incentive to get on with the job and ensure that the wrong is righted. The increase in the armoury available to local authorities is an essential part of the Bill.

As other Members have pointed out, this Bill is not the consequence of a headline or a knee-jerk reaction to a single isolated case. It is the product of many months, if not years, of careful evidence-gathering, consideration of the technicalities of the existing law, and testimony from thousands of our constituents whose stories of suffering have not only moved us all, but demonstrated to us the deficiencies of the existing legislation.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Many of us have spoken of the vulnerability of park home residents, but we should also note that their advocacy has been incredibly effective. They have been not just victims but very effective campaigners for legislation, and they should take some credit for the Bill.

[Mr Buckland]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that she speaks for us all in expressing admiration for the fortitude of the constituents whom we have the honour of representing.

The issue of commencement has been mentioned. I think that if the Bill is to become law, it should become law towards the end of the current Session. Waiting until 2014 would mean a lengthy further delay, and I urge Ministers to ensure it comes into force as early as possible in order to alleviate the problems that we are discussing.

Rather than making glib generalisations about what the Bill can do, we should be realistic about what it cannot do. It is important for all of us, as parliamentarians, to get to grips with the detail, ensure that the Bill’s provisions are as strong as possible, and use the opportunity that we have in the current Session to ensure that it is future-proof, so that we do not have to keep returning to tweak it as we have been forced to do with legislation in the past.

Today is a good day for residents and an encouraging day for park home owners everywhere, and for that reason I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.

11:04

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak about this Bill, on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I am sure that we all wish to encourage and support him in driving it towards its Committee stage and, subsequently, the statute book, and to support our constituents, many of whom have had to suffer for so long as a result of inadequate legislation.

A number of Members have spoken passionately about views that they have been expressing for a long time, but anyone watching this debate must consider the fact that it has taken so long for Parliament to do something about the whole business of park homes a bit of a mystery. A report produced by Berkeley Hanover in 2001 stated categorically that the arrangements for the sale of pitches could not be described as fair, flexible or transparent. However, the past is the past. Perhaps, as we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), what was needed was a champion in the sector—in this instance, her constituent Sonia McColl and the park home owners justice campaign—to mobilise the downtrodden in the park homes sector, along with a Select Committee to gather evidence and a greater awareness among all of us of the issues affecting our own residents.

Those of us who entered the House in 2010 may have other points to make. I first visited Woodlands Park, one of two park home sites in my constituency, in about 2007. At that stage I had no idea of the number of issues with which residents were having to deal. I suspect that, far too long ago, our predecessors concluded that it was all just too difficult. However, the phrase “Something must be done” has resonated throughout the history of this Parliament, and it could not be truer of the park homes situation.

The champions in the House—many are here today, and I salute them all—finally found a Minister who was prepared to listen and to take up the cause. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), whom I warmly welcome to his position on the Front Bench, has picked up the baton and will complete this race with the same élan with which Usain Bolt completed his during the Olympics,

For me, this has been a process of education at the hands of residents in my constituency, and I pay huge tribute to the calm and steady leadership of the Woodlands Park residents association that has been provided for many years by Mike Morgan. It was his commitment to focusing entirely on the facts of the situation that quickly converted me to the residents’ cause and persuaded me to fight for it. I suspect that all Members who are present today have had similar champions in their own constituencies.

I hope that the issue of residents associations will be dealt with in Committee. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, they have not always been recognised by park home owners, and in many cases have been studiously ignored.

We need to ensure that they are recognised as an important part of the dialogue between residents and owners.

Under the heading “Site maintenance”, the minutes of the August meeting of the Woodlands Park residents association note:

“Residents have constantly complained of street lighting being out of action for six weeks or more”.

It is one thing for street lighting to be out of action for six weeks or more in August, or even September, but it is quite another thing in December or January. The way in which the Bill deals with site improvements, how they will be tackled and how owners’ obligations can be made clear will be of practical relevance to many of our constituents.

The Bill covers issues that have been discussed in the House, in the all-party group and in the Select Committee a number of times. It is the third change in the law since the coalition Government came to power, following the introduction in February 2011 of new rights for residents in disputes and the introduction of statutory security provisions two months later. This Bill will go further by tackling the routine blocking of residents’ sales by site owners and, in some cases, the blocking of home owners’ improvements. It also includes clarification of licensing reforms and penalties for eviction or harassment.

Anyone listening to this debate or reading the Bill might be forgiven for thinking that park homes are the last hideout of mediaeval robber barons. However, the point I make is that previous legislation of 30 years ago unintentionally incentivised the piratical approach. That is because an owner can block sales and thereby oblige someone to sell their unit at a significant discount to that owner, who can then sell on at a profit or replace the unit and make a profit in that way.

[Natascha Engel]

I wish to mention a point that has not been made so far in the debate. There was a good reason for giving site owners the ability to block a sale, which was to avoid people who did not fit in with the park coming to the park. The initial legislation was put in place to enable better site practice, but it has been abused and so, unfortunately, it must be removed.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady make a good point, and it was why I said “unintentionally”. As is so often the case with legislation, it is the unintended consequences that we all have to live with years later. She is right in what she says, but I think we are all agreed that it is time to change the legislation and ensure that those unintentional consequences are removed.

Like several other hon. Members, I am here on a Friday for the first time. I am abandoning Gloucester to come to this important debate on behalf of my constituents in park homes. I am very pleased to do so, because this is a good, if not a great cause. Above all, what the Bill will do is show that democracy does work. Even though this has taken a long time, this Parliament, helped by this Government, is taking forward legislation to put right historical wrongs and to ensure that everybody living in park homes has the same regulatory framework as all the rest of us living in other homes. In short, we are seeking to ensure that Cinderella does finally come to the ball.

11:11

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is a humbling and special moment rising to follow such distinguished speakers. If we are here to do anything, it is surely to protect those less able to protect themselves. People in park homes have found themselves in that situation through a variety of means and statutes that have been passed down the years. I should record at the outset that, of course, some very good park owners provide a perfectly good service and are in no way to blame for the problems caused by the miscreants, who have created the disasters that we have all heard about, either as constituency MPs or as lawyers—the joyous profession of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). When the two of us were at the Bar we had to represent individuals who owned park homes and were attempting to litigate, with diminished funds and diminished ability, at an age when no person should be in a court. I do not refer to my hon. Friend there; I refer to the individuals whom I had to look after and guide through a litigious process that no 70, 75, 80 or 85-year-old should have to undertake. Their being in that position is manifestly wrong.

I am humbled to follow such distinguished speakers. I confess that I have never spoken in a private Member’s Bill debate before. The reason I am speaking almost last in this debate is that I speak far too often in the House. [Hon. Members: “No.”] You have not heard all of my speech yet! I follow the coastal king of Waveney, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who has ploughed forth his ship from Waveney down to Westminster to create a new law that will, for the first time, protect park home residents—and that is not the only wonderful thing. What is also wonderful about today is that the House has had the chance to be united. It was a pleasure to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). Normally we all go to the Backbench Business Committee to prostrate ourselves at her feet with a view to obtaining the opportunity to debate matters in the House. So it was good to see her on her feet making the case eloquently on behalf of not only her constituents, but her predecessor, who so ably served the cause of park home residents in her area.

I do not, in any way, diminish the contributions that we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I also wish particularly to pray in aid the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who, long before the good residents of Hexham decided in 2010 that they would like me to represent them—to my surprise and, I suspect, to theirs—was ploughing a strong furrow on behalf of this cause, and she must be given due credit.

It is worth bearing in mind the number of people we are talking about, because the context is fascinating. Individual constituents would come to us with particular problems and we would raise them, and Governments would often step in and change the law to help individuals on a large scale. The paucity of the numbers has been part of the problem here, and it has stopped Governments necessarily getting involved. In reality, however, we are talking about approximately two parliamentary constituencies—there are about 85,000 park homes involving between 100,000 and 150,000 people.

[Richard Graham]

Another way of looking at those living in park homes is to say that they are equivalent to the entire Regular and Territorial Army.

[Guy Opperman]

Interestingly, we spend so much of our time looking after the Army and attempting to champion its cause, whereas park homes have, to a certain extent, been a less strong element in this House’s consideration. Individual champions have changed that and have brought the matter to people’s attention and to the attention of the House. I give due credit to all the individual local champions, both those who have been cited by hon. Members today and those who have gone to their MP in other circumstances. They should all be welcomed and supported. The point is that a small section of a society of well over 60 million people is particularly disadvantaged by the current legislation, and that is manifestly wrong. So today is a historic day, as the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney will come to fruition.

I urge hon. Members not to judge a book by its cover: park homes are superficially very attractive and we can see why so many people would wish to enjoy the benefits of one, but I must add the sad reality of a conveyance into that context. It is madness that so little legal advice is given to park home residents when they purchase their property. I assure the House, before I am said to be trying to cite the benefit of employing lawyers, that I do not practise as a lawyer in any way and have not done so since May 2010. In addition, I must say that I would not be any use when it comes to a conveyance. Conveyances are specialised and specific things. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, the Lloyd George of Llanelli, would be wonderful at many aspects of the law, but would be utterly useless on conveyances. We are not pitching for work. I am urging that individual park home residents should not purchase a property without spending £500 on legal advice to get their conveyance right. Failing to do so is manifestly wrong. One would not make an investment of £50,000 or £100,000 without taking a modicum of advice, as to do so is short-sighted in the extreme and patently wrong. If people from park home residents associations read the Hansard record of this debate, I urge them to take that point and give it as advice on every occasion.

That point is also relevant for site owners. Individual site owners do not start with the predisposition, “I want to cause problems. I want to have disputes with my residents.” There may be isolated examples of site owners who do take that approach, just as isolated individuals set out to commit crime, but most of the time these situations develop. They arise because of a breakdown in relations or because they cannot keep the agreements going on. It is surely in the site owners’ interests for legal advice to be given and taken. I urge the site owners, who have just as much to gain as the individual purchasers, to consider that.

It ill behoves me to cite the various problems, as I have been in the Chamber for nearly an hour and a half and listened to repeated examples of problems in yesteryear. I am grateful to my constituent Mr John Stafford, who lives at 5 Pinewood Grove in Yont the Cleugh in Coanwood, for describing the difficulties that his park home has suffered down the years. He cites the usual litany of problems with the water and electricity supplies, street lighting, field drainage, road surfaces and power cuts—and, of course, a problem that particularly concerns us in the north-east, which is liquefied petroleum gas.

The provision of LPG for park homes is an utter scandal. LPG is effectively the only power provision in this country that is unregulated; all other power providers, including those in oil and gas, are regulated. The House has debated heating oil on many occasions and those who have heard me speak about fuel poverty will know that I consider the heating oil market manifestly to be broken and there is a particular problem with LPG. Individual canisters of LPG are available only from certain providers and in Northumberland, we have only two providers for the whole area, so the competition is limited at best. In the more rural areas of Northumberland, there is a single provider, which does the best job it can. We must bear it in mind, however, that the LPG canister is sold by that single provider, which has not a whit of competition, to the site owner, who can charge property owners whatever he or she wishes.

Countrywide—I stress that this is not the case in the two Northumberland properties that I represent—there are plenty of examples of the provision of LPG being an utter scandal. Mark-ups are unbelievably large—well over 100%—and unless they are paid, the elderly residents, who are struggling pensioners, are deprived of all power and heating. That is manifestly wrong. When the Bill is in Committee, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney to consider LPG and how it is provided and to see whether he can address the problem in any way. I urge him to take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is from Suffolk, not from Norfolk, as was cruelly suggested earlier. I thought that she was having mild palpitations until she realised that it was an error, and that her constituency had not morphed into Norfolk in the boundary review. Lord knows, I blame—no, I will not go there.

Park home residents will be in a better state as we go forward. The journey has been long for the individuals with difficulties, but there is great potential. I go to the park at Blenkinsopp, where a wonderful 14th century castle is set high on the hill overlooking the River Tyne between Haltwhistle and Hexham. It was set up by that famous Frenchman Bryan de Blenkinsopp, whose family came over in the Norman invasion. If hon. Members will indulge me, I will give them a little history tour. It was Bryan de Blenkinsopp who set up the latest castle in the 14th century and at a feast, he was teased about his marriage plans but replied, “Never, never shall I marry, until I meet with a lady possessed with a chest of gold heavier than 10 of my strongest men can carry.” Sure enough, a lady returned with 12 strong men carrying a very large chest of gold. It has never been found and the park homes still reside on that site today. Bryan obviously passed away long ago and is no longer with us. It is still an idyllic spot and when I take individuals around there, they say, “This is where we want to live.” The site has a very good owner, but there is no legislation to provide the protection that those individuals would like.

Let me sum up the Bill, if I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is doing something amazing that reforms the licensing system, prevents residents’ sales from being blocked, clarifies the law on harassment, makes pitch fees more transparent and introduces a proper and fit registration scheme. This is a special day and we are privileged and lucky to be in the Chamber to demonstrate our support for the long campaign that many have fought.

11:25

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)—I am inclined sometimes to say Waverley, but that is of course a station in Edinburgh—and to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has done so much to champion this cause. I pay tribute to the previous Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), for his work and welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). I congratulate him on his appointment.

The problem and the concern about it are widespread, as demonstrated by the presence of Members from all over the country who are in the Chamber today rather than in their constituencies, and by the fact that they are prepared to speak up on the matter. As well as hearing from your county of Lancashire, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have heard from Members from Derbyshire, Gloucestershire and Cheshire. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is from Birmingham—perhaps I should say Warwickshire, or his part of Birmingham might be in Worcestershire; I am not sure. We have heard from Members who represent Suffolk, Dorset, Hampshire, Cornwall, Essex, Wiltshire, Northumberland, Kent, Oxfordshire, Somerset—or as that Member would say, Somersetshire—Middlesex, Pembrokeshire and, of course, Staffordshire. This is a problem across the country not just, as Members have said, in coastal constituencies. Stafford is about as far from any coast as one could possibly get and we have this problem.

Before coming to this place I was not aware of the problems that we have discussed today, but my constituents have brought them to my attention time and time again. I pay tribute to my office manager in Stafford, James Cantrill, for his tireless work on behalf of those constituents in trying to resolve some of their problems.

Members have mentioned that the Bill results from evidence, which is vital. The problems it seeks to correct are real and affect people daily. I do not want to detain Members for long, but I want to go over three of the problems that have been brought to my attention by my constituents, including examples from other constituencies.

The first problem is with the ability to do emergency works when required. A council officer in my constituency brought to my attention an incident that had happened elsewhere, when they were in a previous post. A water main had burst and continued to gush for days on end, if not weeks, without any action being taken, depriving residents of their water. The council was unable to gain access or to do any work and, in the end, had to resort to bringing water to the residents who were without it. It is clear that such a situation must be dealt with and that councils must be able to enter and perform emergency works when necessary.

My second point is about sale blocking. Members have already spoken at great length on the subject. I would just like to say that I have heard of several instances in my constituency in which it is quite clear that that is taking place, and it is vital that we stop it.

Finally, hon. Members have referred to fees. I cannot count the number of times that people have come to me and said that they believe that the fees levied on them, whether for energy or other things, have been over the top and higher than they should be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, park home owners deserve better. They deserve our protection. This is precisely the kind of work that Parliament should be doing, and I am glad that we are doing it. I hope that the Bill becomes law before too long.

11:30

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on bringing this legislation forward. He was lucky enough to be in the top seven of the ballot; he could have picked any topic on which to introduce a private Member’s Bill, and it is a great credit to him that he had the wisdom to pick this issue, which we have struggled to get to grips with for so long.

As has been pointed out, there are very few constituencies in which there is not a park home. In my constituency, there is Priory park and Falcon park. Both are mixed sites, with a mixture of holiday homes and park homes. We need to be clear at the very start that the Bill does not apply to holiday parks, or those parks where the residency is formally for 10 months, even though people may happen to stay a bit longer and nobody may realise that, officially. We need to be clear that the provision relates to proper residential parks, where a full 12-month licence is granted every year, and where people can stay until the end of their lease.

I am sure that all Members will agree that when we go canvassing or deliver leaflets in our constituencies, and go to park homes, they are often in the most beautifully kept park areas. People have great pride in their homes. It is right to bring in the changes that we are discussing, so that instead of the contract being about chattels and services, as I understand it is at present, a park home can legally really start to become a home.

I want to reiterate the two points that I made in interventions, and I will tell Members why I feel so strongly about the subject. One of the things that politicians get a bad reputation for is saying, “We’ve come up with a solution; here’s the answer,” only for people to find that the solution does not apply to them. I give great credit to the officers of the all-party group on mobile homes. Its meetings are usually held in Committee Room 14, because they are so well attended, and when they are in other Committee Rooms, it is standing room only. It has been tireless in its campaign to move the issue along. As has been said, credit should be given to the former Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).

I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), to look at what they can do. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) said, there is precedent for changing retrospectively the rights of leasehold owners, whether of flats or land. I know that the legal implications are very difficult in this particular case, but it should not be beyond the brains of our excellent civil service and parliamentary counsel to draft a provision to that effect. It is vital that all the people who have worked so hard, and have been praised in the Chamber today, do not suddenly feel that they have to say, “So what? What has it all been about?” I welcome the Bill; I do not want to sound like a complete sourpuss, because I know how much hard work has gone into it, and how much effort my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has put into it, but let us see what we can do to make it even better.

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) refer to Blenkinsopp castle, given that a castle is probably the most immobile of homes. As there is a castle that bears the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and has gold underneath it, he might make a claim. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham was right to bring up the issue of energy. To give credit to some liquefied petroleum gas companies, there are metered estates where everyone is on one contract and they do not rely on bottles. Some changes have already happened, voluntarily, on that score, and that is good news, but my hon. Friend is right to bring up the issue. I encourage the Government to look at the small statutory instrument issued in Ofgem’s name, to see if we can do something about the issue while we are tackling the problems that park home owners face. That would be another small thing that could be done to add to the Bill, although I appreciate that the subject is complex enough already.

This is an important Bill, and I am sure that it will get wholehearted support. I am delighted to have made a contribution to the debate on behalf of my residents.

11:35

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

We have heard some moving stories this morning about what has happened to people in our constituencies as a result of the deliberate, unscrupulous bullying actions of people who have taken over park homes that were previously idyllic places in which to live with a view to using them as a money-making exercise, with no regard whatever for the people living there. I pay tribute to the people who live in park homes in Breach Barns park and Woodbine Close park in my constituency—beautiful places on the edge of Epping forest. I would like to name the park home residents who have worked so hard to try to ensure justice, but I cannot; they have asked me not to mention their names, because they are afraid of the actions of Mr Sines, the man who owns those parks, who has deliberately, over a period of more than 10 years, made the lives of the people who live there a misery.

It is brilliant that this Bill is before us today. Previous Governments have tried and failed to close the loopholes in the law, because the owners of park homes sites who are deliberately flouting the law and using the loopholes can well afford to pay lawyers to get around the law. Today, we can give power to the people who need it—our local authorities and others, who will use it on behalf of our constituents, who need our protection.

I should particularly like to pay tribute to another person who lives in my constituency, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has been a great champion of this cause, and to those, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who have worked so hard for the all-party group. I wish the Bill every success.

11:37

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I will start by focusing on the human face of why the Bill is so important—those who have bought park homes in areas of rural idyll, often in the twilight of their years—and on the inhuman face of rogue site owners. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) is absolutely right when she says that if anyone is not a fit and proper person, it is Mr Maurice Sines, who has a long track record of abusing those who live on park homes sites that he owns.

In Ladycroft park in Blewbury, Oxfordshire, residents went to the county court after suffering harassment and intimidation, and an inability to sell their home. Mr Sines was abusing the law, saying that he had to approve any sale. He was meant to give a valid reason, but did he? Did he, hell. Residents took action in the county court, led by the admirable Sheila Austin, who said at the time:

“He blocked sales saying homes would be dragged around the park, threatening and shouting abuse…It was absolutely horrendous”.

Eventually, sadly, 30 people sold their homes to Mr Sines, but at a very good price for him, and a very poor price for them. One home, valued at £50,000, was sold for £10,000. The homes were then demolished and replaced with new ones.

Let me give another example involving Mr Sines and his track record at a mobile home park owned by him and his business partner, James Crickmore, at Hardwick Bridge in Norfolk. One of the owners, Jackie—this is not her real name; as the hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly said, many of the vulnerable people concerned are reluctant to reveal their identity—reported:

“They were banging on the doors in the early hours of the morning saying: ‘You have got to get out or we’ll hook your van up and pull it round the site until it just falls to bits.’ It was unbelievable.”

There are other rogues like Mr Sines. At another park, the Glen site in Worcestershire, elderly residents suffered a series of terrifying arson attacks. One woman lived almost next door to one of the homes that was burned to the ground. She said:

“When I saw the blaze I opened my door and fell down the steps, because I thought: ‘It’s going up in a minute.’ Of course I was thinking: ‘If they put anything under mine I won’t stand a chance.’”

She and three others living on the site were eventually blackmailed into selling their homes to the owners for only £1. I repeat: one pound. In this case, because of the serious acts of arson, a police investigation resulted in seven men, including the site owners, John and Simey Doherty, getting jail sentences of 64 years in total.

The situation must end. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on introducing this much-needed and long-awaited Bill. I congratulate Members on all sides who have worked hard and long in support of action being taken at last. On the Opposition side, they include my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who was right to say that we must end the second-class status of park home owners, and the indefatigable Lord Ted Graham.

I congratulate the all-party group on the work that it has done, and the park home owners justice campaign on the work that it has done. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire said, it conducted an excellent inquiry and produced a powerful report, including calling for the law to be strengthened on the “fit and proper person” issue.

Today is one of those days when the House speaks with one voice to say that the time has come and that legislation is long overdue. The hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) were right to say that for all the discussions that have taken place over many years, it is about time that we got on with it and changed the law. We embarked down the right path in government, and this Government continued down that path.

The reason why I pay such a tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney is that thanks to his private Member’s Bill, he will now force the pace for long-awaited action to be taken at last. He is right to point to the scale of both ownership and abuse. There are 84,000 park homes across England, with an estimated 160,000 residents. Although the evidence is that the majority of site owners are reputable, there is too great a minority who are rogues.

In conclusion, I express the Opposition’s warm support for the Bill. Of course there will be discussion in Committee on the eventual shape of the Bill, but the Bill is a noble measure with a noble intent. Today, by backing the Bill, the House is sending a united message that park home owners deserve security and an end to their second-class status. Reputable site owners deserve an end to the damage done to their reputation by the rogues. So today we serve notice to quit. Just as there should be no place for rogue landlords, so there should be no place for rogue site owners. No more Maurice Sines.

11:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box today when there is total House coalition on an issue which I would no doubt have found myself speaking to on a Friday as a Back Bencher. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on the Bill that he has introduced and on his success in the ballot for private Members’ Bills.

As was pointed out earlier, a company has a duty to protect its minority shareholders. This is a clear case in which we as a Government have a similar duty to protect a small part of society in the best way we can. I congratulate all the campaigners and my hon. Friend and neighbour on introducing a Bill to do just that. I understand the issue fully both as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament. In Great Yarmouth, as in other coastal towns, we have our share of such properties. We also have examples of good ownership, which the Bill will help to protect.

It is important to reiterate some of the comments made this morning to show the breadth of support and the range of topics covered. My hon. Friend and neighbour outlined the Bill. I congratulate hon. Members on their cross-party support and thank the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for her comments, emphasising the importance of behavioural issues for park owners and of protecting the rights of park home owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) highlighted the size of the industry. I noted his comments on the green deal and will pass on to the relevant Department his remarks on the Floor of the House and in a conversation earlier today. He was right to draw attention to the excellent work done on the issue by Consumer Focus.

Everyone is better off for having heard what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) had to say, fortunately in public. I entirely agree that it is hugely important that we achieve the right touch as well as a light touch. The Bill can certainly achieve that. Special congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on being such a long-term campaigner on the issue, as I know from my time on the Back Benches. She emphasised the importance of the “fit and proper person” provision being, in her words, in our back pocket.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) highlighted a message to go outside this Chamber, and, to an extent, outside the Bill’s remit. They spoke about the importance of good legal advice on an investment of the scale we are discussing; clearly they were not looking for any business for themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon also emphasised the need to work, particularly in Committee, to make the Bill future-proof, and to retain the power in our back pocket—a point also made in respect of the phrase “fit and proper person”.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for his comments. I will do my best on this Bill to match the speed of Usain Bolt, as I am sure we all will. I will restrain myself from using the hand gestures on the Floor of the House, although I might be persuaded to do so for charity at another date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham was right to highlight the need for protection, and I much appreciated, as I am sure we all did, his history tour. If anything, I was slightly disappointed that it was not matched by the usual tour through Greek history given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). No doubt that will be saved for anther day.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) rightly highlighted how widespread this problem is, and said that it is an issue not only for coastal towns, such as Waveney and Great Yarmouth, but throughout the country. One of my near neighbours, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), constructively highlighted some of the issues that the Bill needs to deal with. I noted her comments on the SI and Ofgem, which I will pass forward.

We will all have noted and taken on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—they were also eloquently made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington—highlighting some of the hugely unscrupulous behaviour in this sector that must be stamped out, to protect not only the residents, who are our prime focus, but the reputation of the good owners, who are by far the majority throughout the country.

[Steve Brine]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. The “fit and proper person” test is nice and neat in our back pocket, but may we have his assurance that if, as I said earlier, I am being naive and the Bill does not have the desired effect, the Minister and the Government are prepared to dip their hand into that pocket?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to confirm that. Yes, we will, and I will highlight that point specifically in a few moments.

As has been said, the Bill affects only a small number of homes, but it is hugely important to the people who live in those homes, and that is what matters. It will deal with about 85,000 park homes on 2,000 sites. The sector represents only about 0.5% of the housing stock in England, but it is vital. Its residents have rights just like everybody else, and they matter a great deal to all of us. The fact that the sector is small does not mean that we should not address the injustice that is rife in it, and the Bill goes some way towards doing that. That is why the Government fully back the Bill.

Let me explain the Government’s position and why the Bill does not contain more—a point on which some Members have commented. The Bill builds on the thorough and searching inquiry conducted in the spring by the Communities and Local Government Committee. I congratulate the Committee on the report and thank them for it. The Bill takes forward a number of the Committee’s recommendations. As we have heard today, there is a good deal of consensus on the fact that legislative reforms are desperately needed. There is cross-party support for such reforms. Members have given examples of unacceptably unscrupulous behaviour towards older and sometimes vulnerable home owners, disgraceful acts that must not be tolerated for a moment longer.

For Members with park homes in their constituencies, these stories will unfortunately be all too familiar. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney reminded us that the Prime Minister has himself called for urgent action to tackle the problems in the sector. The Bill will do that, but the Government are mindful, as is my hon. Friend, that there are many good site owners in this industry who provide a professional, top-class service to their residents and respect their rights. Sadly, their good work is too often masked by the unacceptable behaviour of the unscrupulous operators who pervade the sector.

We want to create a level playing field where the good operator does not face unfair competition from unscrupulous ones who ignore their obligations and the rights of others. We want to see the industry put on a sustainable footing for the future, so that those who run a decent and honest business can flourish and there is no place for the unscrupulous and for criminals. We want home owners to be confident that their homes are safe and their rights are respected. The Bill aims to achieve that by introducing measures targeted at those who ignore their obligations and exploit their residents, while placing minimal burdens on those businesses that manage their sites well and respect their residents’ rights—the right approach with a light touch.

The Bill focuses on three key areas: reforms to the antiquated licensing regime that applies to park home sites; removing the ability for unscrupulous operators to block lawful sales by residents of their homes; and ensuring that pitch fee increases are transparent to prevent residents from being overcharged. All those issues were identified in the Department’s consultation paper on reforms to the sector published in April.

The Bill also includes a provision that would permit the Government to introduce a “fit and proper person” test through secondary legislation, should that prove necessary, which was one of the Select Committee’s recommendations. I will say a few words about why the Government have accepted that recommendation. It is not our intention to introduce an industry-wide “fit and proper person” requirement at present. I sincerely hope, as many Members have commented today, that the introduction of such a test will never be necessary. New bureaucratic burdens on good businesses must be a last resort. As we have heard this morning, the majority of site owners are good.

However, we must also ensure that conditions in the sector improve, which is why the Bill focuses on making it simply unprofitable for unscrupulous operators to exploit residents. We accept the risk that some of the worst operators might try to persist and that it might therefore be necessary to take powers later to remove them directly from the industry. Therefore, we will review the situation after a suitable period to see how behaviour in the industry has changed. If unscrupulous practices persist, we may consider introducing the “fit and proper person” test. A clear message must go out to bad owners that their behaviour will not be tolerated and, if it continues, the Government will act.

[Heather Wheeler]

I congratulate the Minister on his new post—it is great to see him at the Dispatch Box. I am so pleased to hear his words about the “fit and proper person” test. I came here four years ago, as leader of South Derbyshire district council, to meet Ministers and discuss this matter, but we were just thrown out of the room and not one iota of the proposal was to be considered. Time has moved on and I am delighted that there is cross-party support for the proposal. Clearly, it is such a big issue that the Government have listened and everyone wants it to happen. I thank the Minister very much.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Hopefully I have been able to give some assurance about the Government’s determination to deal with this issue. If we need to act, we will do so.

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not include everything the Government consulted on. The policy reasons are explained in the published response paper, which is available on the Department’s website. In some cases we have simply concluded that legislative change would not necessarily be the best solution, but it is also a matter of size and what can be achieved in a private Member’s Bill. The Bill already runs to 15 clauses, which is unusual for such a Bill, and it would have been impossible to include everything we consulted on if it was to have much chance of completing all its stages and receiving Royal Assent—something that we all want and which is important for the industry.

I want to congratulate everyone who has campaigned so hard on this issue over the years, including the previous Housing Minister, who did a huge amount of work on it, Lord Graham and the all-party group on mobile homes. I also congratulate the Select Committee on its report.

In conclusion, I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s decision to focus the Bill on the key areas of reform that would have the greatest impact and the most lasting effect. These reforms, as we have heard, are well overdue and desperately needed in the industry to protect all our residents. That is why I commend the Bill to the House and wish it a safe passage through this House and the other place.

11:57

[Peter Aldous]

We have had an interesting two and a half hours. I have been heartened by the support from both sides of the Chamber. This place is often at its best when it speaks with one voice. We have also heard from across the country. I have been particularly heartened by the extremely robust responses from the two Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the Minister, my hon. Friend and neighbour.

We have heard horrific stories of what some park home owners have had to put up with. We need to chase out and remove from the sector the rogue owners who have caused so much misery for so many elderly and vulnerable people. I also hope that the constructive nature of the debate will be taken forward into Committee. Some very valid points have been raised this morning which we will look at in great detail.

I will sum up by saying that park homes were, for so many people, seen as the dream retirement. In so many places that dream, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, has turned into a living nightmare. We need to deliver a wake-up call to the rogue operators that they are not wanted and must get out. That is what we will be doing, and I am grateful to the House and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving us the time to do so this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

12:00

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I was delighted to be drawn 12th in the private Members’ Bill ballot and to have this opportunity to introduce a Bill that seeks to reduce the operational burden costs on the marine industry, to promote the work of the General Lighthouse Authority, and to strengthen the powers of port police.

I pay tribute to the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who did so much for marine safety while he was in his post, and I welcome the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to his position. I understand that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is not in his place, is attending a memorial service but will be in the Chamber at some stage of the debate.

Members will know that I have a strong personal interest in maritime matters. Indeed, in the mid-1990s I was secretary of the Plymouth sea safety group, which was set up to bring together master mariners, rescue services such as the RNLI, the fishing industry, channel and river pilots, harbourmasters and yachtsmen in order to allow for a greater understanding between all users of the marine environment.

The maritime industry is crucial to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, with ships carrying goods for consumption, business people and holidaymakers to and from our shores. The ports industry provides a gateway to and from our nation. In 2010, UK ports handled 512 million tonnes of goods, the value of which was about £340 billion. That represents 95% of the total volume of UK import-export trade and 75% of its value. Some 23 million international passengers used UK ports in 2009—three times the population of London. The maritime industry provides employment, directly and indirectly, from as far north as Shetland to as far south as Cornwall. My constituency is bordered by two busy ports—to the west is the port of Fowey, and Plymouth sound is on the eastern border. My constituency’s economy relies heavily on the marine industry.

The marking of hazards and of safe shipping routes in the channel is a key factor in facilitating this vital UK industry. We are fortunate in this regard to employ the efficient services of three world-leading providers of marine aids to navigation throughout the UK and Ireland, collectively known as the General Lighthouse Authority. Marine pilotage is dealt with in clauses 1 to 4 of my Bill. It is a noble profession that dates back hundreds of years. Pilots are highly skilled and knowledgeable individuals responsible for safely guiding ships into our ports and harbours. They provide a vital service without which our shipping industry could not safely operate. The Pilotage Act 1987 governs the provision of pilotage in the UK by competent harbour authorities. I propose to modernise one section of it, relating to pilotage exemption certificates.

I have received a number of representations on my proposals from ports, harbourmasters and those in the pilotage industry, and I reassure the House that they are not simply about saving money and are not designed to reduce safety. The Bill would enable competent harbour authorities to recognise the skills and knowledge of a wider group of individuals when it is clear that they are able and capable of holding a pilotage exemption certificate.

In my opinion, the Bill would implement a balanced set of improvements to the pilotage exemption certificate system, under which competent harbour authorities may at their discretion grant suitably qualified crew a certificate that enables them to pilot specified vessels instead of taking on a pilot. The Bill would remove the restriction that currently allows only masters and first mates to be granted a pilotage exemption certificate. It would allow any crew member demonstrating the high level of skills and experience required by the authority to hold a certificate, and it would also give the authority greater powers in relation to the suspension and revocation of a certificate where appropriate. I am, however, willing to discuss the specifics of my proposals in far greater detail in Committee should colleagues so wish.

Clause 3 would enable ports and harbours that have an obligation to provide pilotage services, but that do not have the traffic to warrant such services, to relinquish that requirement in a straightforward and sensible manner. That is about removing unwanted burdens on ports and harbour authorities, and deregulating where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

Clauses 5 and 6 relate to harbour authorities. Statutory harbour authorities have many duties and are primarily responsible for the safe operation of their facilities. About a third of them currently benefit from powers of general direction. Extending the use of those powers to the rest of the industry—a responsible and mature industry—would reduce the costs and time required to achieve the same effect via harbour revision orders. That proposal is localism in action and would enable the right decision to be taken by the right organisation without the need for expensive recourse to legislation.

Unused port and harbour facilities can be a financial drain on their owners once they are no longer economical to run. Some facilities have geographical restrictions on the size of ship that can access them, and others fall victim to changes in trade patterns. In either case, through no fault of the operators, ports can become economically unviable. Some of those ports are owned by local councils, which then pass the costs of maintaining facilities and honouring statutory duties on to council tax payers. The Bill would make it easier for statutory harbour authorities to close unviable harbours when appropriate, and to relinquish costly responsibilities that cannot be justified given a harbour’s limited use.

Clause 7 deals with port constables. Currently, a port constable is limited to working within one mile of their port restriction.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for introducing this important Bill and for the work that she has conducted on the issue over many years.

As a member of the all-party group on human trafficking, I believe that clause 7 will be important in giving port constables the right to extend their sphere of work to inland constituencies such as mine. It is well acknowledged now that the only way in which we will successfully tackle the increasing scourge of human trafficking, which blights lives, is for more agencies to work together. I am therefore delighted to support the Bill, particularly clause 7. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Bill has great relevance not only to coastal constituencies but to every constituency in the country?

[Sheryll Murray]

I do acknowledge that; this clause is extremely important, and I know other hon. Members will speak about it. Port constables are currently limited to working within 1 mile of their port—a restriction meaning that otherwise perfectly competent officers must be accompanied by the local police whenever they need to investigate a crime, or escort an offender to a custody suite or court beyond that limit. At a time when, as has been mentioned, we are seeking efficiency in all our public sector organisations, that cannot be right. Worse still, it provides the potential for an officer to find themselves unable to prevent a crime, simply because it happened a few feet too far away from the port at which they work. My Bill will remove the geographical limit on the powers of port constables, where that is agreed with the local police.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has explained well and succinctly the case for extending that jurisdiction. Does she bear in mind the fact that both the port police and the Home Office have wished for that change in the law since 2008? It is important for the Bill to make progress, so that we can end that anomaly, and so that the port police can make a full contribution to defending our borders.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend is right. The problem was identified in 2008 when the Department for Transport conducted a consultation on the issue. It is, therefore, important to get the Bill through and place this provision on to the statute book.

Clauses 8 and 9 relate to general lighthouse authorities of which the UK and Ireland has three: the Northern Lighthouse Board, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and Trinity House. Each organisation is world renowned in its field, and each has a proud and historic reputation for ensuring the safety of mariners. The general lighthouse authorities already carry out some commercial work, prudently utilising any small amount of spare capacity they may have when that does not affect their day-to-day operational activities. For instance, the Northern Lighthouse Board maintains and monitors many rig watchers, which are used to mark decommissioned oil and gas rigs. The Commissioners of Irish Lights recently won a contract to mark an offshore renewable energy site, the first for them in that field. Trinity House undertakes short vessel charters, where it provides small lifting operations for wind farm sites.

The general lighthouse authorities are innovative in their approach to work, and I want to help them make the most of commercial opportunities when they present themselves. Once enacted, my Bill will enable those three organisations to trade more freely on their reputations of excellence, providing each with greater commercial freedom and enabling them to increase the income they generate through commercial activities. I hope that such action will reduce the call on the shipping industry for funding through the payment of light dues. The other measure on the general lighthouse authorities in the Bill puts beyond doubt their power to provide markings beyond the 12-nautical mile territorial sea limit—a sensible proposal, as I am sure hon. Members will agree.

Clauses 10 and 11 relate to other marine issues. Section 47 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides a regulation-making power concerning the minimum number of qualified persons who are required to be carried on ships, and the standards of competence required and conditions to be met to achieve such qualifications. Amendments to those regulations require secondary legislation, which takes up limited time and administrative resources. My Bill will simplify the process for setting manning requirements for ships by enabling secondary legislation to cross-refer to external documents, such as industry or international technical agreements—a practice known as “ambulatory reference” that already applies in other maritime legislation. In practice, references to external documents, which are known within the industry as “M-notices”, are issued by the Secretary of State through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. They are a well-established means through which the Department for Transport and MCA communicate with stakeholders.

The final substantive clause in my Bill confirms the ability of lighthouse authorities to deploy modern electronic navigational aids to help minimise the risks to mariners and the maritime environment. I must declare a special interest in this area—my son works for a worldwide maritime electronics manufacturer on the technical side, and my daughter uses electronic navigational aids occasionally in her career as a lieutenant commander in the Royal Navy.

In our modern age, electronic aids to navigation are increasingly important to the mariner, who makes great use of satellite navigation systems. In times of emergency, such electronic aids can be used to mark a hazard rapidly, until a more permanent buoy, beacon or other physical aid to navigation can be deployed. The electronic system and the automatic identification system beacons that are fitted to vessels made my personal tragedy last year much easier to deal with—the fishing vessel my husband was on had an AIS transmitter.

That was quite a canter through the contents of my Bill, which I hope the House agrees should be considered in more detail in Committee. The clauses might seem familiar to some hon. Members—most are drawn from the draft Marine Navigation Bill published by the Department for Transport in 2008 and consulted on at that time. The one addition is the extension of the geographic limit of port constables’ jurisdiction, which emerged from a review of ports police forces by the Department for Transport in 2008, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) correctly highlighted.

I have carefully read the comments made on the 2008 draft Bill at the time of its publication and discussed the issues raised with interested parties across the maritime industry. My Bill focuses on supporting growth in that industry.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. and brave Friend for introducing the Bill, which in large part is not controversial and will be of assistance. One difference between this Bill and the one that Lord Berkeley introduced in another place is of concern to the Royal Yachting Association, of which I am a member. Is she willing to meet the RYA to discuss its proposed approach to clause 5, which Lord Berkeley agreed to leave out of his Bill? Perhaps we could persuade the Minister to do the same.

[Sheryll Murray]

I would be more than happy to meet the RYA, which I know has concerns about the general rules of direction. I would like to reassure it, and I am sure the Minister will back me up. A number of ports already operate under general rules of direction, which must be consulted on fully before they are in place. If a competent harbour authority does not take note of responses to consultation, it could be subject to judicial review. I should like to meet the RYA—we need to get the clause right.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend’s request and would like to put it on the record now that I am sure I would be delighted to join that meeting.

[Sheryll Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister. When the association holds its events, it can have designated areas of the sea where those events will not be disrupted by other leisure users sailing through a regatta, for instance. I would be more than happy to meet members of the association.

I am confident that my Bill would benefit the UK maritime sector and I am grateful to the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group, which have provided me with considerable support and advice on the Bill. The ports industry is one the UK’s hidden success stories. It is an incredibly competent, competitive and customer-focused industry that operates largely out of the public eye, because of its efficiency and the safety of its operations. Despite the lack of awareness of the ports industry, our whole way of life depends on its success. Some of the anomalies in the current maritime legislation that I seek to correct in this Bill may seem arcane, but I have tried to show that the industry that the changes will assist is far from irrelevant. I humbly ask hon. Members to support the Bill today.

12:21

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) is right in her concluding remarks about the importance of the ports industry to the UK and its economy. We take for granted the significance of ports around the country, but collectively they do an enormous amount of work to ensure that the goods we rely on—both imported and exported—are managed sensibly.

Ports are under wildly varying forms of ownership, and some of them need a tougher regulatory regime than others because of the sea conditions they experience. Some estuaries are particularly difficult and some are incredibly busy. For example, I used to live on the south coast, and Southampton in particular is incredibly busy and clearly needs a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose. Other, smaller ports need a much lighter touch that will meet their needs. In the north-west, the River Mersey is very complex to navigate and needs a pilotage system that is strong and robust. That is especially necessary at certain states of the tide, when serious seas are running out in Liverpool bay. I have been out in the bay both when it has been as flat calm as the carpet in front of us and when the ship has virtually stood on its end with every wave. In such environments, entering a river mouth needs careful handling by expert pilots and we should give credit to pilots in our ports for the fantastic work that they do.

Over recent years, there have been some changes that are controversial in local areas, as well as some that have been adopted with the support of local pilot associations. I have received a significant amount of correspondence from a constituent who is a lawyer and has periodically given advice to the local association. He has one fundamental objection to the Bill, and with the House’s indulgence, given that these issues are so important to the safety of our seafarers and others operating in and around our ports, I will put it on the record and invite the Minister to respond as positively as he can. He is familiar with my constituent’s correspondence, because much of it has been directed at him.

The substance of the objection surrounds clause 2(1), which would broaden definitions used in the Pilotage Act 1987. My constituent asserts that this is an

“obvious and gross reduction in the standards applicable in compulsory pilotage areas that…cannot be (and is not) lawful, for all of the reasons raised since the Bill was introduced.”

Those reasons are set out elsewhere in correspondence. He wrote to the Prime Minister expressing his concern on 30 September:

“The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport has made it clear that HM government intends to remove regulatory burdens and to relax standards in compulsory pilotage areas. The point which he fails to address (as mentioned in my letter of yesterday’s date, herewith) is that the governmental intention contravenes all known law, in particular the following provisions:-

1. The common law obligation to maintain the highest possible standards in compulsory pilotage areas. This obligation was confirmed and acknowledged by Lord Bingham the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Criminal Appeal in April 2000 when allowing a reduction in penalty to Milford Haven port authority following its admission of guilt in the SEA EMPRESS incident of 1996. Lord Bingham noted with approval that efforts had been made to improve standards.

2. In a report published in April 2002, “The New Humber Pilot Service”, the Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions confirmed that the obligation identified in the SEA EMPRESS case is strict and onerous.

3. The declaration of the International Maritime Organization (representing the maritime concerns of the United Nations Organization) that developed standards in pilotage (and not merely in compulsory pilotage areas) should be not merely maintained but enforced. This declaration is in Resolution A960 of 2004, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

It follows necessarily that any relaxation of standards in a compulsory pilotage area (as HM government now specifically proposes) is unlawful; and that the obligation to maintain standards remains accordingly strict and onerous. This you should know. The Department for Transport has known it since 2002 at the latest.”

[Stephen Hammond]

Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman. His constituent is a prodigious and prolific writer, and he has written to the Department along similar lines. Clause 2 deals with pilotage exemption certificates. Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) substitute “master” and “mate” with

“a member of the crew”.

The provisions are, of course, still subject to section 8 of the Pilotage Act 1987, which clearly states that a competent harbour authority can issue a pilotage exemption certificate only when it is certain that the applicant’s

“skill, experience and local knowledge are sufficient for him to be capable of piloting the ship”.

That is why the Government are confident that what we are doing does not represent what the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has written to say. Moreover, when combined, the provisions in the Bill will strengthen the allocation of exemption certificates, as they will enable competent harbour authorities to withdraw them much more speedily, if for any reason they are no longer confident of the certificate holder’s skill, experience or local knowledge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that reassurance, but if he wishes to pursue the matter further we can do so in Committee.

[Andrew Miller]

That is an extremely helpful statement to have on the record. However, I want to pursue the Minister a little further before I relax my guard, because it follows from what he says—I hope that he will correct me if I have misunderstood this—that the exemption for an individual cannot be granted willy-nilly. I know that there has been discussion in the Department and that people have talked about different ranks on the ship, but it is not a question of what rank the person holds; it is a question of their qualifications and competence to undertake the task in question. As I understand it, that is measured by two things: first, the individual’s ability to meet the requirements of the port authority in question; and, secondly, that the exemption is for that specific vessel and that vessel only. I would be grateful if the Minister put on record his agreement that the exemption under those circumstances would not even, for example, extend to a sister ship, and that it must meet the standards that are normally in place for the port in question.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am obviously disappointed that the hon. Gentleman feels the need to have his guard up when I am at the Dispatch Box, but let me reassure him that the position that he has just outlined is indeed correct. The exemption does not refer to rank—it refers to qualification—and it does refer to the specific vessel.

[Andrew Miller]

And the specific port?

[Stephen Hammond]

indicated assent.

[Andrew Miller]

That is very important. I would suggest to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, who has moved that the Bill receive its Second Reading, that, for the sake of clarity and ensuring absolutely no ambiguity, there is an argument that clause 2(1) should be gently amended in Committee to make things so clear that no court could misinterpret what the Minister and I—and, indeed, the hon. Lady—clearly understand to be the correct position.

[Sheryll Murray]

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that about three different wordings for clause 2 have already been received. We will certainly ensure that it is as explicit as possible to reflect the intention, which is for a specific vessel, in a specific port, for a specific time period.

[Andrew Miller]

That is extremely helpful.

The hon. Lady covered a number of other important points, and she was gracious enough to recognise that it essentially had its genesis some years ago, under the previous Administration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) is very enthusiastic about the core principles of the Bill. He is not with us yet because he is attending the memorial service for Malcolm Wicks, and I know that the House will understand the reason for his absence. However, because we are dealing with an issue that involves profound safety risks—as is clear from the accidents that have occurred in the past—we must ensure that when we amend the legislation we get it absolutely right. Following the Minister’s reassurance about the issue of qualification, I am entirely satisfied by what has been said in good faith, but I hope that we shall be given absolute clarity on the important points that I have raised well before the Bill returns to the House.

Clause 5 has already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Royal Yachting Association—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am not right honourable, and I do not represent the RYA, although I plan to talk about what it has to say. I am merely trying to help the House.

[Andrew Miller]

If the hon. Gentleman is not right honourable, he ought to be. I accept his comments; I was jesting when I said that he represented the RYA. Anyway, he raised a legitimate point about harbour authorities. As I said, there is a complex range of port and harbour authority models, from local authority to private ownership. I want to be certain that a privately owned port, operating in the context of the Bill, is not empowered to act as judge and jury in relation to what happens within its remit.

Yesterday evening I had a very constructive discussion with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall and some of the Minister’s expert officials, and I am extremely grateful for that. I think I understand the position, but, again, I should like further clarification. I assume that it would not be in a harbour authority’s gift to block a vessel’s access unilaterally, unless it was so oversized that it could not get into the port or its cargo could not be handled appropriately there, and that only rarely could a privately owned port authority take restrictive action against the owner of the ship or the cargo.

[Stephen Hammond]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. First, the obligation that is placed on harbour authorities is placed on all of them, irrespective of the mode of ownership. However, as the Bill clearly states, harbour authorities will be responsible for consulting on any harbour direction that they propose. They will be obligated to identify the correct interested parties, and they must invite them to comment on the proposed direction. If any individuals or groups feel that they have not been adequately listened to in any consultation, they are of course entitled to challenge that direction legally.

[Andrew Miller]

That is an extremely helpful intervention. I appreciate that the Minister, for understandable reasons, does not want to be the regulator in this structure, but I am trying to seek reassurance that the small player is not disadvantaged by the mighty corporation here. Can the Minister give comfort to small yachting associations or small ship owners by indicating that if they felt they were being disadvantaged by the regulatory regime being imposed in a particular port, the might of his Department would be there, as a last resort, given that the vehicle of judicial review is a bit pricey, to support David over Goliath—although David did well on his own?

[Stephen Hammond]

David certainly did do well on his own. The key point that I re-emphasise to the hon. Gentleman is the obligation that harbour authorities, of whatever size, have to parties of whatever size to ensure that they have identified all those legally obligated and interested parties. I am prepared to look at that assurance again in Committee, but I think it is in place.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. You cannot have an intervention on an intervention. I would wait until Andrew Miller is back on his feet if I were you.

[Andrew Miller]

I was wondering where we were getting to with that point. I listened carefully to the Minister and I welcome that assurance. This is a question of language and whether there needs to be a stop-gap for circumstances where the port is not in public ownership. For publicly owned ports the line of accountability is through the ballot box.

[Sheryll Murray]

I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will know that this clause does not affect the open port duty, which provides that any harbour has to have open access for vessels to use the harbour, and to load and unload cargo and passengers. I hope that that will give him comfort that privately owned ports and harbours will not be able to use general rules of direction to prevent competitors from using port facilities.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Lady has put it succinctly and the Minister needs to consider the extent to which it is necessary to reinforce that by finding a way to express it in the Bill. It may or may not be necessary to do so; this may be sufficiently well established with the concept of open ports. However, as more ports become privately owned institutions the question is raised in my mind about fairness and equity in an important market.

Those were the two substantive points I wished to raise, although the Bill contains a lot more than just them. The hon. Lady has put forward some valuable and important propositions in the Bill. On that basis, I hope my points can be dealt with sensibly in Committee and that there can be consensus that meets not just the needs of the House but the broader opinions held outside it, including those of my constituents. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for meeting me yesterday with the Minister’s officials and I am grateful to the Minister for his extremely helpful assurances about issues that concern people’s safety. We can progress on that basis and I hope we will see the necessary adjustments in Committee.

12:45

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for introducing the Bill. I do not think that anyone is unaware of how deeply she cares about the maritime industry and it must be a particular pleasure for her to introduce the Bill today.

It is fairly true that, as my hon. Friend said, many of the measures in the Bill appear arcane. That is because we do not see maritime Bills very often. For those of us on the Conservative Benches, that probably goes to prove that industries thrive best when Governments and politicians do not get in their way. Considering the maritime traditions of this country, it is perhaps a great surprise that we do not talk about them more often. I for one value hugely and am well aware of the maritime industry’s contribution to our economy, particularly in the area local to me in Thurrock, where the port of Tilbury and its associated shipping and logistics interests are so significant for jobs and wealth creation.

As my hon. Friend the Minister takes on his new responsibilities, I ask him not to neglect the maritime sector but not to get in its way either.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that unlike airport capacity, with which we know we have a problem and with which we are trying to grapple, port capacity is growing rapidly in the UK? That shows the success of the sector. My hon. Friend will know that it is true because of the presence of the largest construction site in Europe next to her constituency in Thurrock.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. I know he has been very proud to witness the growth of that new major port facility in his constituency. The emergence of that port further strengthens the role of the Thames and the estuary in our port infrastructure and the ports in my constituency are looking forward to its becoming functional. They do not view it as competition but think that it will strengthen the maritime sector overall. The interesting thing about my hon. Friend’s comparison with aviation is that a lot of heat has been generated about aviation capacity and, as we have said, the maritime industry tends to be neglected by politicians. Sometimes that is a good thing, but when the Mayor of London makes noise about the availability of the Thames estuary as a potential airport location, he has not thought about its impact on the maritime sector. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Transport will consider fully the impact on the shipping and maritime industries of their considerations about airport capacity in the south-east.

I want to focus on clause 7 and the provisions on port police. I draw the House’s attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which records that I am an unpaid adviser to the port of Tilbury police in my constituency. Six port police forces serve the ports of Dover, Felixstowe, Bristol, Liverpool, Tees and Hartlepool and, last but not least, Tilbury. The Port of Tilbury police are the second oldest police force in the country. It is the heir to the port of London Authority police force, which followed on from the Thames River police force, which was ultimately merged with the Metropolitan police. We are proud of our historic role in the development of policing in this country.

The point is that when we talk about port police, we are not talking about something separate from the established police forces that people recognise; we are talking about police constables and their powers. That is why clause 7, which will extend the jurisdiction of port police officers, is so important.

As I mentioned, the need for a change to legislation was identified back in 2008, so for me, the clause is extremely belated, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for including it in her Bill, particularly as the Bill contains a number of provisions; it is ambitious, and it is a tribute to her that she has included so many measures in it.

I am sure that many Members will be surprised to learn that there are separate port police forces. Perhaps it is worth reminding the House, and acknowledging, that there are a number of non-Home Office police forces in the UK. The most well known are probably the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport police. The role of port police forces is to undertake policing activities in port areas. My local port police force in Tilbury polices an area the same size as the City of London. Those Members who have not been to a port may not realise that ports are big communities in themselves and do need a police function. Port police forces are funded entirely by the ports that they serve; they take no resource from the taxpayer.

The six ports with police forces account for more than 40% of the UK’s non-oil traffic, which means that those police forces are the guardians of millions of pounds-worth of traded goods every year. I mentioned that their responsibility is to police the port area. It is worth saying a little bit about exactly what kind of activity that involves. In the public’s mind, the presence of police in a port would tend to be associated with concerns such as drug smuggling, anti-terrorism and immigration control. Those matters are the responsibility of the UK Border Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and special branch, but the port police work in constructive collaboration with those agencies. That is additional support for Government activities—at, I emphasise again, no cost to the taxpayer. Although these constables are privately funded, they enjoy exactly the same rights, responsibilities and roles as any normal constable. They owe allegiance in a personal capacity to the Crown, and they are sworn in by local magistrates.

Clause 7 extends the jurisdiction of port police constables beyond the existing limit of one mile outside the port area. That one-mile jurisdiction is enshrined in the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I am sure that all Members of the House will recognise that our docks were very different places then. They were places of intensive employment, and faced lots of labour issues, more than anything else. Also, the goods coming into the docks would have been a lot less technical and valuable. The pattern of policing has therefore changed. The fact that there is less employment in ports means that crimes tend to be a lot more sophisticated. The suggestion that the crimes and activities that forces will be involved in can be kept within the realms of the port is an historical anachronism.

Looking at what else has happened in the more than 150 years since the 1847 Act, obviously, there have been changes in patterns regarding holding prisoners in custody and the provision of courts. The reality is that when port police officers are prosecuting offenders for crimes in the normal way, through the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, most of them have to attend courts beyond that one-mile jurisdiction, and by definition, they then do not have their powers as constable while they are in court. It is a bit dangerous to highlight that issue, but the situation needs to be addressed. Having been the best kept secret, since 2008 the press in Dover have realised that the port police there often act beyond their jurisdiction. That fact is out there and needs to be dealt with. A matter addressed in the House can often be the best kept secret, so we can have a frank debate about it.

Port police officers have to travel all over England and Wales to attend courts, but do not have the powers of a constable when they do so. On occasion, officers have attended court, have been directed by judges to arrest people and have had to explain that they do not have the power to do so. It is important for public confidence that we deal with the issue. As port police officers travel outside their port in marked cars, they are a visible presence and the public expect those officers to act and intervene when something happens—for example, if they came across a scene of crime or disorder, or to stop drunk drivers. At present they cannot do so. We have been looking for an appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with this anomaly.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Can my hon. Friend give the House any practical examples where officers have not been able to use their powers, whereas under the changes proposed in the Bill, they would have been able to intervene in a crime or misdemeanour and the outcome would have been different?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I have been told by the chief constables of both Dover and Tilbury police forces that on a number of occasions officers have been asked to intervene, particularly in episodes of disorder such as street assaults, while they have been out on patrol. In practice, their current status has not prevented them from doing so, but they well know that, if challenged, they would not be able to defend their actions in court. The proposed changes would put everybody on a more secure and legitimate footing.

In making the case for the change, I want to highlight the contribution that port police make to national policing priorities. Although port police are dedicated to serving the ports where they operate, they have, as I said, the same powers as other constables, and much of the work that they do in the port is indistinguishable from and complementary to that of Home Office forces. As was said before, they prosecute crimes in the same way as any Home Office force by sending files over to the Crown Prosecution Service with recommendations for prosecution. Let me illustrate that national contribution with a few examples.

The port of Dover police is the largest of our port police forces and its presence at a busy border crossing means that the Home Office relies heavily on services that it provides. The force’s officers often play a role in detaining people subject to football banning orders. They regularly intercept people with histories of violent crime who are attempting to travel. I am advised that in 2010 the port of Dover police arrested 180 people who were wanted by Home Office forces. That illustrates that they are very much part of the fabric of our police infrastructure.

Both the port of Dover and the port of Tilbury have automatic number plate reading systems installed at the ports, which are connected to the police national computer. As a result, nearly 700 vehicles were intercepted in 2010 by just those two port police forces. Almost all those vehicles had had their details circulated by the police national computer from Home Office colleagues across the UK.

In addition, the work of the port police complements that of the local forces. Many port police forces engage in traffic control outside their ports, for example, thereby preventing traffic gridlock as a result of vehicles queuing to get into the ports. It is also worth mentioning that in the event of a major incident, port police forces are ready to support their Home Office colleagues. From my own perspective, given the number of COMAH—control of major accident hazards—sites that exist in my constituency, they are a fantastic additional resource that the Essex police would be able to call on in the event of a major incident. I know that the port of Tilbury police value and attach great importance to their readiness to support them in serious incidents. It is also worth noting the contribution of the port police forces to our successful Olympics this year. They were very much part of the powers to combat terrorism and made a full contribution to public safety.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend gives a glowing account of port police. Does she think that our ports would not be so well policed without them, and, if so, would she recommend that the new port being constructed in my constituency next door to hers by DP World, the London gateway port, would be best served by adopting its own police force, rather than relying on those supplied by the Home Office?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The power of the port police, as opposed to any other supplier of security provision or support, is that they have the powers of a constable. The strength of that, and the support that we give to our police officers, speaks for itself. The port in my hon. Friend’s constituency has reserve powers to create a force if it so wishes, and I would encourage it to do so. My experience of the port of Tilbury police is that, given the amount of high-value commercial activity in a port, there is every opportunity for serious and organised crime, which requires the expertise and dedication of sworn-in police officers to combat that effectively. To be frank, it will give a level of service that contract providers such as G4S would never be able to provide.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly could introduce the same legislation as this to ensure that the two ports in Northern Ireland had the same powers?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I completely endorse that point. In many ways, over the years the port of Belfast police may have made more of a contribution to our national security than any of the other port police forces. The chief constable of the port of Belfast police wants exactly this measure for his force. I would thoroughly encourage the Northern Ireland Assembly and Ministers to engage in whatever is necessary to ensure that these legislative provisions are extended to the port of Belfast police.

The port police do other work in support of Government agencies. For a number of years, port police forces have supported the UK Border Agency in arresting illegal immigrants. We are all well aware of the stories over the years that we have read in our newspapers, particularly concerning Dover, but a number of incidents in Tilbury have also required the port police to arrest illegal immigrants. The port police also assist the Maritime Coastguard Agency by detecting offences contrary to regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods by sea. I emphasise that all this work in support of what the public expect from their police services in protecting the security of our kingdom is done at no cost to the taxpayer.

In practical terms, the legislation will allow the police officers to maintain their powers and privileges of the office of constable beyond the 1 mile jurisdiction. When they attend custody suites with prisoners they will be working on legitimate authority. As I have mentioned, we are aware of occasions when port officers have attended court and been asked to arrest persons. If they do so—and they have done so—they are acting outside the law, which is clearly in no one’s interests and needs to be addressed. Equally, when processing prisoners at custody suites outside their jurisdiction, strictly speaking it is illegal for officers to carry any personal protection, including batons and handcuffs, but if they were not to do that they would obviously be at risk. Again, we need to remove that anomaly.

This change will enable officers going to or returning from an incident to use their powers as constables to deal with crimes in progress rather than simply reporting it to the local force. Clearly, there is an efficiency for local forces if a port police officer can deal with a matter there and then instead of, as in my case, referring the matter to Essex police and waiting for an attending officer. That will enable them to be much more effective in supporting their local officers and will mean that, if called upon to support in a major incident, they will be able to act with the full confidence that they are not acting outside their powers. The important practical point is that it will enable officers to arrest suspects and carry out house searches for offences committed in the port but where the suspects live outside, because otherwise going to an address outside a jurisdiction would obviously mean working outside their authority.

Some Members might be a little nervous that we are extending the jurisdiction, but the existing jurisdiction is well below that of special constables and we should look at it in those terms. Also, the way my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has presented the relevant clause in the Bill means that the chief officer for the resident Home Office force will have the powers to rescind the right to operate beyond the jurisdiction of 1 mile if he is ever unhappy with the manner in which the port police are operating. The way the Bill is drafted brings no challenge at all to the chief constable in the Home Office force and allows us to maximise the complementary nature of port police officers. I know that the Department for Transport has consulted all the Home Office forces that would be affected by that and all chief constables were positive.

I hope that I have been able to persuade colleagues of the real urgency of tackling this anomaly once and for all, in the interests of security and public confidence in our policing. I hope that the Bill is given a Second Reading, notwithstanding the concerns expressed about other provisions, which I look forward to addressing in Committee.

13:06

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for sharing her expertise on the important work done by the police linked to harbours. We all agree that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) is doing a service to the nation and to those who use our harbours and ports. I will not repeat what we have heard about her expertise and involvement, but I pay tribute to her. I also welcome the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who we have heard was at the memorial service for our former colleague Malcolm Wicks, who was the kind of person who gave politics and political service a good name.

I have no intention of delaying the Bill and want to see it on the statute book. There has clearly been bipartisan agreement about it for some time. Its purposes are necessary and the changes are sensible. I do not think that there is a serous objection to anything in particular, other than the need to sort out what was not clear to the constituent of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), which is that clause 2(1) is an amendment to an Act that is very clear about the person who holds a pilot certificate or is recognised as a competent pilot for one or more vessels. That is a strong and necessary provision that is being continued. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point about clause 5, which I will like to speak about shortly.

My maritime experience was gained when I worked my passage back from Brisbane to Liverpool, working 16 hours a day on a 7,000-tonne freighter. Given some of our experiences while crossing the Australian bight, I have a respect for those who go to sea in all weathers, especially on long journeys, and the fishermen who put up with whatever the weather throws at them. At some stage I might write half a chapter for my unread and unwritten autobiography about what can happen when 82 people are on a vessel for seven weeks. Nowadays there would be about 17 people, so half the things that happened would not happen now.

I also think that it is about time we got back to recognising—this is a brief diversion—some of our great maritime stories. I think that the works of Joseph Conrad should be brought back and given the same importance as the present Man Booker nominees, as should those of Somerset Maugham and Erskine Childers, who wrote “The Riddle of the Sands”, which, although written as a warning about possible threats of war, is I think one of the most evocative books ever written about the sea and about sailing, and certainly the most evocative I have read.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his responsibilities and congratulate him on how he has already approached these issues in being willing to intervene in the debate and to say that he will happily meet those with concerns about particular parts of the Bill. That will make a difference.

I am a life member of the Royal Yachting Association, partly to avoid its spotting how bad a sailor I am and saying that it will not renew my membership unless I take another course. The RYA knows perfectly well that when there is an issue that I think it has not got right, I will pursue it, as I did at the last annual general meeting; I pay tribute to how it has responded since.

We have to look at the reasons for its concerns. Nobody expects that the navigation or harbour authorities are going to do anything silly or daft. They carry out their responsibilities in providing navigation aids and controlling safety in and around their harbours in a way that is much appreciated, whether by leisure sailors, commercial traffic or the fishing industry. When I was agriculture Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, one of the happiest times I had was going out fishing from Kilkeel at midnight on one of those very calm nights when the water reflected the moon. Those who smoked had a fag and then pulled in their nets, and about 4 tonnes of fish were landed. It was one of those magical evenings where one can understand the allure of the sea.

My Friend the Minister may say, as no doubt his predecessor will have said before the change of Government, that if an authority is going to do something that is clearly irrational there is the opportunity for a judicial review. Whenever a port authority needs to make an emergency provision, no one is going to argue with its doing so—safety comes first, and there is usually a reason for it.

The issues that come up for consultation are those which will have permanent effect or might create a new criminal offence. There may be a judicial review if the authority, either by its own choice or because it is following a pattern created by other port and harbour authorities, is ignoring the legitimate interests of other people.

[Sheryll Murray]

It is intended that before any competent harbour authority introduced harbour revision orders or general rules of direction it would consult all users of the area. In Plymouth, the Queen’s harbourmaster has authority over the port of Plymouth, but we have two other major ports in Plymouth sound—Associated British Ports at Millbay docks, and Cattewater harbour, which takes in a tremendous amount of fuel to serve the south-west. We have Brittany ferries using the Millbay docks area, and we have our naval base and dockyard. I am absolutely certain that the Queen’s harbourmaster would not introduce any general rules of direction without consulting Associated British Ports and the Cattewater harbourmaster. In fact, they regularly sit on a committee called the Tamar estuaries consultative forum, which takes account of every interested party before starting to make any rules.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is providing lots of information, but she is making an intervention, not a speech. However, I am sure that her hon. Friend is very grateful for the information.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

As directed, I am very grateful. My hon. Friend reminds me that the first woman named in the New Testament is Tamar, who appears in the second verse of the first chapter of St Matthew.

My hon. Friend makes the sensible point that people want to do sensible, important and serious things. The Minister has received a letter from the Royal Yachting Association. I will not read it, but I think I am right in saying that it would prefer not to have clause 5. It was withdrawn from what was effectively this Bill when Lord Berkeley introduced it in another place, but it has turned up again. No one is complaining about that, but the question is whether it should stay in. Without making any threatening noises, I shall say that I am sure the Bill would have as easy a passage without it as with it.

We must then consider what is the alternative. One option is for clause 5 to remain as it is, surviving Committee and Report and going to another place, but there are alternatives—it is either in, out or modified.

The RYA put to the Minister a suggestion for its modification for him to take advice on. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, in consultation with the Minister and his advisers—I am sure they are working closely together—might want to see whether the RYA’s suggestion could have what I might call a moderating effect.

If I may, I will spell out what I understand to be the RYA’s position. Clause 5 would modify the provisions on harbour revision orders. As we all know, some harbours already have the power to issue them, obtained through statute or in other ways. Clause 5 would enable harbour authorities in this jurisdiction or the Scottish nation to give general directions to ships, including recreational craft. Members might not expect this, but when I come across the Solent into Portsmouth harbour, my open canoe is classed as a ship, which is a bit grand. That is even better than the promotion that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston gave me when he confused me with my wife.

The power in clause 5 is expressed as applying to ships within, entering or leaving a harbour, and relates to their movement, their mooring, the nature and use of their equipment and the manning of them. As I have been reminded, a pre-consultation requirement is included, stating that a harbour authority should

“consult such representatives of users of the harbour as the authority think appropriate.”

We understand that it will do that properly.

Contravention of a general direction would be a criminal offence. That is not new, but it might apply if a new harbour revision order came in.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will try to be as helpful to my hon. Friend as I was to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). As my hon. Friend points out, there is a requirement of pre-consultation. Prior to any consultation, the Department would issue directions as to what should be consulted upon. I believe that that potentially covers some of his objections.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We are making progress, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall that I will not take all that long, but to aid the process I point out that a number of individual authorities have obtained powers of general direction over the years, starting at the time of les événements, when the permissive society was invented in 1968. Such powers of direction have generally taken the place of byelaws. Unlike directions under clause 5, which harbour authorities could issue, byelaws have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and are subject to what most people would regard as clear checks and balances in addition to consultation. The current byelaw process involves consultation, so there is nothing new about that. The consultation element is in place already and will remain. The question is about the checks and balances that exist. I am not thinking of accusing any harbour authority of having malevolent wishes towards recreational users or other classes of ship.

I pay tribute to what the RYA does in training young people on the water in motor vessels and sailing craft. It has become a better and better organisation that does more and more good for more people, and if other organisations could do the same thing by training up the young and helping them to become first assistants and then qualified instructors, there would be far more value and purpose among our people on land as well as at sea.

The RYA has become increasingly concerned in recent years about the potential of powers of general direction to be exercised indiscriminately and in a manner that is unnecessary and harmful to the lawful exercise of recreational and other rights. Not every campaign the RYA takes up is wrong—in fact, nearly every campaign I have seen it run was right, and I admire the way in which it works with the British Marine Federation. They provide in partnership, without overlap, a seamless approach to the law and the use of our waters.

Let me give a list of some of the questions considered by the RYA about the powers of general direction, and whether they are fully merited. There are some powers that everyone can accept, but whether they are sufficiently merited to be unqualified or without the moderation that I hope the Minister will mention is a matter for debate.

Making general directions involves the creation of new criminal offences, which local harbour authorities may be seen as ill-equipped to do. Even democratically elected local authorities, in their other roles, do not normally have powers to create criminal offences, and the Bill contains none of the supervisory safeguards usually imposed on law-making bodies. This may be political theology or philosophy, but why should a harbour authority be different from a local authority?

The powers of general direction can be seen as running counter to the Government’s localism policy by granting an unelected harbour authority law-making powers that are not subjected to democratic checks and balances and full transparency. Most of us could argue that because harbour authorities exist for a particular purpose, and because those who are appointed to harbour authorities are there to provide expertise and a contribution, we should not be too worried about that. One should put it on the record that those people are not democratically elected, and the localism agenda is not just about saying that we are not going to do things in Whitehall—or in my day, the Department for Transport on Marsham street—but that things will be done locally by locally elected people. I do not criticise the harbour authorities for not being elected, but there is a distinction.

Under the power, general directions could be made over the wide areas used by recreational and commercial traffic in a disproportionate manner, without proper risk assessment or consideration of the full implications or possible alternatives. They could be used to impose significant and potentially burdensome restrictions on the navigational use of recreational craft. Many harbour authorities have jurisdiction over substantial areas going out to sea, not just partially enclosed harbour areas. Again, I do not want any hon. Member who arrives late to the debate to think that I am attacking the harbour authorities. I am just asking what protections there could be, and whether we need a system in which the potential for things to go wrong could be anticipated and perhaps built into the legislation.

There have been past examples—this is not about harbour authorities and harbour revision orders—where some in government picked up the idea, wrongly in my view, that small recreational craft could start contributing to light dues. We all get the benefit from navigation, but how on earth do we get a person—me in my Mirror dinghy, or one of my sons, daughters or granddaughters in their craft—to contribute to that? There is a question of where to draw the line, but at some stage it must be drawn some way away from ordinary recreational craft that might, under this legislation, be regarded as ships.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure in the Bill to allow Trinity House to become more competitive and raise its own income will to some extent relieve the burden of light dues on the industry, or at least prevent the annual increase?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Yes, and were this a slightly different debate I would be paying tribute to Trinity House for what it does.

I have two more points on this general issue. Prior consultation has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, and by our hon. Friend the Minister, but we must ask whether that is an adequate safeguard. Experience shows that across the public and private sectors, inappropriate or flawed decisions sometimes follow prior consultation. We can get things wrong, whatever hat we wear.

Because reference was made to judicial review, we must ask whether it is an adequate remedy against an objectionable direction when powers are expressed without significant limitations, as in clause 5. We can presume that any procedural or substantive illegality to provide for a cause for action is highly unlikely, and an authority could just say, “I’ve consulted. I’m not convinced. I’m not going change my mind.”

The adjudication procedure, which the Minister might talk about, could allow interested people to require, in limited circumstances, the harbour authority to obtain an independent report on issues arising before deciding to proceed, to ensure that the designated harbour authority’s case for the exercise of the power includes recreational interest concerns, and to ensure that it is fully explained and documented, and subject to independent and objective examination.

Clearly, the designated harbour authority would retain ultimate discretion and authority to proceed with proposed directions having considered the independent person’s report. A decision by the designated harbour authority would be open to legal challenge only if it is patently perverse to allow it to proceed, when the courts and judicial review become involved. The fact that concerns me is that the cost of formal legal proceedings and getting a fair hearing would act as a spur to persuade interested bodies, including the RYA and other stakeholder interests, to accept decisions. As I said earlier, if a direction is issued in an emergency, the consultation could not take place, although the procedure may be applied retrospectively if the direction given in an emergency or at short notice is likely to turn into a permanent or long-standing requirement.

I am advised that the procedure has been applied under the Broads Authority Act 2009, which is a precedent. Hon. Members are keen on precedents, although the House of Commons has “Erskine May”, which is full of things that had not happened before or that were blocked for the first time. A similar provision is included in the recently published draft Cowes harbour revision order, but the Poole Harbour Revision Order 2012 was made without such a provision, because, as I understand it, the Poole Harbour Commissioners objected to its inclusion. The RYA makes it clear that such a provision provides a worthwhile, and some would say essential, safeguard that ought to be applied more generally. I agree. The RYA expressed its concerns to representatives of the port industry and the Government before the 2010 general election in response to the Government’s consultation on a draft maritime navigation Bill in 2008.

Clearly, the Bill has been improved by that consultation, and I hope it will be improved as a result of my remarks. I am grateful to the House for listening to me with kindness, but more importantly, for listening with admiration to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.

13:27

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

May I offer my apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for wearing my “Malcolm Wicks Vote Labour” sticker in the Chamber? As a number of hon. Members have said, it was his memorial today, so it is appropriate that he is with us in the Chamber, where he did such great work over 20 years. I also apologise to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), whose Bill we are debating, for missing her speech. Naturally, I will read her comments in Hansard, and I am sure I will hear her voice when I do so.

I am grateful to the shadow deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), for his assistance, for allowing me to be absent to go to Malcolm’s memorial, and for nursing my prepared remarks in the hope that he would not have to deliver them, which fortunately he will not.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the Bill. The Commons Library note, which was produced by the excellent Ms Louise Butcher, states:

“The Bill recreates many of the provisions in the Labour Government’s 2008 draft Marine Navigation Bill”.

The Opposition would therefore look a bit foolish if we opposed it, although, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said, the measure has aged and improved.

Our only concern with the Bill is on pilot exemption certificates. I have had discussions with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) about this issue. Having arrived in the middle of my hon. Friend’s remarks, I know that the Minister was able to give strong reassurances about the concerns raised by the UK Maritime Pilots Association, and I am grateful to Captain Cockrill and his colleagues for their assistance in preparing for this debate. On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given, I am sure that we will be able to support the Bill and reassure those who are worried about retaining and maintaining the skill and qualification levels of those responsible for the safe passage of vessels in and around the UK.

The Library, in the notes on page 5, gives a clear background to this critical issue, explains the development of pilot exemption certificates and reminds us that, at the time of their introduction, the Transport Select Committee expressed some concern. I greatly welcome the reassurances that the Minister has given today on these serious matters. We will, obviously, have the chance to return to the issue in Committee so that those reassurances can be reinforced, but it is helpful to know the Government’s position today.

On the other clauses of the Bill, we look forward to examining the clauses on harbour authorities further in Committee. The hon. Member for Worthing West has adequately dealt with those and raised questions from the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation, but the measures appear to represent positive steps forward. Clause 7 looks like a sensible move to acknowledge a better way of working for ports police, where they exist, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) ably explained to the House why this is needed. Had we been able to do so, we would have done this in government, so we are grateful to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall and the coalition.

In clauses 8, 9 and 11, general lighthouse authorities would be given added freedoms and responsibilities, which are overdue and supported by Trinity House. I am grateful to Deputy Master Captain Ian McNaught for his briefing. Anything that addresses the industry’s angst about the charges levied for light dues and allows the GLAs to continue with their excellent work is very welcome.

My only pedantic point is on clause 10, and I wish to mark my discomfort with the word “manning” in the 21st century. We are talking about crew numbers here, and if it were not for the fact that the Bill quotes previous Acts, I would suggest that “crewing” would be a much better and more accurate term. Given the number of women at sea these days, “manning” is very 19th and early 20th century language. I am not known for being overly politically correct, but sometimes we need to look at our language and bring it into the 21st century.

We support the Bill, although we will want to look at every clause in Committee. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The last time I saw him was yesterday evening at the champagne reception to mark the opening of the excellent new headquarters of the Chamber of Shipping in SE1 next to London bridge. He gave a good speech on behalf of the coalition and I look forward to his remarks in support of the Bill.

13:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

We have had a fascinating 90-minute nautical exploration this morning. We were safely taken out of harbour by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and I am pleased that she has been able to introduce this Bill because I met her several times when I had this role in opposition and she was campaigning for the fisheries industry. She and her family have devoted their lives to the marine and maritime industries through both tragedy and good times, and I congratulate her on her success in the ballot.

With the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), we skirted round choppy waters—we avoided sailing right into them—and I shall say more about his contribution in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is of course right that my role should not be to neglect this issue, but nor should it be to get in the way of the maritime industry. I shall address her remarks about clause 7 later in my speech. I know that the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about the maritime environment of the Isle of Wight is extensive. He could pilot anything into certain parts of Seaview and Bembridge. But he is right, of course. If his autobiography is as well written as “The Riddle of the Sands”, it will go down as a literary tribute. If he will allow me, I will address some of his remarks when I discuss clause 5.

The maritime industry carries out its activities every day without fanfare or demand, but, as was pointed out at last night’s event, where I drank copious amounts of tomato juice, all too often, as people eat their lamb or take their car to the continent for holiday, or if they are wealth creators in manufacturing, it is taken for granted that the finished goods will either be imported or exported around the world, while the mechanism by which that occurs is not always appreciated. Far too many people take the maritime industry for granted, but I know that many in the House, including those who have contributed to this debate, do not. It is an industry that works come rain, wind or shine.

I was delighted to attend the British Chamber of Shipping event and to visit Felixstowe this week to see a port operating and securing the future of UK plc. I recognise the vital contribution that the industry makes to the UK, its living standards and its prosperity, and it is right that nothing be done to hinder the safety of anyone working in it. Everything in the Bill is intended to ensure their safety. I recognise the hard work that the employees and those who work self-employed at ports and on the ships contribute every day to keeping this country moving and competitive. I also recognise the managers whose freight operations ensure the most streamlined and efficient operation of ports. That is important not only for the maritime industry but for our country as a whole.

With that in mind, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for introducing her Bill. I am aware of its antecedents and the hard work done then. The Bill will not only ensure that the UK’s impeccable safety record is maintained but, more importantly, will help to make the industry ever more efficient in its day-to-day activities and ensure that we have an industry fit for the 21st century.

I do not intend to speak at length about every clause, because my hon. Friend has already put the case extraordinarily eloquently. A few issues have been raised during the clause-by-clause examination, about some of which I hope I have reassured hon. Members sufficiently to ensure the Bill’s safe passage to Committee, but none the less let me put on record some comments about each clause. Clauses 1 to 4 cover pilotage, the pilotage exemption certificate and the removal of pilotage powers that are no longer required. My hon. Friend has given a detailed account of the pilotage profession, its high level of proficiency and independent thinking, and the knowledge of the ports, their waters and local conditions that all pilots require.

Clearly, my knowledge does not compare with my hon. Friend’s in this matter, and I cannot add much, other than by observing that pilotage is a tradition and an industry stretching back almost 3,000 years to ancient Greek and Roman times, when pilots were local fishermen employed by ships’ captains to bring vessels into port. UK pilotage custom, practice and legislation are more modern than they were 3,000 years ago and are governed by the Pilotage Act 1987.

Many ports and harbours have a long and distinguished tradition dating back hundreds of years, but I will resist the temptation to give a history lesson on every port and harbour, and their distinguished traditions. As several people have pointed out, however, trading patterns change and ships are much larger than they used to be. Change is driven by improvements, economies of scale and advancements in ship-building technology. It is clear that where a port or harbour operates purely for leisure craft or small shipping vehicles, the need for pilotage might have been overtaken by events and knowledge might have improved. I welcome the proposals, therefore, to enable facilities to relinquish some of their obligations under the Pilotage Act.

Let me turn to the exemption certificates. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall identified the Pilotage Act 1987 as the umbrella legislation that covers marine pilotage operations. I agree with her assertion that the 1987 Act could benefit from an update in relation to such certificates, because it is some 25 years since it was passed. None the less, it is clearly right to address the concerns that have rightly been expressed on behalf of the pilots association and by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on behalf of his constituent. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman in respect of section 8 of the Pilotage Act 1987, which clearly states that competent harbour authorities can issue exemption certificates only when they are certain that the applicant’s

“skill, experience and local knowledge are sufficient for him to be capable of piloting the ship”.

I hope that in my other interventions I was able to reassure him on the other issues he raised.

Competent harbour authorities are responsible for the operation of their ports. They know the types of ships that call, they know the geography of their sea beds, they know their tidal patterns and they know their ports. Currently, competent harbour authorities are responsible for the pilotage services provided at their facilities. They can choose the pilots who provide the services at their ports, requiring specific skills and experience of those who ply that trade. Competent harbour authorities can already issue pilotage exemption certificates to masters and first mates who know a port well. Such certificates enable an individual to bring a ship into a specified facility without the need for a pilot, and the requirements for the holder, in terms of knowledge, skills and experience, are the same as for full-time pilots.

I therefore believe that competent harbour authorities are well placed to decide which members of a ship’s crew they issue a pilotage exemption certificate to. Competent harbour authorities are, after all, experienced in this field and know the navigable hazards of their facilities best. Moreover, we should enable competent harbour authorities to recognise the skills and knowledge of those who have driven themselves to achieve the required standards, through the granting of a pilotage exemption certificate. Clauses 1 to 4 further strengthen competent harbour authorities’ administration of the certificate process, enabling the easier withdrawal of certificates and introducing stronger pilotage reporting requirements. The proposals therefore clearly seek to strike a balance between right deregulation and maintaining high standards of maritime safety.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with some of the issues that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised, as well as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Let me try to give my hon. Friend some reassurance. As he rightly said, the Royal Yachting Association has indeed expressed a number of concerns. Some were similar to those it expressed in 2008. My Department has looked at a number of them, and we will be responding in Committee. None the less, although we have discussed the issue of consultation and guidance from the Department, I think the crux of what my hon. Friend was saying today is this. In the response to the 2008 consultation, the Royal Yachting Association proposed that an independent adjudication procedure and process be provided in the Bill. Where I think he wants reassurance is on the question of why the Bill does not do that, for which there are several reasons. First, the Bill is not only about marine safety, but about simplification and deregulation. There is little evidence that the authorities that already have the power to give general directions do so unreasonably, although to be fair, my hon. Friend acknowledged that point.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Indeed, and my hon. Friend will acknowledge that, with the Department’s approval, some revision orders or powers to harbour authorities include the independent report element, so I think it is a score draw at the moment.

[Stephen Hammond]

Just as I was standing in front of an open goal!

As I have said, harbour authorities will be required to consult users and stakeholders before making general directions, and it would be sensible of them to hold informal discussions with those bodies before the formal consultations. The Department will provide guidance. Some Members asked whether the process of judicial review was too expensive, but it exists none the less. I have agreed to meet representatives of the RYA with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall and my officials, and I hope that we shall be able to give them even more reassurance before the Committee stage.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure the House is as well. The RYA representatives may say that they are looking forward to the meeting as well, and are expecting the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall to agree to what they want. I hope that all parties will be asking themselves what they are trying to achieve, and what is the best way of making a minor modification to the clause if it is not to be dropped altogether.

If it is felt that the clause should be retained—for the purpose of simplification, as the Minister sensibly said—it might be worth considering provision for an independent report. No one is suggesting that there should be an independent report on every possible harbour revision order, because most are uncontroversial; the need arises only when an order becomes controversial, or when there is a clash of interests.

[Stephen Hammond]

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall ensure that my officials and I go to the meeting in the spirit that he desires. He is right to say that everyone wants to deal with the clause constructively.

As I said in an earlier intervention, and also a moment ago, some harbour authorities have powers of general direction through private Acts of Parliament or through the harbour revision orders, while others do not. Such general directions are used to control vessels and improve safety. The Bill enables the Secretary of State for Transport to make an order giving a named harbour the power to make general directions in respect of ships. I think that that is a welcome measure, which will have the potential to place all harbour authorities on a similar footing in terms of order-making powers to control their harbours using general directions. As for the harbour closure proposals, it seems sensible to me to allow port and harbour facilities that are no longer economically viable to be closed in order to prevent a continued financial drain on their owners.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Many navigation authorities are on inland waterways, which may not be within the scope of the Bill. Might they constitute inactive responsible authorities, and might they be covered by the clause? I do not expect the Minister to answer my question immediately, but perhaps he would be kind enough to write to my hon. Friend and me at a later stage.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made an extraordinarily powerful speech about clause 7. She not only guided us through the history of the Port of Tilbury authority—I shall use that information for a question in my constituency pub quiz later—but drew attention to the Bill’s antecedent of 2008, and welcomed the present Bill.

As my hon. Friend said, knowledge of the powers of the port police and what should be required of them in the 21st century is limited. She gave examples of the anachronistic nature of the law as it applies to them: it certainly does not cover the needs and requirements of the 21st century. She rightly observed that their role often went well beyond their present tightly defined remit, involving traffic control, the ability to work with local police forces in trying to control episodes of disorder, and the additional resource that they provide in other contexts as and when directed by local forces. They should, of course, also feature on the roll of honour celebrating the great performance of public servants and volunteers during the Olympics. She rightly recognised and forcefully made the point that clause 7 will put the ports police on the same footing as other police. It is right that it does so, and I look forward to the clause being widely welcomed in Committee.

The Bill does not limit itself to the matters of shipping and port activity; it also seeks to enable the general lighthouse authorities to trade more freely in the commercial sector. My hon. Friend gave us a pub quiz question, so before I comment on that legislation, may I, in that same spirit, tell her some things of which she may not be aware? The oldest lighthouse in existence is indeed in these islands, at Hook Head, in south-east Ireland—the tower, with additions and modifications, dates back to Norman times; Trinity House has been in existence for 500 years; the Northern Lighthouse Board recently celebrated the bicentenary of its iconic Bell Rock lighthouse; and the Commissioners of Irish Lights provides marine aids to navigation across the whole of Ireland—it is symbolic of what the UK and Ireland can achieve through working together. The enactment of this clause will not only enable the general lighthouse authorities to minimise their operational costs through the generation of additional income, but will help the Commissioners of Irish Lights in its drive to be self-funding in the Republic by 2015-16.

I, too, am aware of the commercial activities that the general lighthouse authorities undertake. They also pool their limited spare capacity to undertake commercial work where they can, a good example of which is the help they give the Met Office in maintaining deepwater buoys. The clause that my hon. Friend has promoted will enable the three general lighthouse authorities to enter into commercial agreements more easily, and trade on their good names.

I take the stricture of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) about the phraseology of clause 10; he rightly says that it refers to a previous Bill. I take his point, and nothing should be inferred from that phraseology. Clauses 10 and 11 are the other substantive clauses in this Bill, and they represent a sensible approach to tying up administrative loose ends for the lighthouse authorities and removing some of the bureaucracy involved in making new regulations on manning or crewing requirements, which is costly for both private enterprise and the Government.

The Bill has had widespread support. A number of issues have been raised, on which I hope we have been able to reassure hon. Members. If not, I hope that we will be able to do so in Committee. So I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for introducing this legislation and I commend her Bill. I hope that hon. Members will agree with my assertion that it should be taken forward to Committee, and I look forward to its passage on to the statute book.

13:52

[Sheryll Murray]

I thank hon. Members for the support I have received today on Second Reading. I wish to mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is not in her place, on how the clauses on the port police will help not only coastal communities but inland communities. I hope that we have given the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who has long-standing experience in marine issues, the reassurance he needed that we will examine clause 2(1) in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has superb expertise in the area of the port police, and I know that since she has been in this place she has worked extremely hard for her constituents to try to get something established. I hope that I will be able to draw on some of her expertise in Committee.

It was also good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who talked about the expansion of the port in his constituency. I hope we might be able to give him some assistance if his port decides to introduce its own port police force.

It was a privilege and an honour to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). He is a long-standing Member of this House with great expertise in transport and he spoke with knowledge as a member of the RYA. I gratefully take on board his suggestion and I hope that he, too, is reassured that we will consider in Committee the points he raised.

I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the Minister for their contributions today and for their support in taking the Bill forward.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all those people who go to sea on big ships and little ships. They do so much to support our great island nation but they often do not receive the recognition they are due.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

13:56

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

First, let me put on record my tribute to Malcolm Wicks, the celebration of whose life was held today. He was a man of great principle and a good personal friend who will be sadly missed. I can say honestly that he was not just respected but deeply and fondly respected by Members on both sides of the House.

I welcome the new Minister for Immigration to his place, although I must say that this is not an immigration or migration Bill. It is interesting that until a week ago we were corresponding with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I have in my hand a letter from the then Under-Secretary, which states that

“BIS recently consulted on proposals to improve corporate narrative reporting. As part of that we sought views on making it explicit that quoted companies should consider human rights issues in reporting. We are working up final proposals on reporting and hope to announce them later this year.”

I do not know why the Bill has been transferred to the Minister for Immigration, but that is not to say that it is devoid of immigration issues—the berries we get in our supermarkets and the production of the “Big Mac” chickens that were proudly boasted of as being “all British” at the Olympics but turned out to be run by gangmasters who hired a gang of subcontractors that treated people like animals and stole from them and who are now being taken to court by Her Majesty’s tax officers for taking tax off people and not paying it. I have talked to people who tell that me the conditions for people who harvest the asparagus from Peru that can be bought in our supermarkets are beyond what one would expect in any country. So, there are immigration issues for the UK.

Professor Gary Craig of the Wilberforce institute in Hull is at this moment preparing a report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The subjects studied include forced labour among Chinese migrants to this country, forced labour in Northern Ireland, the regulatory and legal frameworks surrounding forced labour and a report entitled “The experience of forced labour in the food industry” that was launched in the House of Commons in mid-May and took a field-to-fork approach. They raise questions about migration in the UK, but the Bill is not about migration and the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Home Office and I have the lead in Government on combating human trafficking, on which I work closely with colleagues across Government. Indeed, only yesterday we published our interdepartmental report on combating human trafficking. Perhaps that is why it was felt to be appropriate for me to lead on the Government’s response to his Bill.

[Michael Connarty]

That explains why the Government need a pair of specs to look at what the Bill is about. It is not about human trafficking. There may be elements of human trafficking within it, but it is about the exploitation of humanity. It is about modern-day slavery; that does not require people to be trafficked across the world, but may include trafficking across the world.

Professor Craig goes on in his report to talk about major supermarkets, and asks how they can

“sell flowers or vegetables sourced from thousands of miles away (e.g. Asparagus from Peru) at prices which cannot possibly reflect appropriate labour costs”.

He says:

“These major retailers generally claim that their own practices are ethical and that they try ‘as far as possible’ to ensure that the practices of those who supply them…are also ethical”,

but how much do they try?”

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Connarty]

No. I do not take many interventions. I do not have much time, because people treated the previous Bill as though they were in Committee and spoke at great length and in detail, when they should have done so in Committee. Not a lot of time is left for me to speak, or for others who wish to speak on the Bill.

The question is how ethical suppliers are. Professor Craig said:

“Despite a number of campaigns, there is little doubt that the products of slave labour abroad end up on the High Street of all our communities”.

The purpose of the Bill is to deal with that.

I bow to the Foreign Secretary’s knowledge of the thoughts of William Wilberforce, on which he expounded in his excellent book. He wrote time and again that Wilberforce said that he would not be turned aside from his campaign on slavery 200 years ago. The Bill aims at addressing the modern-day version of the slavery that Wilberforce thought he had eradicated 200 years ago.

Last night in the House of Commons, on anti-slavery day, we had a meeting of people who support the Bill, including its Conservative sponsor, the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It is no coincidence that a large number of faith-based organisations joined the civil organisations supporting the Bill. Clearly, they all know that I am a humanist and do not have a religion, but the Right Rev. Albert Bogle, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, came down specifically to speak in support of the Bill. The Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, representing 19 ethical investment companies, came to speak. Fair Pensions and the Fairshare Educational Foundation, the Ethical Investment Association, and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales were represented at last night’s meeting in support of the Bill.

Unseen UK was there; it has launched the “Walk Free” petition, which is gathering signatures at a rate of 10,000 a day. A young organisation with which I was very impressed, the Global Poverty Project, is negotiating contacts with the fashion industry to challenge it on how it brings to the high street goods that may have been sewn together by people who are getting a pittance wage and living in terrible conditions. Not many people would buy those goods if, when they walked into these fancy stores, the label stated, “This garment is made by slave labour.” I wish that organisation well.

The Institute for Human Rights and Business was also represented at the meeting, because the business community is interested in this. There were about 20 other civic society organisations there, too, and I thank them all. We pledged last night that this campaign would go on. If the Bill is talked out today, it is coming back. This issue is not going away. The campaign will go on, as Wilberforce did in his struggles, until he changed the attitude of his country, and then the world, to the abuse of people moved, as slaves, from Africa to other parts of the world.

Anthony Steen was also there. I pay great tribute to him. He is the founder and director of the Human Trafficking Foundation. If ever there was a cause for a knighthood, it is what Anthony Steen has done in this field alone. I also commend the all-party group on human trafficking, and Parliamentarians against Human Trafficking, a group with members from all parts of Europe, and wider Europe, who met in this House on Tuesday and Thursday to talk about human trafficking. The Bill does not contradict what the Human Trafficking Foundation is about, but it is not only about that; it is complementary to it.

In attempting to get the Bill through, we are standing on the shoulders of giants, because people have done so much, from Wilberforce right through to the modern day. I say “giants”; for some people, the EU is one of those giants. I notice the presence of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who may intervene; he may see the EU as a large body, rather than a giant. It is interesting that, in December 2012, the European Commission will launch its draft guidance to employment and recruitment agencies operating worldwide. It is talking about how best to implement the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights. It is important that those who support the recruitment and employment industry, and who also want to see better standards to ensure that bottom feeders do not exploit workers, engage in this process. I commend the company, Manpower, which has spent five years auditing its supply chain right down to the lowest level. Its managing director speaks out strongly on the subject. He spoke on behalf of those who put through the Bill similar to this one in the California legislature, where such auditing is now law.

Talking about giants, it is interesting that President Obama last week called modern-day slavery

“a debasement of our common humanity.”

He spoke about

“the injustice, the outrage, of human trafficking, which must be called by its true name—modern slavery.”

There are giants in the field and I am happy to step up on their shoulders.

When we are talking about a Bill to do with trade and business, not just to do with migration, it is interesting that when the FairPensions campaign for responsible investment and the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility wrote a letter, they wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. At my suggestion they copied it to the new Minister for Immigration, but only because we had found out that the Minister for Immigration, rather than the Business Secretary, would reply to the Bill.

What is the purpose of the Bill? It is to create a framework that large companies can use to review the contract arrangements that they have entered into for the supply of their goods and services, and by including services we extend beyond the California Act. It is interesting that in the discussions last night, many of the organisation said, yes, that includes public procurement —the £9 billion of public procurement contracts that this Government give out. They must audit, right down to the roots.

It has been embarrassing when organisations have been found to have people working in their buildings who do not have the right to be in the UK and who come in with gangs of workers. I work very late at night in this building. I go home at 1 am or 2 am because I like working in the evening. I have often tried to speak to the people who work here in the lifts. Many of them cannot speak English. That does not mean that they are not legal immigrants, but when Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London he reckoned that 500,000 people live in London illegally. The Government give no subsidy to London for their education or other services. Those people are exploited because they have no right to be here, so they can be paid poor wages or kept in terrible conditions.

The growth of TB in London is attributed to the fact that people are living in such terrible conditions, and to the fact that they are afraid to get treatment because they would then be sent back home. That is a problem common to large conurbations in this country and others.

The Bill represents a challenge, but not a threat. It is not a big stick to beat companies. It aims to encourage companies to seek transparency from their suppliers and from those who supply their suppliers, right back to the first transaction moved by their finances and their sale of products and services. It is an invitation also to raise the ethical standards of their trade. That is what Wilberforce was about. It was not necessary to have enslavement in order to have trade. The Bill aims to lead the fight to eradicate the incentives to enslave men, women and children, just to shave a small percentage off the price of goods and services in the UK.

We hope that that invitation will be taken up because it is an opportunity to win the right to display a sort of kite mark. That is what is happening in California, where companies are saying, “We have audited, we are ethical, we are proud of being ethical. Buy our goods and services because they are worth something extra.” That is what I want to see companies looking for—pride and marketing value, such as the Body Shop brand, which was clearly not tested on animals and became an example of ethical production. That changed the view of the purchaser and of other companies in the high street so that they could match the achievement and win in that market also.

How can the Bill do this? We are following the California Act, which was mentioned by President Obama. Clause 1 says who should do it and for what purpose. Companies with annual receipts of more than £100 million worldwide should disclose what they have found. The phrasing of subsection (2) is clumsy. It refers to

“the worst forms of child labour”.

We have had to stick to that wording, which is defined in article 3 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention No. 182. That refers to

“work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual abuse…work underground, under water, at dangerous heights or in confined spaces…work with dangerous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves the manual handling or transport of heavy loads…work in an unhealthy environment which may, for example, expose children to hazardous substances, agents or processes, or to temperatures, noise level and vibrations damaging to their health…work under particularly difficult conditions such as work for long hours or during the night or work where the child is unreasonably confined in the premises of the employer.”

Is there any hon. Member here, or any member of the Government, who does not want to oppose those worst forms of child labour? I do not think so. Do people want to buy products that they know have been made in that way? Remember the scandal when during the Beijing Olympics children were shown sewing leather footballs that were sold in Europe for a vast profit. There have been exposures again and again of women locked up in factories in Malaysia, not paid, not fed and not allowed to go home, making garments that end up on our high streets. Those are the things that the Bill asks companies to seek out and do something about.

Clause 2 is about disclosure. Companies must disclose on their website and in their annual report what they find. If they do not have a website, they must produce a report within 30 days on what they have found in their supply chain. Is that so much to ask? I do not think so. That is asking companies to look closely at what is happening in their name, with their money, on behalf of their customers. There is a movement out there that wants to see us trading ethically. Fair Trade is the beginning, but ethical trade is the end, and that is what is coming to us. If we go to meet it, we will be applauded; if we do not, we will be abused and put down as being people who do not really care because we still think that it does not matter as long as UK plc makes a buck. That is no longer what the public want.

Clause 2(3) is about what will be disclosed and how—the methodology. It is the same methodology as set out in the California Act, which has now been embraced by many companies. Interestingly, 40 multinationals from the UK trade in California and will have to go through this process if they wish to do business there. Many of the companies will, I hope, then be able to lead the way in the UK. I have had letters of support from BP and from the people who bought the 26 sites in olefins and derivatives from BP, INEOS. We have companies saying that they want to see the Bill through because they are willing to do this. So we have the audit of suppliers and direct suppliers and setting up internal accountability standards, providing companies’ employees and management with direct responsibility for the supply chain, with the accountability to reply and report on the supply chain right down to the bottom. That is all very sensible.

Clause 3 states that when the company finds people who are being abused in these ways, it must then seek out ways to assist them. It states that it

“shall take action necessary and appropriate to assist people who have been victims and shall report on that action in their annual reports”

That is a very sensible requirement. Companies do say, “Yes, we have done it. We are ethical. We do not have any problems.” But if someone finds that they are not ethical, they are found to be denying very publicly the audit that should have taken place. I remember going round companies—some Government Members may not like this—with a lot of stickers always in my pocket showing a skull and crossbones and saying “Contaminated by apartheid”. It may be that eventually, when companies are denying what they are doing in the supply chain, people will be putting stickers on their goods saying, “Contaminated by child slavery”, or “Contaminated by slavery”. Then they may have to look again at what they are doing when they say that they are doing everything correctly.

The Bill might be talked out today, but it is coming back. It will not go away. If the Government had the courage to give the lead to UK businesses, those businesses can still win the markets, but they can also win the next stage of Wilberforce’s campaign as set out 200 years ago and challenge and help to eradicate modern day slavery.

14:15

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on his speech and on taking the Bill forward. I am delighted and proud to be one of the 11 sponsors from five parties, including no fewer than three colleagues who are all named Jim—I am not quite sure of the significance, but I felt that it was worth placing that on the record.

I was first recruited to this admirable cause by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) when she brought in a ten-minute rule Bill along the same lines, and it was then taken up by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in his excellent Bill before us today. I know that he, like me, will be disappointed if it does not proceed to Committee, but it has been given an airing today, as he rightly said, and I am sure that we are all grateful to the Government for having made certain that that would happen.

There was some confusion over the question of human trafficking in relation to the Bill. Human trafficking is certainly one of the concerns covered, but it is neither the Bill’s exclusive focus, nor even its main focus. The main focus of the Bill, as became apparent in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, was brought out at yesterday evening’s reception, which I was pleased to attend. We heard some horrifying tales about what actually goes on overseas in the unsupervised chain of production for many products we see on supermarket shelves, often without the knowledge of not only consumers, but the companies selling the goods. It is therefore also in the interests of the companies and their reputations that they should make an effort to investigate the chain of production for the products they sell so that no one would be tempted to go around marking them on their shelves as having been contaminated by the ruthless exploitation of child labour or that of other impoverished people.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill has a light touch. It would affect only very large companies, companies that have the resources to carry out the sorts of examinations and checks that would assure them and their consumers that the goods being sold had not been created as a result of an unendurable chain of human suffering. I think that I am right in saying that BP is an example of a major company that, although very tough-minded, has nevertheless seen it as appropriate to adopt such measures. If BP can adopt such measures, that sets a good example for other large companies to do likewise.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will not give way, for a reason I am just about to explain.

While talking of setting good examples, I would like to say that there are times for long speeches and times for short speeches. This is a time for short speeches. I look to hon. Members on the Back Benches and on both Front Benches to follow my good example and make short speeches so that this worthy Bill can proceed as it should to Committee.

14:18

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has brought forward a noble Bill that, in its intention and motivation, is of the highest standards this House ever reaches. As he said, it continues in the tradition of Wilberforce’s campaign to eradicate the slave trade and then slavery throughout the British empire. I believe that the Act of Parliament that finally eradicated slavery throughout the empire was passed three days before Wilberforce’s death, so he was able to see that moment.

I hope that it will not take quite so long for this Bill to be passed and that the hon. Gentleman will see very many years go by after his aim of getting slavery taken out of the practices of multinational companies has been achieved.

As a general rule, I am not in favour of imposing extra regulations on business. We need to have a competitive and free market with companies that can trade. I am very suspicious of fair trade as against free trade. Fair trade often means protectionism by another name—choosing one’s preferred people as opposed to those who are most competitive—and cutting out the poorest in favour of those who are good at filling out bureaucratic forms. We should always be careful when we consider doing anything that might encumber free trade or put burdens on business. We must remember that when burdens are put on business, it is not the profits of the multinationals that suffer but the electorate—often the poorest of our electorate—who find that their prices go up.

Within any advocation of free trade there must be some limits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proud Christian tradition of opposing slavery in all its forms. Going back to my O-levels, I remember studying the letter of St Paul to Philemon, which sets out the Christian case for opposition to slavery. In the Roman empire, slavery was perfectly legal and legitimate. There was no reason to oppose it; it was part of the status quo. The young, burgeoning Christian community lived within that—they had to. They were persecuted enough already without taking on one of the foundations of the Roman empire. St Paul, writing in prison to Philemon, who is a Christian, about his slave who may have escaped, tells him to treat Onesimus as a Christian brother, not as a slave—not as a piece of property but as somebody of worth and value equal even to a Roman citizen. That has set the path, followed by Wilberforce and others, to ensuring that as a nation we have done whatever we can for the past 200 years—after a pretty shameful history beforehand, it has to be admitted—to ensure that slavery is not part of the system of global trade and not something from which British companies profit.

So what is the right level of burden to put on companies—multinationals—that are facing this problem? First, there is the question of their own consciences. Before legislating, we should always see whether companies already take the view that something is fundamentally wrong and has no place in their supply chains. That is a good starting point. With the growth of international trade, many big companies will have major intermediary suppliers. They will not deal with thousands and thousands of small suppliers across the globe but have intermediaries they are able to go to. Those intermediaries should be able to assure the companies that they themselves do not use any improper forms of labour—slaves or children—in the production of the goods that are sold.

We then need to go to the next stage and look at the companies that are supplying to the intermediaries. There may be many thousands of companies, some of which are very small or in very remote parts. My professional background has been in investing in emerging markets. While I have been doing this, the number of emerging markets that have come into the investable framework has been growing. Countries of extreme poverty are now beginning to come into the global system, and auditing them efficiently and properly would be a pretty onerous task to put on to businesses. However, in relation to slavery, it is almost certainly a right and moral one for us to adopt.

The situation that companies will face is one that I have faced as an investment manager in looking at the companies that we invest in for our clients—that is, going to visit them to ensure that their practices are proper. I confess that in one of my company visits I was suspicious that the company did indeed use child labour. The business was a very attractive one, but I thought that my clients, and the pension fundholders they represented and the charities they served, would be appalled to be making money on the backs of children. The individual conscience of company managers and investment managers is an important starting place, which I think helps to achieve the objective behind the Bill.

The question then remains, what are we to do about people who do not have any conscience? Is legislation appropriate, right and proper? There may come circumstances in which that is the case. Perhaps this is more a point for a Committee speech than for a Second Reading speech, but I believe the Bill needs some adjustment to achieve what it is intended to. That is partly because it is trying to do a bit too much. I would prefer it to concentrate purely on the issues of slavery and child labour, which are specific and clear. Other issues can be harder to define and can therefore place a more difficult burden on companies. I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously and see whether there is something they can do to ensure that the required standards are met.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend may not be aware that just yesterday, colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills laid draft regulations that will ensure that as part of their narrative reporting, quoted companies will have to report on any human rights issues necessary to understand their business. Perhaps we can achieve the necessary reporting standard through that avenue without the burden of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I take this opportunity to welcome him to his new post. He is the most civilised of Ministers in the Government, and I am glad that he has moved, because when he was in his last post I opposed practically everything that he did. I sincerely hope that I will now be able to support him more often. In reference to the Board of Trade’s action, the term “human rights” does not necessarily have a very good name in the House. I am slightly cautious of it as a generic term when we have a pretty awful Human Rights Act and a European Court that often gets the wrong end of the stick. There are fundamental principles of humanity in the Bill that we are discussing, not just the woolly words “human rights”. So I am sort of grateful for what the Minister says—more grateful than for a lot of what he said about the constitution when he was the Minister responsible for it—but perhaps not fully grateful.

The Government need to take up the running and take the matter out of the hands of a private Member’s Bill, which cannot necessarily be given the time and resources it needs so that we can get the phraseology as tight as it ought to be. They should find the parliamentary time to introduce a detailed Bill, which could be used to ensure the correct balance between burdens on business and benefits for people at risk.

There is also a twofold economic argument for such a Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk alluded to the first part of it, which is that companies that fail to follow the basics of humanity will be embarrassed in their marketing. They will be brought to shame in front of the nation if it is discovered that they are using child labour or slave labour in the production of their goods. That will bring the crack of the economic whip on their profits, which is a very good means of ensuring that companies behave better.

The other point that is worth making is that companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and successful. Sometimes they are very large employers. I have spoken to Hon Hai, which employs more than 1 million people and is one of the biggest suppliers to Apple. It finds itself employing so many people that it provides an almost governmental style of welfare for them, because it is in its own interests to do so. If it is to employ such large numbers of people in an environment in which there will inevitably be difficulties and disputes, it needs to take care of its employees in the round rather than simply getting the maximum out of the cheapest individual employee.

There is also the argument that if companies move away from child and slave labour, they will be able to mechanise more easily and therefore be more productive and efficient. There is a good argument, which has long been known, about the inefficiency of slave labour. The financial incentive that we talk about when discussing tax rates applies to people in routine jobs in poor countries just as much as to bankers in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there are robust economic reasons for wanting to avoid slave labour, and robust moral reasons as well. It is important—the mood of the House is almost certainly along these lines—that the Government should take the matter up.

14:30

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 2 November.

Business without Debate

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Town and country planning (Control of advertisements) (England) regulations 2007 (Amendment) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November.

Coroners and justice (amendment) Bill

Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (6 July), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 26 October.

Prisons (Interference with wireless telegraphy) Bill

Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

14:31

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is now less than four weeks before the police and crime commissioner elections on 15 November, and I have to tell the Minister that there is acute concern about the likely turnout. A wide range of people have expressed concerns. For example, Peter Neyroud, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police, former chief of the National Policing Improvement Agency and now a respected academic at Cambridge university, has expressed concerns about the PCC elections. He stated:

“If you could have constructed a manual on how not to conduct an election, the Home Office have managed to tick just about every element of it.”

The result of the Home Office’s cack-handedness will be that the turnout, again in Mr Neyroud’s words, will be “pretty shocking”.

Concerns were also expressed at the Liberal Democrat conference, by the new Minister of State in the Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who advanced the opinion that a turnout in the PCC elections of 20% would “not be good”. Worries have been expressed in the other place, by the Police Federation and by PCC candidates, whether representatives of a particular political party or independents.

The clearest and most strongly worded concerns have been expressed by the Electoral Reform Society, which stated some weeks ago that the PCC elections are set to have the lowest turnout of any election in modern times—18.5%. To all democrats, that must be of profound concern. If turnout is that low, it could unfairly advantage extremist candidates who would never succeed in winning over a larger proportion of the electorate. It would also place a massive question mark over the role of elected PCCs. Let us not forget that the stated purpose of police and crime commissioners is to improve the accountability of the police, and reconnect the public with them. That objective would clearly be placed in jeopardy if there were such a low turnout.

To date, the Government have shown few indications that they comprehend the gravity of the situation. Despite protestations that the winter is the worst possible time to hold an election, and particularly a first-time election, the elections are being held in the middle of November, having been postponed by the Government from May. All who have experience of elections know full well how difficult it is for us to persuade voters to come out in the middle of winter, when the nights are cold and dark. That was borne out by distinguished academics Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, who conducted research into seasonal factors affecting voting in which they concluded that turnout in council by-elections fell by an average of 6.6% when held in November as compared with May. If that happens with council elections, there is a risk that it will happen with PCC elections.

From the start, it was always going to be difficult to generate enthusiasm for, or even interest in, these elections, but it must be said that things have not been made easier by the Government’s attitude and inaction. Despite the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission and others, the Home Office has refused to provide information other than online, unless someone specifically asks for written information. The result is that some 7 million people who do not regularly have access to the internet are unlikely to know what is happening. Thankfully, the Electoral Commission is providing a booklet to all households, but it will provide information only about the elections and the electoral system to be used—the supplementary vote. Crucially, no information will be provided about the candidates in any of the police force areas. The result is that electors will have to rely on information provided to them by the candidates themselves.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking extremely well. There is very little awareness of the elections in my patch of the city of Leicester, although the excellent Labour candidate, Sarah Russell, is reminding voters that the Government are cutting 200 police officers from the Leicestershire force. There is a great deal of awareness about that; it is extremely unpopular.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend’s example from Leicester is replicated the length and breadth of the country. There is tremendous concern about policing and police numbers, but many people are not making the connection between that and the PCC elections. The Labour party will certainly do its utmost to make the connection.

Police force areas are huge in terms of geography and population. It is therefore difficult to disseminate information door to door—it is a huge task. The Government’s position prompts a question: if comprehensive information, including details of the candidates, can be provided for mayoral elections—it will be provided for the Bristol mayoral election on 15 November—why cannot the Government provide candidate information in the PCC elections? Surely that would increase public knowledge and interest, and enhance the democratic process.

There is also a concern that there are no provisions for information in accessible formats for people with sight difficulties, and no information is provided in any other languages, despite the assurances given in an Adjournment debate on 25 April by the then Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform. Incidentally, I would appreciate an explanation of why a Cabinet Office Minister responded to that debate on PCC elections, but a Home Office Minister will reply to this one. Why the change? Is the switch indicative of the confusion at the heart of the Government about the conduct of the elections? Who is really in charge of these elections? Is anyone in charge of them?

I referred a moment ago to minority languages. I am incredulous that the Government have messed up on the production of bilingual ballot papers for Wales. Despite repeated reminders from the Opposition, the Home Office has only this week tabled the order to enable the production of bilingual ballot papers in Wales. It is likely that Parliament will approve the order to allow the ballot papers to be sent out as postal votes in Wales and I guess that this will be done in the nick of time. But there is of course no certainty that the Government will meet the deadline, and they belatedly realised this some weeks ago.

Having wrongly believed that there was no need for such an order, the Home Office, in its wisdom, then decided to play safe and give the go-ahead for the production of two sets of ballot papers—one set in English only and one set in English and Welsh. Which set will be used depends on whether the Government get their order through before the deadline. The unused set of ballot papers will then be destroyed—I kid you not, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time in modern electoral history that the Government have, through sheer incompetence and stupidity, been obliged to throw away more than 2 million ballot papers before an election. How much is this act of folly costing the taxpayer? The Government are reluctant to say, for understandable reasons, but it is estimated that the cost runs into many hundreds of thousands of pounds—taxpayers’ money wasted by the incompetence of this Government.

I am sure the Minister will point out that the Government are engaged in a public awareness campaign with television, radio and newspaper advertising. Those advertisements are making a contribution to raising public awareness. That cannot be denied, and I sincerely hope that they will continue to help raise awareness, but I have to say that these advertisements are unprecedented as a way of increasing knowledge of elections and they are not risk free. In this respect, I would point out to the Minister that concerns have already been expressed. It has been suggested by some that the adverts unfairly depict young people, imply criticism of current policing and suggest that PCCs will have a role in day-to-day policing priorities, which of course is not and should not be the case.

As I said at the outset, there are only a few weeks left before the elections. I hope that the lessons of the campaign so far will be learnt and I know that the Electoral Commission is already focused on this, but I also hope that the Government will mobilise more resources, even at this relatively late stage, so that a concerted effort can be made to raise public awareness. I would hope that all Ministers will make an effort to refer to the PCC elections at every opportunity. Labour Members will certainly do our best to make people aware of them.

While all of us in this House have differences about the role of PCCs and what their priorities should be, all of us must surely believe that it is important for democracy that there is a good turnout in these elections. That is something on which all sides of the House should surely agree.

14:43

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I would normally congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on securing this debate but given the content of his speech, the thought occurs that perhaps we would both be better engaged in being out there and campaigning for some of our respective candidates in the PCC elections on 15 November. In that regard, I feel I should put it on the record that I did indeed spend this morning in Stevenage and Hitchin campaigning with the excellent Conservative candidate for Hertfordshire, David Lloyd, and meeting people working on crime prevention in the area—

[Wayne David]

I just wish to make the point that I will be out tomorrow morning with the excellent Labour candidate in Gwent, Hamish Sandison—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. If we have finished the comments about people’s diaries, perhaps we could return to the important subject of this Adjournment debate.

[Damian Green]

I will happily do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it gives me the chance to correct a number of inaccurate assertions that the hon. Gentleman has made.

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s final point about whether Members are doing their best to increase interest in the elections. I cannot remember whether he attended Home Office questions on Monday, but, as the Home Secretary observed, many Government Members took the opportunity to refer to the elections and individual candidates. The only Labour candidate referred to by name, however, was the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and he was referred to by himself, so, although I agree that Members should help to raise public awareness, I think I can say, in the fairest and least partisan way possible, that the hon. Gentleman might want to spread that message on his own Benches. It has been well spread on ours.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) mentioned police numbers, so it is worth putting it on the record the fact that crime in Leicestershire has fallen by 5% in the past 12 months, which shows how effective the current arrangements for policing are there.

I remind the House why we are introducing police and crime commissioners, the most significant democratic reform of policing ever. It will introduce greater transparency and accountability to a service of which we are rightly proud but which can sometimes be too distant from the public it serves and can fail adequately to reflect their concerns and priorities. For too long before the Government came into office, the Home Office interfered too much in local policing and cared too little about national threats. The introduction of PCCs is a step along the road to reversing that trend. The creation of the National Crime Agency to focus on serious and organised crime nationally is another. PCCs will not just focus on their local area but will have a duty to co-operate in dealing with national threats under the new strategic policing arrangement.

Within four weeks, we will find out who the first PCCs will be. They will be the first people elected with a democratic mandate to hold their local force to account, set the budget and draw up the policing plan. Of course, the wider landscape into which the new PCCs will enter is also evolving fast. The college of policing will be launched later this year, and PCCs will sit on its board. Crucially, then, direct representation of the people of England and Wales will also be introduced on to that board. The purpose of the college will be to enhance professionalism across the service. Everyone in the country cares about the continual improvement of professionalism in the police, and the college will play a significant role in making that happen.

The issue of public awareness lay at the heart of the speech by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It is worth putting that in the context of the picture we now have of crime. By happy coincidence, the latest crime statistics were out yesterday, and they are very pertinent to this debate. They show that on both measures—the crime survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime—crime is falling. It has fallen by 6% in the crime survey and by 6% in the record crime figures. Most significantly, the fall is across the board—violence, burglary, vandalism, vehicle theft, robbery and knife crime are all down.

PCCs will be taking up their posts, therefore, in a time of a continuing downward trend in crime rates that proves—this is relevant to the point about Leicestershire—that it is not how many officers we have but what we do with them that counts. Wise PCCs will understand that point when they take up their offices and start deploying the police plans that they will need to operate. We are replacing what were bureaucratic and unaccountable police authorities with democratically accountable PCCs so that, for the first time, the public will be given a voice and a seat around the table when key decisions are made about how their communities are being policed and how their money is being spent. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that simply does not happen under the current system, and I genuinely hope that the tone of his speech did not reflect an underlying unease about greater and better democratic control of the police.

[Wayne David]

indicated dissent.

[Damian Green]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms that it did not.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I can also agree that for all the good work that people on the police authorities do—many do very good work—we know that police authorities are often invisible and unaccountable. Inspections have shown that fewer than a quarter of police authorities perform well on their basic functions and that fewer than a third engage well with their communities. In part, that is because only 7% of the public know what a police authority is. The hon. Gentleman adduced survey evidence showing the level of engagement with the PCC elections, but none of the figures is as low as the 7% of people who have heard of police authorities. That figure represents a huge failure in democratic accountability, because it is the job of a police authority—as it will be of a PCC—to spend the public’s money in a way that guarantees that the police in its area are doing what the public need. However, it is impossible to do that when 93% of the public do not even know what police authorities are. There is simply no possible measurement of success in that area. Up to now—and up to next month—the public have been simply unable to do anything about those failures. PCCs will have a clear incentive to perform better than that. If PCCs fail to represent their communities, engage properly and deliver on their priorities, the public will be able to tell them what they think of them at the ballot box.

The hon. Gentleman made the point about the November elections. He will be aware that the legislative timetable meant that this was an early date, but the Government correctly took the decision that further delay would simply mean that it would take longer before we could apply what are appropriate democratic controls. He also made the point about the weather. On the whole—but not always, in these troubled climatic times we live in—the weather in May is better than the weather in November. However, I should also observe that every four years America holds what is possibly the most important election in the world in November and the American electorate seem to engage in it, so it is not insuperable for people to go and vote when it is a bit cold and wet.

It is also clear—this is hugely relevant—that with more than 90% of the public not even aware of what a police authority is, we are starting the procedure from a very low base of public engagement. We could have a long, academic debate about what the turnout may or may not be in a few weeks’ time. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that there is no shortage of commentators criticising the date of the election or demanding that ever-increasing amounts of money be spent on strategies to engage the public, which may or may not work. What is neither academic nor remotely in doubt is that whatever happens—however many thousands of people turn out to vote in each force area—every PCC will have more legitimacy to make important decisions about what the police do than unelected, unaccountable and, as I have said, largely invisible police authorities.

There is no question but that there is huge public interest in policing issues. They regularly come near the top of issues that people want addressed, particularly when they are asked about antisocial behaviour, which many feel is not taken seriously enough in some areas. The Home Office advertising campaign, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and about which I shall say more shortly, is focused precisely on telling the public that PCCs will respond to those priorities. The hon. Gentleman made some critical remarks about the content of the advertisements, but that content is dictated by what the public care about. That is what they think about when they think about crime, and that is what they will want the PCCs to address.

There is evidence that the public are engaged. Our crime-mapping website is the most successful Government website ever. There have been more than 500 million hits since it was launched, and—perhaps because of the elections next month, and the gradually increasing public awareness and willingness to discuss crime-related matters—the traffic to the site has increased markedly in recent weeks. This month alone, it is averaging more than 360,000 hits each day. I know how much of an increase that is. Because I am relatively new to my post, I still remember my initial briefing just over a month ago, when I was told that the average was 250,000 hits a day. I am fairly sure that the only reason for the increase—an extra 100,000 hits a day—is the advent of the PCC elections, as nothing else has changed.

We are expanding the website to respond to that ever-increasing demand for information. We have added justice outcomes so that people can see what happens when a crime takes place, measures to compare similar areas, and mug shots of convicted criminals, all of which are proving popular with the public.

We know that the public care about crime, that they want to know more about crime in their local areas, and that they want their voice to be heard. The elections on 15 November will give them an opportunity not just to talk about crime, but to take action to make a change in their communities. A week from today, information about every candidate who supplies such information will be published online. That will give the candidates an opportunity to set out their stall to the electorate, and to reveal their vision for policing. Let me stress again—I have said this many times, but it clearly has not got through to the hon. Gentleman yet—that the information will be delivered free of charge, in written form, to anyone who asks for it, via a phone line.

[Wayne David]

I am aware of that—if the Minister had listened carefully to my speech, he would have heard me make it very clear that I was aware of it—but why on earth does he not follow the example of the mayoral election campaign, and send information directly to households?

[Damian Green]

There is a certain amount of confusion among Opposition Members. Half of them complain that the elections are a waste of time and cost too much, while the other half demand that we spend more on them. The hon. Gentleman falls into the latter camp, which is entirely consistent with his general approach. That is fine from his point of view, but I have to tell him that there is no such thing as a free mail shot. The so-called free mail shot would actually have cost the taxpayer more than £30 million. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go and decide, along with his colleagues, whether he wants more to be spent or not, he can do so.

We should publicise this information. The address of the website is www.choosemypcc.org.uk, and the telephone number—which is Freephone from landlines—is 0800 1 070708. It is very easy for people to obtain information about the elections. Details of both the website and the phone line will appear on every polling card that is delivered to every registered voter in England and Wales outside London. We launched an advertising campaign this month that explains the reforms, encourages participation in the elections, and provides a phone number. No one will be denied information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has seen our advertisements. We have calculated that 85% of the population will see the television advertisement alone an average of six times. In addition, every household will receive information about the elections from the Electoral Commission, which will include information about the role of PCCs and, crucially, about how to vote.

The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in saying that every effort should be made to familiarise the electorate with the role of the PCCs, with the candidates and with the electoral system. All that has been done. In addition, a large number of candidates have already started campaigning and will be doing much of that work themselves. So not only will the public be made aware of the elections, but they will have the information they need to make informed choices. Beyond that, it is up to the candidates locally to make these elections a success. Given that the three main parties in this House are fielding candidates, it is incumbent on us all to go out to explain to the public why the competing visions for policing and tackling crime are worth turning out for, and how PCCs can best ensure that the public get the policing they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

15:00

House adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

Friday 19 October 2012

Regional Growth Fund (Update)

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

Today my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce the provisional allocation of a further £1.055 billion to 130 beneficiaries from the regional growth fund (RGF). The selected beneficiaries will proceed to a due diligence and contracting phase that will be complete within six months. This significant investment by the Government provides additional help for companies to create jobs within their firms and their supply chains. Every £1 of RGF money being allocated will be matched by £6 from the private sector. The RGF is generating private sector investment nationally and in local economies, creating and safeguarding jobs. The RGF supports the Government’s ambitions to make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business in addition to encouraging investment and exports.

Round 3

There was a high quality of bidding to round 3. In June this year we received 414 bids asking for £2.78 billion of funding. Following a full review, 278 bids went forward for in-depth assessment and, earlier this month Ministers selected the final 130 beneficiaries after advice from the independent advisory panel chaired by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine.

Of the £1.055 billion—£697 million will go to the private sector consisting of 101 companies, bank schemes for small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) support, supply chain programmes and grant schemes with local media. These awards actively support the industrial strategy the Government are following.

Three hundred and fifty-eight million will go to 29 intermediaries such as local authorities and local enterprise partnerships directed at local growth priorities in their areas. This is a significant award putting funding directly into the hands of local leaders.

The round 3 contracting process will be quicker because lessons learned from the previous rounds are being implemented. I have set a deadline of three months from today until final offer, and a deadline of three months for due diligence before award.

Rounds 1 and 2

Progress remains good on rounds 1 and 2 where we have a firm position with nine in 10 bids and six out of 10 bids have already started. Over half the bidders (140) are contracted and able to draw down funding and a further 45 are completing their due diligence reports.

The priority now is to agree a way forward with the remaining few, will be done between now and Christmas.

Currently 149 projects and programmes have started, generating almost £4.8 billion of private investment into our economy. Several companies were happy to start work before receiving any funds; agreeing terms has given them the confidence to get going and start work. The number of withdrawn projects and programmes is 29 (12%). For a fund of this size this is low: withdrawals also point to the robustness of the process—something the National Audit Office (NAO) has been positive about.

Long-term impact

All RGF projects and programmes are being monitored; this will continue for years to come, in order to understand the impact of the RGF and continue to protect taxpayers’ interests. Monitoring will include an annual review of progress that will be reported to Parliament at the end of each financial year, beginning in the spring of 2013.

Fuel Poverty and Green Deal (Update)

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

I am pleased to inform Parliament that I am today launching a competition for local authorities to bid for resources to deliver projects that will help to reduce fuel poverty, help kick start Green Deal delivery and help consumers to save money on energy bills through collective switching.

As part of the Government’s continuing efforts to tackle fuel poverty, we are seeking to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from the assistance available this winter. We are therefore offering English local authorities the opportunity to bid for up to £25 million of funding to reduce the extent of fuel poverty in their area, primarily through the provision of support for improvements to the thermal efficiency of dwellings.

Meanwhile we will continue to deliver policies that we know are making a difference to low income and vulnerable households. In England, Warm Front is still taking new applications and is easier to access following changes to the rules in September this year. We expect the Warm Home discount scheme to assist around 2 million households across Britain this year—including more than 1 million of the poorest pensioners who will receive an automatic £130 discount on their electricity bill. And the new year will see the entry into force of the energy company obligation, running in parallel with the Green Deal. This is intended to focus particularly on households that cannot achieve financial savings without additional support, including the poorest and most vulnerable, and those in hard to treat homes.

In addition we are also offering local authorities in England (outside of the authorities in the core cities that are already receiving DECC funding) the opportunity to bid for £10 million of funding to support early delivery of, and promote future demand for, the Green Deal. With rising fuel bills the Green Deal offers households the opportunity to take action to reduce their bills by improving the energy efficiency of their homes at no up-front cost.

We are aware that many local authorities around the country are well advanced in their plans for the Green Deal and we want to support them to take early action. We recently announced £12 million of funding to seven core cities to trial and demonstrate aspects of the Green Deal. This additional funding now opens up opportunities for other councils.

The Green Deal and fuel poverty competitions will be run in conjunction with a £5 million collective switching competition, aimed at supporting local authorities and third sector organisations across the country in developing innovative schemes, which will allow groups of consumers to group together, through a trusted third party, and use market power to negotiate lower energy bills.

Alongside these announcements we are today releasing details of a Green Deal cashback scheme worth £125 million to reward households acting early to improve the energy efficiency of their property through Green Deal, when it becomes available in January 2013.

Medical Revalidation

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Today, I am announcing that from 3 December 2012, revalidation of doctors in the UK will commence.

This announcement follows the October 2010 commitment by the General Medical Council (GMC) and Department of Health to deliver a streamlined system of revalidation that provides assurance to the public and adds value for both patients and doctors. The tests of readiness for revalidation, as set out in that commitment, have now been met and I have received sufficient evidence from the UK revalidation programme board that all four UK countries are suitably prepared to proceed with implementation.

Revalidation is a way of regulating licensed doctors. It is a five-yearly process which gives doctors a clear framework to reflect on and improve their quality of care as well as ensuring that a doctor’s practice is systematically evaluated on an ongoing basis.

Through revalidation, doctors are required to demonstrate, via their annual appraisal, that they are working in a way that meets the values and principles set out in Good Medical Practice (GMC), the GMC guidance which sets out the principles and values on which good practice is founded, in order to renew their licence to practice. The evidence that doctors will bring to support revalidation will include participation in a process of annual appraisal, feedback from patients and colleagues, evidence of continuing professional development, reviews of complaints and information about clinical outcomes, where appropriate.

The new system will apply to all doctors in all settings in the UK.



For the small proportion of doctors about whom there are concerns, the strengthening of local clinical governance, together with a system of annual appraisal, provides the means for identifying problems earlier and putting in place appropriate arrangements to respond to any such concerns.

Medical revalidation will help doctors keep up to the standard expected of them by ensuring they stay up to date with the latest techniques, technologies and research. This will be key in making improvements in early diagnosis, such as with dementia and cancer—which is particularly important in bringing down mortality rates—and in helping people with long-term conditions manage them better.

Revalidation will also require a doctor to tackle any concerns with important skills such as bedside manner and maintaining trust with patients—particularly important when caring for the increasing number of older patients that the NHS treats.

As well as improving patient safety and quality of care, revalidation will improve public confidence that the doctors who are providing care and treatment to patients in the UK are up to date and fit to practise.

I would like to thank the GMC, the NHS revalidation support team, the independent healthcare advisory services, the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, NHS employers, colleagues in the devolved Administrations, the NHS Confederation and UK patient organisations for the considerable amount of work they have undertaken in preparation for the commencement of revalidation. In summary, revalidation represents a world leading initiative that will increase the quality and safety of healthcare across all sectors.

Crime Outcomes Recording Framework (Consultation)

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

As part of the Government’s commitment to increasing democratic accountability and reducing bureaucratic accountability, we are consulting on proposals to broaden the current “sanction detections” framework to better reflect all of the work that the police do to solve and resolve crime.

A revised framework for recorded crime outcomes will support police officers to use their professional judgment to ensure a just and timely outcome which reflects the harm to the victim, the seriousness of the behaviour, the impact on the community, and which deters future offending. Furthermore, it will also give the public more detailed information about the work their police forces are doing and so further empower local communities to hold their chief officer and police and crime commissioner to account for tackling crime locally.

The aim of the consultation is to ensure that the final disposal framework is based on a full consideration of the impact of these changes, and that it is clear, accessible and meaningful to the widest possible audience.

The consultation is launching today on 19 October 2012, and will remain open until 7 December 2012. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the House Library and on the Home Office website at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/consultations/

Eurodac Regulation (UK Opt-in Decision)

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The UK has opted in to the Eurodac regulation which meets the criteria set out in the coalition agreement with regard to EU justice and home affairs measures.

The regulation will govern the operation of the Eurodac fingerprint database, which collects the fingerprints of asylum seekers, and certain illegal entrants to the EU, in order to help member states determine who is responsible under the Dublin regulation for dealing with an asylum claim. The Government are committed to the Dublin system, of which Eurodac is an essential part, as it helps tackle the problem of people abusing asylum systems across Europe by making multiple claims in different EU member states.

The Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s right to opt in to forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

National DNA Database Ethics Group

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

My hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Criminal Information (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I am pleased to announce the reappointment of Mr Christopher Hughes, OBE, as chair of the National DNA Database Ethics Group. Mr Hughes was originally appointed in July 2009 for a three-year term. The ethics group provides Ministers with independent ethical advice on the operation and practice of the national DNA database (NDNAD).

Criminal Cases Review Commission (Triennial Review)

Friday 19th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

In March 2011 the Government responded to the Public Accounts Committee report “Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State” setting out the coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodies sector. It includes the requirement to undertake triennial reviews of Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body set up to review possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to refer appropriate cases to the courts. It was established as an Executive non-departmental body on 1 January 1997 by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

To deliver the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability the Criminal Cases Review Commission will be subject to a triennial review. The Ministry of Justice, as the sponsoring Department, has today launched a call for evidence which will last until 14 December 2012 inviting views. In line with Cabinet Office guidance the review will consider the following:

the continuing need for the Criminal Cases Review Commission—both its functions and its form; and

where it is agreed that it should remain, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non- Departmental Public Bodies”. The final report and findings will be laid before this House.

House of Lords

Friday 19th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Friday, 19 October 2012.

10:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill [HL]

Friday 19th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

10:07

Moved By

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, in 2008 I introduced the Cohabitation Bill to give legal rights to financial provision for those in cohabiting relationships in the event of separation or death. It won wide support but was strongly opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who, I am delighted to say, will take part in this debate. The Labour Government were sympathetic but awaited the outcome of the experience in Scotland, where the law is already in place. I am hopeful that my previous Bill, or a similar Bill, will be reintroduced in the near future.

Like many other countries, the Republic of Ireland gives legal protection to so-called common law marriages. It may surprise some that our law is well behind that of the Irish Republic. The Republic has a redress scheme for cohabiting couples under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, which came into force on 1 January 2011. I hope that my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames will be able to introduce a Bill of his own to give effect to the Law Commission’s proposals on that wider issue of cohabitation rights. I can tell the House that this Bill has the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, neither of whom can be present today.

The present Bill is much more limited than the previous Bill but it is of real practical importance. It was drafted by the Law Commission for England and Wales—not by me—following its consultation on intestacy and family provision claims on death. For anyone who is interested, copies of the Law Commission’s rather long but important and well informed report can be obtained from the Printed Paper Office. The report sets out the Law Commission’s proposals to improve and clarify the law on intestacy and family provision. Those measures of law reform will particularly benefit women and children, and relieve the taxpayer of unnecessary burdens.

There is a special procedure for Law Commission Bills on non-controversial subjects, and the commission considers that most of its proposals can be dealt with in a non-contentious way. The Government have until the end of the year to respond to its report and I hope that they will be able to do so positively.

Meanwhile, the Law Commission considered—in paragraphs 1.100 to 1.105—that, because it is controversial to enhance the rights of cohabiting couples, it would be necessary to deal with that subject by means of a separate measure. It therefore drafted this Bill, which I have taken up in the hope that it will be given a Second Reading and, in due course, perhaps enacted together with a non-contentious Bill, as the two are part of each other.

When the Law Commission reviewed the law on intestacy more than 20 years ago, it rejected reform of the intestacy rules to take account of cohabitants. However, it recommended the inclusion of cohabitants as a separate category of applicant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. That recommendation was enacted in 1995 and took effect from 1 January 1996. Since then, a person living in the same household as the deceased, and as the husband or wife of the deceased for a continuous period of two years before the death, has been entitled to make a claim for family provision from the estate. That right has since been extended to same-sex couples—see paragraph 8.7 of the report.

Meanwhile, the prevalence of cohabitation has increased enormously. As the Law Commission noted in paragraph 8.21 of its report:

“Cohabitation is no longer an insignificant minority choice, nor a socially unacceptable lifestyle”.

In 2006, of those aged under 60 and unmarried, 24% of men and 25% of women were cohabiting in Britain. By 2010, around 7.5 million people were living in cohabiting families, representing more than 15% of all families. The Office for National Statistics indicates that the number of cohabiting couples in England and Wales will increase from 4.7 million in 2008 to 7.6 million in 2033. Cohabitation is widespread and will become more so.

The Law Commission’s research shows that cohabitants are among the people least likely to have a will and so most likely to die intestate. The National Consumer Council found that only 17% of cohabitants had made a will. The Law Commission’s research showed that court awards to cohabitants under the 1975 Act can result in the award of significant sums that make long-term provision for the applicant and recognise the lifestyle that the couple enjoyed. However, awards are limited to provision for the applicant’s maintenance, rather than being on the more generous basis used to make awards for spouses. Crucially, a cohabitant’s only route to a share of their deceased partner’s estate on intestacy is through litigation, or the threat of it, under the 1975 Act. The Law Commission comments that that can create significant hardship for cohabitants. That was shown by personal responses to its consultation.

The Law Commission’s research indicated that some cohabitants choose simply to move out of the family home rather than go through the costs and stress of litigation and that in other cases the cohabitant may not be aware of the right to claim at all under the 1975 Act. Where the cohabitant is caring for children from her or his relationship with the deceased, any claim will be against those children’s entitlement under the intestacy rules. Litigation is therefore likely to involve the added expense and emotional turmoil of having the children involved, and being separately represented, in proceedings essentially aimed at reorganising the estate to make the family finances workable.

The hardship of the current situation is caused mostly by ignorance of the law. Specifically, cohabitants believe themselves to be common-law spouses after a certain period of time, with all the rights of married or civil-partnered couples, and discover that this is not the case only when their partner dies. The report covers this in paragraphs 8.9, 8.17, 8.24 and 8.25.

The Law Commission’s report notes those who were opposed to change. It deals with all the consultation responses very fairly by explaining both sides. Among those in favour were professional groups such as Resolution, representing most family law solicitors, the Family Law Bar Association, the Law Society and the Office of the Official Solicitor. However, some professional groups oppose the change that would be accomplished by the Bill. Among them were judges of the Family Division and the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the City of Westminster Law Society. The Law Commission used the Nuffield survey on attitudes to will-making and succession for statistically significant evidence of public opinion.

The ability to inherit rests on commitment and financial interdependence. It is the financial interdependency that has practical implications for the cohabitant’s future after bereavement. Sharing a household and bringing up children increases interdependence, which only deepens over time. When that interdependency is terminated by death, hardship results. The report covers this in paragraph 8.18. The Law Commission found strong support for cohabitants to have an entitlement on intestacy, but it recognised that indicators of commitment were essential. The report covers this in paragraph 8.40.

Since I tabled the Bill, my office has received letters and e-mails of support from those whom the Bill is designed to help. These are people who, having cohabited for decades and shared their finances and the upbringing of their children, are passed over by the law in favour of other relations with whom the deceased had no or little contact prior to death. They face long, costly litigation, as well as the stress of uncertainty at a time when they are already suffering from grief.

The Law Commission recommended that certain “qualifying cohabitants” should be included in the list of those who benefit by default under the intestacy rules. The report covers this in paragraph 8.42. This is the change that the Bill accomplishes. The report explains its recommendation.

Clause 1 of the Bill amends the Administration of Estates Act 1925 to place a “qualifying cohabitant” in the same position as a spouse or civil partner. Clause 1(5) introduces the two conditions of being a “qualifying cohabitant”, only one of which needs to be met. This is similar to the Irish Act that I mentioned and also to the Scottish, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand legislation on similar themes. Clause 1(5) states:

“The first condition is that during the whole of the period of five years ending immediately before the intestate’s death the person was living as the intestate’s spouse or civil partner and in the same household as the intestate”.

The five-year period was arrived at because a shorter period would risk catching unawares some elderly cohabitants and overriding a positive decision to remain unmarried and so avoid incurring legal responsibilities. A longer period would exclude many of the people the Bill seeks to help. The report covers this in paragraph 8.85.

The second alternative condition is that the cohabitant lived as the intestate’s spouse or civil partner in the same household as the intestate for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the intestate’s death; and is the other parent of a child of the intestate who was born on or before the date of the intestate’s death; and at that date the child was living in the same household as that person and the intestate. In other words, two years with child, five years without.

The two-year period where the couple have children was arrived at in view of the existing legislation which takes two years as the threshold for making a claim against an intestate’s estate and because it demonstrates a relationship of some permanence. When combined with the fact of sharing children, indicating financial interdependence, seriousness and commitment, the two-year period is sufficient to justify entitlement but prevents the cohabitant from picking up an inappropriate entitlement where the presence of children is an unreliable indicator of commitment and interdependence. Those people who do not satisfy the two-year period but have children with the deceased will, under Clause 3, be able to apply for family provision under the 1975 Act. The report covers this in paragraphs 8.96 to 8.101.

Clause 2 extends to a qualifying cohabitant the current law that, under certain conditions, a surviving spouse or civil partner may use the value of any inheritance from the deceased’s estate and, if necessary, any additional funds to acquire the deceased’s interest in the family home in which the spouse or civil partner lives.

The Bill closes an important gap in the rights and needs of cohabitants and their children. Whereas spouses and civil partners whose partners die intestate are not placed in additional hardship because of the intestacy regime, cohabitants and their children are at risk. The Bill removes the necessity and expense of litigation to individuals and the taxpayer by facilitating inheritance in the event of the death of an intestate cohabitant. It remedies part of a greater injustice and will make some people’s lives a little easier following a bereavement.

I believe in marriage, which may seem old-fashioned, but the Bill does not undermine marriage. It respects the choices made by unmarried cohabiting couples, or the lack of choice through ignorance, and gives some protection to them and their children in the event of death. I hope it will lead to necessary law reform. I beg to move.

10:22

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing the Bill. This House often groans when lawyers seem to dominate debates and I often hear the proud declaration being made by non-lawyers when they stand to speak that they are untainted by law and that they come as sensible lay persons. However, I believe that occasionally a lawyer has something to contribute, and if there is one lawyer who should be marked out for his seminal role in legal reform from the 1960s to this day it is the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He has been at the heart of almost every great legal reform towards a fairer and more decent society, where discrimination is jettisoned and compassionate and just outcomes are sought. Women particularly have gained considerably from his efforts.

The Bill echoes many of the campaigns and arguments the noble Lord has made over time for legal reform. Indeed, he made a similar argument, which I supported, in 2004 when the law was reformed to create civil partnerships for gay couples. We argued then, as now, that there are miserable consequences for committed unmarried heterosexual couples when one of them dies. Losing the home they have shared and in which they have brought up their children is often a consequence of the death duties they are required to pay under our current intestacy and tax regimes.

I see the Bill as part of the slow progress towards equal justice. The resistance to change has always been about preserving marriage, based on the notion that cohabiting couples have a remedy—to get married. Indeed, I know couples who have lived together for many years and when they have turned 50, and suddenly felt the hints of mortality, they have rushed off to the registry office.

I want the House to understand the misconceptions that exist within our wider society. People think that living together as common-law man and wife, as they describe it, provides them with protections that in law do not exist. That is a common misperception and much of the research in this field shows that such views are widely held. The law has to reflect changing social reality, and many couples in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, live together as a family unit and bring up their children like any other couple. The predicament they face on death, particularly early death, is unjust.

Yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, described, they can make a case under the 1975 legislation and they can apply to the estate for maintenance, but I remind the House about the changes that have been made to legal aid and the kind of stress and emotional turmoil that is created for families if they have to take that route.

I say to opponents that Members of this House, for the most part, have enjoyed longevity—we are usually much older than the people who might make use of the Bill—and it may be that over our lifetimes we can see the purposes of marriage and the reasons for preserving it. A powerful argument is that a public statement of commitment is important. Whether it is in the eyes of God or only in the eyes of your community it provides an anchor in the challenging business of sustaining relationships. That is the argument to make for the importance of marriage, not the finding of mechanisms around the laws of intestacy, which work so powerfully against the interests of, particularly, women and children.

The loss to the Treasury, which may be in some people’s minds, is not as significant as the savings to the state in many other ways. Families who are left unable to continue living in the family home, for example, end up having to be provided for by the state because they are in extremis and unable to function in the way that they once did.

I hope the Government and the House will support the Bill. To argue that this is somehow an attack upon marriage is to misunderstand the purposes of this effort to change the law.

10:27

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I speak to express the strongest opposition to the passage of a Bill that, in a nutshell, will mean a further disinheritance of the children of the many marriages in this country that have ended in divorce, or who were born into unmarried and later broken relationships. It would also, if enacted, amount to an intrusion into private informal relationships—one might even say a denial of the human rights of privacy and respect for family life. There will be no avoiding the long reach of the law and lawyers, even for those who have chosen to live in a way that suits them but not the frameworks of the system. The Bill would transfer wealth from the children of the deceased to his or her cohabiting partner

In its report on intestacy in 2011, the Law Commission recognised the controversial nature of this proposal, which is why it separated it from the rest of its recommendations on intestacy in a separate Bill. It said that its proposal to change the law to give preference to cohabitants’ survivors recognised the vulnerability, intimacy and interdependence of the deceased’s relationships and the impact of bereavement on the partner. But what about the vulnerability and interdependence of the deceased’s surviving children, and the impact of bereavement on them? If enacted, the Bill would simply reverse the burden of challenge on intestacy away from the cohabitant—which is where it is now—on to the family. Cohabiting partners of the deceased already have a way to seek provision from the estate on intestacy, or from a will, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Act’s terms were relaxed in recent legislation. The Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 enables a cohabitant of two years’ standing to make a claim without the need to prove dependency, which had been a former requirement. The judges who responded to the Law Commission consultation on intestacy in 2009 pointed out that in such circumstances the matter is better settled by judicial discretion, in rearranging the estate to accommodate the cohabitant if necessary, than by a fixed share which takes most of it away from the children.

Under the existing law, most such claims by cohabitants versus family settle before hearing. Now that there is an official family law arbitration service, claims need not cost as much as they do in court. It is notorious that intestacy claims can be so bitterly litigated that they eat up the disputed assets and the lawyers are the only beneficiaries. In Scots law, the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 does not take this Bill’s approach. The cohabitant’s claims against the deceased’s estate are a matter of discretion, with an upper limit of what a spouse would have received. In doing the calculations in Scotland, the court can take into account the pension of the deceased that may well have been paid to the cohabitant because the deceased hereto can nominate her. In this nation too, the pension can be nominated in favour of the cohabitant and the tenancy will probably automatically pass to her on death; so will the house, if in joint tenancy. The cohabitant might be married or living with someone else too, but that is no bar to a claim. We are not talking of utter deprivation.

To summarise the reasons for opposing this Bill—in addition to children’s rights and human rights arguments—the existing judicial family provision regime is the most appropriate way to decide these issues. It is quite possible that the deceased person did not want his cohabitant to inherit; there will be increased litigation by the blood family against a claimant cohabitant; and many people who know the law want their autonomy, as I will show shortly. Those who do not should be made aware of the situation. There is no more unpleasant and protracted litigation than that between a first wife and children on one side, and on the other the second partner of the deceased man. Although the case of Sherrington—which I know about because the deceased was a friend of mine—was about marriage not cohabitation, the deceased, Richard Sherrington, left everything to his second wife of a short marriage and nothing to his first wife and three adult children. The litigation went on for six years and cost nearly £1 million. It involved minute descriptions of the relationship with the second wife. This would happen in cases more often, and similarly unpleasantly, were this Bill to become law, when of necessity there would be disputes about the duration and nature of the cohabiting relationship.

The Bill is particularly insensitive at this time when there is much consideration of same-sex marriage. If these proposals were to go ahead, we would have a society containing separate regimes for heterosexual and, maybe in future, same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, and family members living together, all with different rights and duties. We need a complete, unified appraisal of all such relationships and no more piecemeal tinkering with legal rights deriving from different forms of sexual relationships that attract attention at any time. The Bill provides that if two people live together for five years, or two years with their child still with them, the surviving cohabitant should take the spousal share of the estate of the intestate cohabitant, provided he was not married to someone else or in a civil partnership. Under the current law that sum is £250,000, with the rest of the estate divided between the partner and the children. If there are no children, then the figure would be £450,000. Since the estates of most of those who do not make wills is smaller than this, in effect the cohabitant survivor would take everything. It is not clear from the Bill whether the exemption from inheritance tax that applies to the married would also apply here.

More than half the population do not have a will. Those who are in possession of significant sums are much more likely to make one than those who do not. So if passed this Bill would in general affect the less well-off. Of the married population, 45% make a will, but only 17% of cohabitants; presumably because they have no belief in any legal consequences of their living styles, whereas the married do. Moreover, cohabitants are more likely to be young, have fewer assets and be less settled. The median age for making a will is 69 for men, 73 for women. In response to the Law Commission’s consultation on cohabitants and intestacy, on which this Bill is based, 40 out of 79 respondents clearly opposed reform. That is hardly an overwhelming consensus in favour of reform. Those respondents who were in favour were in the main the organisations that have a professional interest in this topic, mostly lawyers: Resolution, the Chancery Bar Association, district judges, the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, the Law Society, the Family Law Bar Association, the Family Justice Council and the Official Solicitor. Those who were opposed to the proposals were the judges of the Family Division and the Chancery Division, and individuals. The Law Commission seemed to weight more heavily the responses that favoured regulation.

In another survey, by Williams, Potter and Douglas, it was discovered that younger respondents were less likely to favour cohabitants’ shares than the older. This may be because the young are more likely to cohabit—it peaks in the 20s—and are more aware of the transient, experimental nature of many such relationships. The Law Commission’s main reasoning was that people who live together are ignorant of what their rights might be. This is not an argument that prevails elsewhere in the law; nor does it appreciate quite how well informed the public are in their way, as I shall show. The Law Commission’s consultation paper on this topic did not pay sufficient attention to the crucial question of the deceased’s children by another woman, as distinct from whether he had no children or children by the cohabitant. The proposal that someone who has not committed himself or herself by marriage, or even by making a will, should leave all his or her property to the cohabitant, not his children, makes no sense.

The reported cases of cohabitants’ claims are about childless estates. At most, a life interest in a small share for the cohabitant is all that could be regarded as fair in the circumstances, so that if necessary the cohabitant avoids being in need but does not disinherit the children on her death. The National Centre for Social Research, whose 2010 survey was relied on by the Law Commission, put to people scenarios about intestacy to check their response. It posited a woman dying intestate, which is rather different from the situation most of us think about when we are concerned with this. Even so, less than half the surveyed people would give all of the estate, or priority, to the partner, even after a 25-year cohabitation. With a baby on the scene in the hypothetical short partnership, less than half would give all or priority to the partner, and the majority would give all or some to the baby. In a long childless union of, say, 10 years, only 53% of those surveyed preferred the partner over the deceased’s parents as beneficiaries. There was a strong feeling that the children should not be disinherited and that the partner should get something, but not the lion’s share. As I have said, a life interest in a maximum of 25% would be fair enough.

However, one should not just listen to the professional organisations, as the Law Commission did, without listening to ordinary members of the public who are not being fed possibly leading questions. Whenever I have lectured on this, I have received hundreds of letters opposing more law for cohabitants, but I will not personalise this. I shall quote from the many blogs that have appeared in the Guardian—not the Telegraph:

“I have no intention of allowing my daughter’s inheritance to be diluted by my new or former partner”.

“This is a ridiculous idea. One of the main points of marriage is to show commitment”.

“I knew I didn’t want to marry her, but we stayed and lived together for over a year, so sometimes you live together but aren’t sure”.

“If these proposals are accepted, then the state will effectively marry people whether they like it or not, after a certain number of years. I strongly object to this. The decision for a person to marry should be for them to make and them alone. If accepted, this proposal will effectively strip individuals of the right to live no-strings-attached”.

“I am not for it because some people who cohabit do not believe at all in marriage and all it entails. Cohabitation is a trial run. I am sick to the back teeth about these calls for cohabitee rights. Why should I be denied the right to live with a partner on my own terms because for some bizarre reason some people who wish to live as married do so without actually marrying or setting out their affairs to protect themselves? This proposal is illiberal, complicated and impractical ... it is important to have a clear distinction between marriage and cohabitation so that people know where they are”.

“When is the state going to recognise that cohabiting couples are adults who choose to live their lives that way precisely because they don’t wish busybodies—either religious or state sponsored—poking into their personal affairs”.

“The idea of being treated like a married person when I’m not is just ghastly”.

“This is a very regressive suggestion. It’s also classic nanny state. Want a share in your partner’s money, then ask for it (by marriage)”.

“I was really hoping that this stupid proposal for a new law would go away”.

“The blood sucking lawyers would love the opportunity to leech off a group of people who have either arranged things to suit themselves thus not needing the assistance of the legal profession or simply do not want the law butting into their lives … who in their right mind will live with anybody again unless very committed to the relationship … (they will usually get married anyway)”.

“Totally, totally illogical. It’s marriage by default, folks! Can’t you people see that?”

“People have a legal right to be single and that is that”.

“Extending quasi marital rights to those who have not chosen to enter into a legally binding agreement is not fair at all”.

I could go on because I have pages of these quotes, but to spare noble Lords, the final quote is:

“They move the goalposts so that despite not being married, you can still get your wallet nicked”.

So it is the principled issue of legal recognition of cohabitation that the public is looking at. I will not go into the details of how the definition of cohabitation is dealt with in this Bill, save to make the following general comments on the difficulty of recognising it. In the absence of any legal ceremony or document, how are all those who get involved in probate and death, the family and the officials, to know that there was a cohabitation? Even being together for five years does not necessarily signal permanent commitment of the sort that would attract the legal effect of extending beyond the grave for all time to come at the expense of the family. The fact of sharing a household for two years with a child does not obviously mean that the survivor should get the first £250,000. Who is to know whether the relationship was a sexual one, for even marriages are not always sexually defined? If one person shares a home with another who dies, what is to stop the first falsely claiming that their relationship was intimate?

One has to question, as I have done before, why property transfer applies only to couples in what was presumably a sexual relationship that has ended, and not sisters. Once marriage is abandoned as the clear blue line for legal responsibilities, then logically all relationships—sibling, incestuous, polygamous or whatever—should be treated equally. It is hard to see why it is the sexual element that elevates certain relationships for financial reward, even though they are no more or less co-dependent than others. The result, if this Bill is passed, might be forensic investigation to see whether the relationship that is alleged did actually exist, and more pressure on resources at the time of death, adding to the administrative difficulties that exist at that time anyway; and maybe it would give rise to a new breed of serial cohabitants who stay for one year and 51 weeks if there is a child or four years and 51 weeks if not.

At the time of death, it has been predicted by probate genealogists in relation to this Bill’s effects that much time would have to be expended on searching electoral rolls, tenancy agreements, utility bills and interviewing family members to establish the situation if there might be a cohabitant survivor. It will be hard to know if the person who steps forward to obtain the grant of representation is really the cohabitant, for it would be their task to obtain the grant, not the family members or children. There could be delays of years in settling some estates while this goes on and pressure to settle even where there is no real claim.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Has she looked at jurisdictions in other countries where there is similar legislation that works perfectly well?

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, family law in this country does not always follow other countries; sometimes we learn from them. Indeed, sometimes I wish we had followed Scotland when it comes to dividing up proceeds on divorce, but that is another issue.

What about the unregistered Muslim marriage with several surviving legally unmarried “wives”—are they to share?

We come down to the most fundamental issues in death and life—human rights and care for one’s children. We have heard the views of some members of the public. There is a human right to live privately that risks being breached here. Some older divorced and widowed people want companionship, rather than to live on their own, but do not marry again precisely in order to preserve their estate for the children of an earlier marriage. Private adult choices should be respected. There should be no imposition of legal regulation on those who actively choose not to marry and who refrain from making a will, maybe in the belief that their existing family would thereby be protected. If there is hardship for a surviving cohabitant, we have judicial discretion under existing law to remedy it without this shift away from the family that the Bill would bring about. Many say that marriage is just a piece of paper, a lifestyle no superior to cohabitation, and that cohabitants are as committed as any others. So why do those same people want to attach heavy legal significance to cohabitation, mimicking marriage?

I have great sympathy for the younger generation today, who face tuition fees and mortgage burdens vastly heavier than was the case for my age group. If any generation needs care on the death of a father or grandfather it is the young, not the peer group. To deprive them of their inheritance could make all the difference to accessing higher education or buying a house. The cohabitant who might be entitled to the estate under this Bill could well be married to someone else at the time of the deceased’s death, or enter a future marriage or relationship carrying with her the inheritance, gone forever from the deceased’s blood family, to her new family. I see no reason to downgrade the family members in favour of a partner when the deceased did not actively choose to do so. It is not fair to remove maintenance from the children when we have a high divorce rate and widespread failure by men to support their children in their lifetimes. The children who stand to be disinherited by the provisions of this Bill may be the same ones whose support was neglected by their father during his lifetime. The children will have to incur the expense of challenging the intestacy provision rather than the partner: that is the real import of this Bill.

In their responses to the Law Commission, judges said that the child should take priority. Children have no choice in the matter, but the cohabitant survivor may move on to another life and other methods of support. I urge the House to express its principled arguments against this Bill.

10:50

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, provides a valuable opportunity to consider issues that are of considerable and increasing importance for a large number of people in our society. Reference has already been made to the Law Commission’s 2007 report in which proposals were made for addressing the financial hardship suffered by cohabitants or their children on the termination of their relationship by separation or death. That report followed an extensive consultation exercise by the Law Commission in which the Church of England was pleased to participate.

Our starting point was, and is, that marriage is central to the stability and health of human society, in particular, the faithful, committed, loving, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman which marriage affords and which continues to provide the best context for the raising of children. For that reason, it warrants a special position within the social and legislative framework of our society. Since marriage contributes to the common good, there is a very strong case for pursuing public policies that promote and encourage it. The other side of that coin is that there is an equally strong case against legislating in a way that makes marriage simply one of a number of choices on a consumerist model.

Nevertheless, as the General Synod affirmed in 2004, the Church of England recognises that there are some issues of hardship and vulnerability for people whose relationships are not based on marriage and that they need to be addressed by the creation of new legal rights. The question for the church is how Parliament, working for the common good, can make proper provision for those who face such hardship and vulnerability while recognising the overarching gift and blessing that marriage provides not only for a couple themselves but also for the wider community.

Adequate steps should be taken to prevent manifest injustice for those who do not bring themselves within the legally recognised institution of marriage or indeed civil partnership. While there are some couples who make an informed decision not to do so, injustice can arise where there is inequality in the respective financial positions of cohabiting parties—I speak here from close family experience. The less financially secure partner might well wish to formalise the relationship, but the other partner may seek to avoid the responsibility that goes with that and decline to do so. The partner in the weaker financial position is then vulnerable as a result and may face hardship if the couple separate or if the other partner dies without having made proper financial provision for the survivor. This sort of hardship can be particularly acute in cases where the couple have a child or children which one of them is then left to look after.

On the face it, therefore, the guiding principle behind the Bill—to alleviate hardship and injustice, especially where one partner dies without making adequate financial provision for the survivor—ought to be welcomed. I do, though, have some concerns about whether the measures set out within this Bill provide the best or the right way to go about addressing what clearly is a real problem.

First, the Bill limits itself to matters of inheritance. That is, of course, an important aspect of the wider set of issues concerned with financial provision for cohabitants, but is it a good idea to address this particular aspect in isolation? If we do, will we not end up with a piecemeal approach to the wider problem? For, at some point, we will need to address the equally important question of what provision should be made for cohabitating couples who separate. The issues of hardship can be equally acute in those circumstances, as I know. Would it not be better for the Government to bring forward proposals that addressed the wider issue, so that a consistent and principled approach could be decided on and applied across the various aspects of financial provision for cohabitants?

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the Bill would put a “qualifying cohabitant” in precisely the same position as a surviving spouse or civil partner for the purposes of the legislation that deals with inheritance and intestacy. It would also put a qualifying cohabitant in the position of a spouse or civil partner in cases where the deceased partner had made a will but where it was argued that the provision made in the will did not amount to reasonable financial provision. In conceptual terms, that is of course very neat: it simply assimilates the surviving cohabitant to the position of a surviving spouse or civil partner.

But is that necessarily the right principle? Taking marriage vows or registering a civil partnership is a particular step that a couple choose to make. They make it in the knowledge that it has consequences in terms both of the personal relationship between the partners and of their legal rights and responsibilities towards each other. Cohabitants have clearly not taken that step. It is therefore far from clear that they should be treated for the purposes of the law of inheritance as if they had. The partners would in effect acquire a de facto legal status simply on the basis of things that they had done—living together, becoming parents—but without having made any particular formal commitment to one another and without voluntarily taking a particular status upon themselves. That seems to be a questionable approach for the law to take to people’s relationships.

Some would doubtless argue that, instead of going down this route, government attention and resource might be better focused on ensuring that those in cohabiting relationships more fully understand their legal rights and entitlements and that they be encouraged to take responsibility for making proper legal provision for the other if their relationship status did not automatically confer it.

An alternative approach that the church advocated in its response to the Law Commission consultation is one that I believe still merits serious consideration. The focus would not be on imposing a legal status on couples who had not chosen to enter into marriage or civil partnership; rather it would be based on alleviating hardship in particular cases. It is not obvious that the fact of cohabitation for a minimum period, the length of which would necessarily be arbitrary, should of itself give rise to legal rights. The alternative approach would be legislating to enable financial provision to be ordered where it could be shown that a cohabitant would otherwise suffer manifest injustice as a result of the relationship coming to an end. Financial provision, therefore, would not be automatic; it would be directed to the alleviation of particular instances of injustice, which could include making provision for children of the relationship. That broad, principled approach could be applied equally to the situation where a relationship between cohabitants had ended by separation or indeed by death.

Although I do not think that the Bill here gets things quite right, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing it and thereby enabling this debate. This is a subject that we need to address, not least to protect the vulnerable and to prevent injustice, while also affirming, as the noble Lord has done, the huge importance of marriage. We on these Benches would welcome a more comprehensive set of proposals from the Government than I am afraid this Bill, at this moment, appears to offer.

11:00

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, I oppose the Bill because I believe in the importance of marriage. Before continuing, I have to say that we have had very thoughtful contributions from all speakers. Most have been clear, but there have been some legal situations that I, as a non-legal person, cannot really put my head round. I will, however, make some conclusions at the end of my speech. My first concern is that the Bill would undermine the special place of marriage in our society. Marriage is already under sustained attack from our Government, as shown by the plans for the redefinition of marriage currently being pushed forward. It would be further devalued by the Bill.

In his proposals, my noble friend Lord Lester effectively equates marriage and cohabitation in law. Marriage and cohabitation are not, and should not be, regarded as equivalent. Marriage is defined by law as a life-long, exclusive commitment; a commitment publicly made by both husband and wife from the outset. In stark contrast, cohabitation is not a commitment. It is a transient relationship whose defining characteristic is that the man and woman have chosen not to marry, or to have a life-long commitment.

Studies have consistently shown that there are substantial differences in the stability of the relationship and the impact on children between married couples and those who cohabit. The 2000 British Household Panel survey involving 10,000 adults concluded that,

“cohabiting unions last only a short time before being converted into marriage or dissolving: their median length is about two years”.

These findings were later endorsed by the Scottish Government in Family Matters: Improving Family Law in Scotland in 2004. According to the Centre for Social Justice, fewer than 10% of married couples split up by the time of their child’s fifth birthday, compared to 33% for cohabiting couples. The centre also pointed out that 97% of couples who stay together until their children reach adulthood are married.

By equating the rights of married couples and those who cohabit, we are effectively saying that they are equal. I cannot understand why, in the name of equality, we constantly seek to iron out fundamental distinctions between relationships. Marriage is not a private arrangement between a man and woman: it brings together not just two people, but two families. In bringing together families, marriages build the communities on which everyday life is based. Married families form the bedrock of local communities and assist in tackling social problems such as loneliness and isolation which are so widespread. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to many more positive values brought to society by marriage.

We should therefore promote and protect marriage. The Bill typifies a narrow, blinkered approach which, while purporting to help individuals, actually serves to harm everyone by undermining the cornerstone of society. To give cohabitants the same legal protection as that which married couples receive at the death of one spouse fosters the impression that it does not matter whether you marry or cohabit. In giving cohabiting partners and married couples the same legal safeguards, public perception of marriage will be further weakened. In effect, it would send the message that commitment is of no consequence. Is that what we really want to do?

My second concern is that the Bill appears to be unnecessary. Cohabiting couples anxious about what should happen when one of them dies have two perfectly viable options open to them: they can get married, thereby receiving the benefits and protections currently provided, or they can plan carefully by making wills to ensure that provision is made for their cohabiting partner upon death. Here, we really ought to do something to ensure that every adult makes a will. So many people die intestate. That is great for lawyers but not for family members, such as children, husbands and cohabiting parties. I know of many supposedly intelligent people who will not even bother making a will. They say, “I am only 50; I am going to last to the age of 86”, or whatever. It is ridiculous. Why do we not make a bigger point of that?

In listening to the debate, one clear issue has come to the fore—namely, ignorance, as my noble friend Lord Lester called it, that there is no such thing as automatic provision on death to the surviving cohabitant. In other words, there is no such thing in legal rights as a common-law wife or husband. It was only relatively recently, within the last 10 years or so, that I realised that there were no legal rights there. There is a widespread perception that there is such a thing as a common-law wife or husband. That there is not should be stated time and again until there is universal knowledge of the situation—although the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, thinks that the belief is pretty universal. She shocked us with those quotes. I wholly support the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the issue.

As an aside—the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to it but my noble friend Lord Lester’s Bill does not make this point—married couples have the benefit of inheritance tax relief whereas cohabiting couples do not. Currently, the taxation system recognises those who have made a commitment. Are we to downgrade commitment? The inheritance rights afforded to married couples are available to cohabiting couples—they have just rejected them by not getting married. There is clear evidence, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that many cohabiting couples do not want these rights. They have chosen not to marry because they do not want the legal ties involved. The Bill may be presented as not much more than a tidying-up exercise. It is a lot more than that and should be opposed in principle.

11:06

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am aware that I have no experience and little knowledge on this subject so it is with trepidation that I make my few remarks. I approach the Bill in general agreement with the sentiments behind it. After all, it seems very benign. It is always important to recognise the current reality of more and more people’s lives. As I have been asked to act as a trustee for friends’ and relations’ trust settlements, I thought I should look at the Bill to see whether it had relevance to that. It was then that I began to have reservations. I am concerned that I have not seen any thought given to how it may affect the wills and settlements of others. My anxiety stems from the definition of “cohabitant”. In the Bill, it seems to ape marriage and civil partnership, applying to those in a relationship without a marriage or partner certificate.

The primary reason behind the Bill seems to be to save the surviving cohabitant the trouble of making a claim when, after all, the cohabitant did not want to go to the trouble of formalising their relationship. I make this rather provocative remark as I understand that more and more awards are being made against claims coming forward under the 1975 Act. Why not consider other cohabitants who would also be valid, such as friends sharing a property together who could equally claim to be disadvantaged on the death of one of them intestate? The surviving cohabitant may end up losing his or her home.

I have learnt that stringency has been further relaxed in that there is no longer recognition of dependency. However, there is no recognition either that this new provision in giving advantage to one must necessarily disadvantage another. Are these the only considerations? Could the Bill actually do harm? I thought I had better look at the Law Commission report, Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death. It was then that I understood why the definition of cohabitant has been so drawn up. It appears that the Law Commission has drawn it up so that cohabitants will be able, at some time in the future, to make claims in any relationship breakdown.

The Bill’s definition makes way for that extension; it is consistent with that objective and would serve as a first step on the path. Paragraph 8.78 on page 167 states,

“we had in mind the Cohabitation Report, in which we recommended that cohabitants who have children together should have an entitlement to financial remedies on separation, and that there be a minimum duration requirement of between two and five years for eligibility for those who do not have children”.

That is very contentious. The report mentions the increase in cohabiting over the past 10 to 20 years. However, trust provisions have a long lifespan and may well have been drawn up with a different outlook than pervades today. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will know far better than me the difficulties, hurdles and complexities in making amendments to settlements which have been silent on cohabitation. What advice would he give a settler who did not intend the desire to help descendants to result in provision being dissipated among cohabitants?

Has the Law Commission undertaken research into cohabitants, in the number and circumstance a person today may have? Your Lordships will recognise that it is barely a year since prenuptial agreements have been recognised in court, which was not a unanimous decision. Presumably, we should also be anxious that people have pre-cohabitation agreements. The objection may be raised that that is irrelevant to the Bill; I contend that that is naive. In reading the Law Commission’s report, I was also struck by the consultation undertaken on the issue. Paragraph 8.36, on page 160, states:

“There is no overwhelming consensus in favour of reform”.

I am concerned that the Bill is premature and needs to be examined for all its implications before proceeding.

11:11

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, while I recognise that the Bill is motivated by the best of intentions to ensure that injustices do not occur with respect to cohabitation and intestacy, I believe that its net contribution would be negative. There has been far too much legislation in recent years, and the Bill will add to the complexity of family law without increasing its fairness.

The underlying premise of the noble Lord’s Bill seems to be that because the automatically available protections for the surviving partner, with respect to the estate of the deceased partner, are so limited, the law surrounding cohabitation should be changed. That ignores two facts. First, if a couple want to access protections, they have the option of marriage. Secondly, if they do not wish to marry but to avail themselves of protections, they can. The primary available remedy to them is found in the writing of a will, providing for what will happen on death and avoiding either intestacy or diminishing disputed claims by family relatives against the surviving cohabitant. Other available remedies include letters of wishes, nominations and assignments of pension and life policies, a simple deed of trust, a cohabitation contract and powers of attorney.

I am aware that some may respond, “Yes, that is true but we still need to change the law because so many couples do not avail themselves of these protections”. I struggle with that argument, which seems to me profoundly illiberal. Changing the law so that cohabitees who have been together for more than two years and have children, and cohabitees who have been together for more than five years and do not have children, become effectively, in some real sense, married seems profoundly anti-choice. It offends the choice of those who wish to cohabit but not marry and have not chosen to avail themselves of any of the additional protective mechanisms that are available to them in law. It also offends the choice of those who are prepared to make the very significant—but very worth while, I might add—sacrifice that marriage involves. When a couple marry, they make a public “Till death us do part” commitment that is recognised in law and so it consequently seems logical that the level of protection surrounding their relationship should be more robust than that for those who have not made that commitment.

The truth is that we live in a culture that is increasingly nervous about commitment. If people can get automatic protections without anything remotely resembling the level of the marriage commitment, the rationale for marriage is eroded to some not insignificant degree. The truth is that society badly needs conscious, explicit and deliberate public commitment. We should be encouraging commitment, not creating a new legal framework that makes it less necessary. That is why the Prime Minister is exactly right to seek to encourage commitment by promoting the policy of recognising marriage in the tax system.

That point is very relevant to today’s debate. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pointed out in February 2011, it is particularly striking that, despite the current fear of commitment, 90% of young people still aspire to marry. Why then do they not? It seems very likely that it is partly because the operational public policy context is such that it makes marriage too difficult.

The truth is that for the year 2010, the tax burden in the UK on a one-earner married couple with two children on average wage was a staggering 52% greater than the OECD average. Of particular interest to me is the fact that the tax burden on such a family as a proportion of that placed on a single person on the same wage was 74.5%, while the OECD average was just 51.4%. That differential highlights the extraordinary fiscal individualism of our tax and benefit arrangements compared with other developed countries—the vast majority of which recognise marriage in the tax system—which makes commitment so much harder here than elsewhere.

Those findings are hugely important, because the social science evidence is so clear that marriage is beneficial for society, helping both adult and child well-being. In particular, marriage is a far more stable environment than cohabitation. That is crucial for children, whose development is much stronger, on average, in a stable two-parent rather than a one-parent family. Moreover, as the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, pointed out in your Lordships’ House on 10 February 2011 at col. 389, this benefit is not actually a function of standard of living. The poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.

Mindful of those considerations, it seems to me that rather than striving to make the option of cohabitating, commitment-light relationship easier, we should prioritise making the expression of the public, lifelong, “Till death us do part” commitment that is marriage no more difficult in the UK than in comparable developed countries.

Finally, although current law is in some cases unsatisfactory, rather than introduce a dramatic change in the law, especially equivalence to marriage, it would be better to acquaint and educate cohabitants with their lack of legal protection and make them aware of the existing remedies available.

11:18

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, for a variety of reasons, spiritual human and societal, I, too, am a strong supporter of the institution of marriage, but I recognise that there are other kinds of relationship which give rise to responsibilities and rights for which it may be appropriate that legal provision be made. One of them is the situation which the Bill is intended to address.

Unlike some of your Lordships, I do not believe that making appropriate legal arrangements to safeguard the position of a surviving cohabitee and, where present, any children, in any way undermines or weakens the institution of marriage. Marriage is too robust for that, and I am sceptical of the idea that making the actual provision for a surviving cohabitee lessens the incentive for people to get married in the first place. I do not believe that people get married for financial motives. I have no difficulty in imagining and understanding the situation of someone dying intestate. Let us say that the couple are in their 30s, they have lived together for two years and have just had a child. The idea of making a will was the last thing on their minds. Then the main earner gets killed in a car accident. In such a situation, it is entirely reasonable that the law should make it as straightforward as possible for the surviving cohabitee to claim what money is available for the support of themselves and the child.

The Centre for Social Justice has produced a very useful briefing paper, raising a number of doubts about this Bill. It seems to raise two questions in particular that are very important for us to address. The first concerns the position of any other children who the deceased might have. Do not they have first call on any available money? This has of course been raised very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. However, as that paper sums it up succinctly:

“Children from the intestate’s previous relationships would be in a particularly vulnerable position, since the surviving cohabitant would have no obligation towards them. Such children would be able to bring a claim against the surviving cohabitant under the 1975 Act to claim an interest in their deceased parent’s estate, but this would simply reverse the current situation where a cohabitant has to claim against the children. The bitterness and difficulty of litigation is likely to be unchanged”.

I entirely agree that children from any previous relationships have a claim but the question is whose is prior: those children’s or that of the surviving cohabitee and any children of that relationship?

It is reasonable to assume that the relationship the person was in at the time of death is the one to which the deceased would have given priority. After all, at the time of death that is where they were physically committed. We cannot speculate on what was going on in their mind but we know for a fact that they were living together, had done for some time and may have had a child together. I agree that under this Bill there will continue to be the possibility of legal dispute if there are any other children who claim under the 1975 Act. However, it seems that either way, whether we go with this Bill or some alternative that gives a prior assumption to a claim of the children of previous relationships, there is always the likelihood or the real possibility of litigation. It seems there is no escaping that. The question is where the first claim on the estate should lie. I suggest that it should lie, as this Bill assumes, with the surviving cohabitee and any children of that relationship.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the particular question of the children from a previous relationship who might, for instance, be expecting some help for their university education—an understandable situation. However, let us suppose that the first marriage had ended in divorce after 20 years and that the children are now perhaps 17 or 18 and waiting to go to university. In that situation, it seems highly likely that the couple will already have made a will. If the new relationship had lasted for five years, again, there would have been plenty of time during that period for the previous wife and husband and their children to have negotiated the financial aspects of the will. While that is a very real issue to consider, it is perhaps not as pressing as the situation that I mentioned before.

The second point that I wish to address from the briefing paper concerns the situation of the deceased cohabitee still being married or in a civil partnership with someone else; at least, they were before they died. In such a situation the Bill makes it clear that the surviving partner would not be the immediate beneficiary, and it is right that they should not be. If a marriage or civil partnership still legally exists—however broken in reality—that is where the priority for the estate rightly lies. The briefing paper comments:

“If the aim is to protect those who were living with the intestate and dependent upon him or her, then there seems no reason to exclude cases where the intestate was married or in a civil partnership”.

However, as I have suggested, those cases should be excluded. It is therefore true that the Bill will not give total protection to the surviving cohabitee but the point is whether it will give as much protection as possible, given all other legal considerations. Other legal obligations quite rightly have to be taken into account: in this case, the existence of a previous marriage or civil partnership. The issue is not whether it gives protection in all possible circumstances but whether it gives the maximum possible, taking other legal obligations into account.

The right reverend Prelate raised doubts about giving some kind of legal status to cohabitation and prefers an alternate system where an order might be made if the person is in need. However, it seems that the advantage of this Bill is that if a person dies suddenly, at least there will not be a protracted period before such an order is made. They will have some sense of financial security almost at the moment that they learn of the death and what the legal situation is.

I am happy to support this Bill, which may not affect vast numbers of people but will enable some to be more financially secure than they are at the moment. I think of the person who suddenly loses the person they have been making their life with, while expecting that life to go on, and it therefore never crossing the mind of either of them that they ought to make a will. They may have been imprudent but that is not the point; the law can make provision for them and I believe that it should.

11:26

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, the issue of what happens to cohabitants of long standing who are left behind when their partner dies is one which has caused problems for thousands of people over the years. The Law Commission undoubtedly recognised that in its 2011 report. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, does a public service in introducing this Bill, which is carefully worded by the Law Commission to provide limited protection for surviving cohabitants and their children and recognises the rights of surviving spouses and civil partners and any children. I am pleased to support the principles articulated in this Bill. This is not a new matter and there has been speculation in the public domain for many years about whether any Government would ever have the courage to tackle this issue. The Bill is concise and carefully drafted so as to give effect only to the recommendations made by the commission.

There can be little doubt that there are now many people for whom cohabitation is the preferred choice of living arrangements. The 2011 Office for National Statistics report states that the number of cohabiting couples rose by 34%, some 292,000, and that the number of partners in marriage or civil partnership with dependent children fell by 319,000. The evidence shows that, for many people, living together is not just a temporary trial-run situation but rather that there are people for whom this is a life choice. Some 2.9 million couples have made this decision, according to figures released in 2012. In 2011, 38 per cent of cohabiting couples were parents—the same percentage as married couples with children—and 31 per cent of live births in 2010 were to women cohabiting with but not married to their partner, up from 25 per cent since 2001. The choices made by such people have consequences, which may be way outside their comprehension or expectation and which will affect not only those in the cohabiting relationship but the children of such relationships. Our social structures are clearly changing.

We also have some 7.6 million marriages or civil partnerships without children. Not all marital relationships have children and not all cohabitees have previously been married. Intestacy could simply result in an estate reverting to the state because there is no surviving spouse or children or others entitled to inherit under intestacy. It is a wider issue than the children of an existing marriage. We talk loosely of common law marriage and, as noble Lords have said, there are assumptions that rights exist in this context. Yet for intestacy purposes there is no such category as common law marriage. If one partner in a cohabiting relationship dies intestate, his estate will be dealt with in accordance with the law, and the law makes no current provision for cohabiting partners or the children of such relationships. They have no inheritance rights and probably will not know that they have the right to make an application to the court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for an order varying the distribution under the intestacy rules or indeed, if there is a will, under that will. As has been said, they may well be reluctant to pursue such an application, given the inevitable public disclosure of their situation, the costs, the familial and other unpleasantness that may ensue and the uncertainties of any such action.

All those difficulties will be compounded by recent changes to legal aid. Those who have married will no longer have legal aid support when the marriage that was for life proves not to have been so and to have broken down. As a consequence, there are many situations that will leave more people in the situation where they cannot effectively leave their marriage, and they will be left with no option other than cohabitation. What will happen at present in most cases where there is intestacy is that those people will have to leave the house that has been their common home, often for decades. They will be left without any inheritance where the deceased has not made a will to indicate how he or she intends to dispose of his or her assets. That will almost inevitably lead to significant hardship. The reality is that the majority of people in this country do not leave more than £250,000 when they die, and that significant hardship may well not have been what the deceased would have wished to see.

The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposes not that all cohabitants should have a right to inherit but rather that only qualifying cohabitants should be so entitled. The definition of “qualifying partners” is tightly drawn to include those who have lived together for a period of five years or a couple who have lived together for two years and have a child or children born on or before the date of death of the deceased partner who was living with the deceased at the time of death, so there are many conditions that must be satisfied.

The periods involved are relatively short, given that the effect of the Bill may be to deprive those who under the current law would be entitled to inherit any estate. It is important to recognise that effect. There will be cases, however, where those who are entitled under current law to inherit have no knowledge of the existence of the cohabiting spouse and the children who would now become entitled to inherit. That is a profoundly difficult situation. However, this is about securing a balance in competing rights in order to bring greater equity to the situation.

I accept all the evidence that shows that marriages last longer than cohabiting relationships, but there are cases where, for a variety of reasons, people who have previously been married are unable to secure a divorce for very long periods and, as a consequence, may be forced into cohabitation. People are making choices that leave them vulnerable and, very often, significantly disadvantaged. On death, it may emerge that a couple whom everyone thought were married had in fact been cohabiting for decades. The surviving cohabitee will face a change in their life situation that will go far beyond the loss of their partner.

The Bill simply seeks to treat cohabiting partners in the same way as those who are married or in civil partnerships for the purposes of intestacy, provided that they satisfy the conditions, and to extend the range of individuals entitled to claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. In the interests of consistency, it would be desirable that the proposed rights under Clause 1(7) extended not only to cohabiting partners but also to the issue of such relationships in the same way as new subsection (1C) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act to enable all the parents of children to benefit, including those children who were en ventre sa mere at the time of death.

I am a passionate supporter of marriage; I have been married for 37 years, and I worked for about 16 years preparing young couples for marriage. The Bill seeks to provide necessary protection. If the Bill is not the route, then I submit that there are very serious issues that require to be addressed in this context.

11:34

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for permitting me to speak in the gap. I had not put my name down to speak because I was not clear that I could be here for the whole of the debate. I strongly support the Bill because it addresses a serious and important injustice, which is that under the present law cohabitants, on the death of their cohabiting partners, are left entirely without means of support.

I have listened carefully to the arguments against the Bill, particularly those put by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. She argues, supported by a number of quotes, that there are many who choose to cohabit rather than marry, and many who would not wish their cohabiting partner to inherit. Such people can of course make a will, making it clear that they do not wish their cohabiting partners to inherit. What we are dealing with here, though, is the default position. Under the present law, a right of challenge or a right to apply for provision is available to people under the 1975 Act, and that will remain the position. However, when one is looking at what the default position should be, I entirely agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that for most intestates, and for society in general, the first priority should normally be given to the relationship in which the deceased was living at the time of his or her death. The Bill, with its modest but important proposals, addresses that priority and gets it right.

I entirely accept the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in suggesting that attention needs to be given to the needs of separating couples who cohabit. I accept that that needs to be answered, and indeed have made that position clear in this House before. I hope to introduce a Bill in due course that will give effect to the proposal of the Law Commission that there should be limited provision for cohabiting couples who separate in those circumstances. However, that is not the Bill before the House. This Bill addresses a limited but important proposal made by the Law Commission, and I urge the House to give it our support.

11:37

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his able, comprehensive and indeed brief introduction to the Bill. I am not going to speak for long because most of the things that need to be said on this issue have already been said. However, I want to say that these Benches support the Bill; we did in Government and we do so now. Indeed, I agree with Professor Elizabeth Cooke, the commissioner who led the review, when she said:

“When a family member dies the process of grieving and of adjustment to change can be made far worse by uncertainty and anxiety about money or belongings. It is vital that the law remains relevant and up to date, reflecting the reality of modern society and reasonable expectations of those who have been bereaved”.

The words of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, are the right, compassionate and fair way to look at this issue.

It would be amazing if there were agreement in your Lordships’ House about such an issue, and I respect the fact that noble Lords have concerns, which they have expressed today. However, I confess that I was saddened by the tone and content of the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which seemed to unnecessarily overstate the effect and exaggerate the malign purpose of this, I think, rather modest Bill; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

The first thing that needs to be said on the whole issue is that we have to emphasise the importance of people drawing up wills. I think that the whole House would agree with that, and it is important that we do everything that we can to encourage people to do that. We do not oppose the extension of the qualification to cohabitants under intestacy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing the Bill, and we wish it well.

11:39

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for that response indicating the attitude of the official Opposition to the Bill. I do not follow her entirely on the subject of the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—or, indeed, any of the contributions. This has been a robust but courteous debate. Indeed, it brought to mind when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had its secret conclaves: it always used to issue a statement saying that a meeting had taken place and, “a full and frank discussion had been conducted in a comradely atmosphere”. I felt that that was exactly what we did today. It was a good example of the House dealing with a subject where there are strong feelings and passions on both sides but both sides, while putting their views robustly, also listen courteously. That was helpful to the Government in addressing this and helpful in promoting the broader debate that we would like to see on this issue. Of course, it also helps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, if the fact of this debate gets home to people two sensible pieces of advice: first, make a will; and, secondly, common law protections do not exist.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, said that it was only recently that she became aware that the urban myth of the protection of common law marriages was non-existent and I came to that knowledge similarly late in life. I grew up with the understanding that there was such a thing as common law marriage with in-built protections. The introduction of the Bill is extremely important, timely and useful in a process that is under way. We got the right mix between the lawyers and those to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred as “untainted by law”.

The tenor of the discussion has been about protections for cohabitants, protections for the institution of marriage and a desire to get clarity and understanding in a way that, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, does not add to the complexities of the legal system. My position, almost instinctively, is to want to support proposals by the Law Commission. I am a greater support of its work, and of the new fast-track approach in this House to Law Commission reports. I am equally deferential to any ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Lester. His track record is such, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out, that if he makes a proposal, one should take into account the firm consideration, good research and fierce commitment behind it.

I should, however, make it clear that the Government have concerns about the Bill, and explain why. It is interesting that we had 10 speakers and, if a Division had been called, we would have had a dead heat: there were five speakers on either side. That gives a sense of why the Government are a little cautious, as well the fact that a number of speakers said that perhaps this subject should be part of a more comprehensive and considered approach to these issues.

The Bill addresses two questions. First, what should a cohabitant be entitled to inherit on the death, intestate, of his or her partner? Secondly, when should such a cohabitant be entitled to bring a claim against the estate of his or her deceased partner for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975? Under the law, there may be provisions made for a cohabitant under a will, but there is no provision for cohabitants under the intestacy rule. In many cases, the allocation of property under the will or the intestacy rules will be the end of the matter but, in some circumstances, the surviving cohabitant may be able to make an application to the court for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. If this application for family provision, as it is generally known, is successful, the resulting court order overrides the terms of a valid will, if there is one, and similarly overrides the intestacy rules where they apply.

My noble friend’s Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill would equate the position of some habitants with that of spouse and civil partners under the intestacy rules and improve their position under the 1975 Act. Certain cohabitants would therefore be promoted above blood relations on intestacy. These proposals follow the recommendation of the Law Commission in its 2011 report. The Law Commission explained that it has taken the unusual step of including two Bills in its report, because reform of the intestacy rule in favour of cohabitants is rather different from the rest of the recommendations in that report, which relate to the law of intestacy and family provisions more generally.

The commission said that what is now the subject matter of my noble friend’s Bill is more contentious and more likely to be subject to more intense levels of debate than the remainder of the recommendations. This morning’s debate demonstrates the wisdom of that. The commission also commented that,

“this issue has the potential to be divisive and contentious”.

Again, I think that it got that right.

I am not going to try to pre-empt the Government’s decision in relation to the Law Commission recommendations this morning, but it is clear from the nature and contents of, and issues raised in, the debate that there are significant discussions and examinations about this issue still to go on. The Bill would promote the interests of the surviving cohabitants over those of the children of the deceased on intestacy. A number of noble Lords have raised the issue of the problems that that causes. Putting certain cohabitants on the same footing as spouses and civil partners in relation to intestacy would significantly shift the boundaries of what the average person is deemed to be likely to want to happen with his or her estate.

The Law Commission published its report, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown in July 2007. In that report, the commission recommended a statutory scheme to create, as a default position, certain legal rights and obligations for living couples who meet the relevant criteria. The Government announced in September 2011 that they did not intend to take forward the Law Commission recommendations for reform of cohabitation laws in this parliamentary term. Proceeding with the present Bill would separate out the law relating to the ending of a cohabiting relationship during life and on death. This is not to suggest that the law in these situations is perfectly aligned at present, but it will be considerably less so if this Bill is enacted. I am not certain that this will be a good development.

In saying this, I acknowledge the arguments of my noble friend and the Law Commission that the reform relating to the property rights of the cohabitants where a relationship is ended by death are distinct from that and should be considered independently of the commission’s recommendations for the reform of the law relating to the property rights of cohabitants where a relationship is ended by separation. However, there is a reasonable view that the rules relating to the end of a cohabiting relationship by death and by separation should be considered together.

I am second to none in my admiration and support, as I have said, for the Law Commission and my noble friend Lord Lester’s work on these and other issues over the years. I have supported his approach to proposals on many occasions in the past and I am absolutely sure that I will do so in the future. I know that my noble friend and the Law Commission would not propose reforms that are anything other than carefully thought-out and technically correct, and supported by a large body of opinion. I acknowledge that there are cases under the present law where the intestacy rules and the family provision rules may operate harshly against people who would under this Bill be qualifying cohabitants.

However, the reforms we are considering in the Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill are the legal stuff of everyday life. They would affect a large number of people over many years. Such reforms should be carried forward by as broad a consensus as possible of all reasonably minded people. I am not certain that such a consensus yet exists. Indeed, I think that today’s debate underlines the lack of such a consensus.

I am also mindful that while there are arguments to distinguish between the law’s treatment of living and dead cohabitants, there is at least some merit in viewing the living and the dead as part of a continuum that should be dealt with consistently as a whole, rather than piecemeal, which again was a point made by a number of noble Lords in their contributions. The urgency of the case for reform must surely be diminished by the ease with which cohabitants of all kinds can make provision for one another on death by the relatively simple expedient of making a will.

The Government will reply to the Law Commission’s recommendation in due course and in the usual way, and I am not prejudging that decision today. However, I must make clear at this stage that, while the Government obviously will not oppose Second Reading, we have strong reservations. However, I want to say to my noble friend that, as so often, by raising a debate through a Private Member’s Bill and by attracting the kind of contributions that have been made today, he has taken the debate forward in a very constructive way.

I am in a happy position, which is not always the case when one is summing up and has to look through 27 questions asked of the Minister during the debate. But I kept full notes, which, along with the Hansard record of this debate, will be part of the background against which the Government will ultimately make their decisions on this matter. We obviously will not oppose Second Reading and I look forward to my noble friend’s response.

11:53

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. The House will be glad to know that I shall not seek to reply to 23 questions in what I am about to say. I am especially grateful to those who have spoken against my opinions. I always like to hear the other point of view and I remember that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. I am not sure that everyone always remembers those wise words, once spoken to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.

This is of course a controversial Bill, which is why it was separated from the larger Bill. In her very full speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said things about the Law Commission with which I do not agree and I would respectfully remind her that the chair of the Law Commission is none other than Lord Justice Munby, an extremely experienced chancery and family law judge. Professor Elizabeth Cooke is the great authority in this area. Of course, the Law Commission is not immune from criticism but I thought that some of the criticisms were not fair.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is true that the Bill would largely affect the less well off, which is its purpose. The tone of what was said was a bit scornful about cohabiting couples and their children—probably inadvertently. I also think that it is important to look at what other countries have done, including the Irish Republic, which is at least as committed to marriage and to religion as are the people of this country.

Of all the speeches I listened to, the one I found the most important from my point of view was that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The thrust of what he said was that piecemeal reform is all very well but one needs to think about more comprehensive reform. I agree with that, which is why in 2008 I introduced my Cohabitation Bill, based on the Law Commission’s proposals, to try to do something broader. That was only four years ago. It took 30 years to get the Human Rights Act, 13 years to get the Equality Act and four years to get the Civil Partnership Act. I hope that we do not have to wait until there is a Labour Government before we can get that kind of comprehensive reform, because it may take a very long time indeed. I hope that although we are in a coalition Government, both partners to the coalition may come to see the wisdom in dealing with the injustices faced by cohabiting couples, the lack of legal protection and how it is the taxpayer above all who has to pick up the pieces because of the inability of successive Governments to tackle the problem.

I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on behalf of the Opposition, for indicating her support in such warm and generous terms. That is a very important statement. The previous Government almost did the right thing. In 2008, they wanted to do the right thing but it came very late; so they said, “Let’s wait and see what the Scots have done”. The Scots have dealt with the problem and the evidence is clear.

I should deal with one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. He asked, “What about other than cohabitants? How are they to be dealt with?”. The answer to that is that the Government have to respond to the wider recommendations of the Law Commission, I think, by Christmas on the general regime of intestate succession and family provision. We are dealing here only with this little Bill.

If the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill, as I hope it will, I propose to do nothing until the Government have responded, as they must, to the main Law Commission report. I want the Government to have the opportunity to think carefully not only in relation to that broader Bill but also to this Bill as it might fit in. I have enormous confidence in the persuasive powers of my noble friend Lord McNally in being able to convince some of his colleagues that perhaps agnosticism is not good enough and that on this subject we need a bit of action. In fact, we need more than a bit of action: we have waited too long with successive Governments doing nothing at all. The victims are the children and the bereaved in partnerships, especially among the poor and the not so rich. I agree with those who said that the withdrawal of legal aid has aggravated that position greatly. Therefore, there is all the more need for clarity in our law and for a safety net. I will not say more at this stage. I know that a very important debate is about to happen. On that basis, I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Arrangement of Business

Friday 19th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Announcement

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the next business is the Second Reading of a Private Member’s Bill. As was the case with the previous Bill, Second Readings do not carry any speaking time limits and I do not want to suggest anything different to that today. However, as we are starting this Bill at noon, noble Lords might welcome some guidance on speaking times if we are to rise at three o’clock, which is the usual convention on Fridays. Apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and those noble Lords speaking from the Front Benches, if Back-Benchers were to speak for about nine minutes we should rise at about 3 o’clock in the normal way. However, as I say, I will not try to police that or intervene in any way.

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Friday 19th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

12:01

Moved by

[Baroness Cox]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords speaking in this debate and to many other noble Lords, too many to mention by name, who have expressed their support for the Bill but are unable to be here today. The Bill seeks to address two interrelated issues: the suffering of women oppressed by religiously sanctioned gender discrimination in this country; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all. The Bill is strongly supported by many Muslims and by Muslim women’s organisations such as Inspire, as well as by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, the Henna Foundation, Karma Nirvana, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and the National Secular Society. I am grateful to them all for their support.

Awareness of the need for the Bill arose from mounting evidence of serious problems affecting some women in this country from the application of Sharia law. I immediately reassure your Lordships that I am not anti-Muslim. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Muslim women enjoy their full legal and civil rights under the law of this land. If women from other faiths experience comparable problems of systematic discrimination, the provisions of this Bill would also be available for them as it does not name any religion.

The problems I will highlight often arise because many women believe that Sharia courts are real courts and do not know that they have other rights under English law or they are pressured by their family or community not to seek those rights outside their community. I give two examples of the kinds of problems afflicting women in this country. I have met these women and witnessed their distress. One suffered such severe domestic violence that she was hospitalised. She was pressured by her family not to seek help from the police as this would bring “shame” on the community. She went to the local Sharia court or council and was told to return to her husband. She did so and suffered more domestic violence. Then her husband divorced her, went back to his country of origin and returned with a second wife. As a devout Muslim, she wanted a religious divorce to allow her to remarry in accordance with her faith but the Sharia court demanded her marriage certificate which her husband’s family kept. Attempts to retrieve it resulted in violence in the name of “honour”, as she was blamed for bringing shame on the family by seeking a divorce. Seven years later this devout and desperately lonely Muslim lady is still unable to obtain her divorce and remarry.

Secondly, a Muslim widow wanted to remarry but was told by the Sharia council or court that she must obtain the permission of a male relative. She had no male relative in this country so she had to travel to Jordan to obtain the written permission of a seven year-old boy relative in order to be able to remarry in this country. It is not surprising that another young woman complained, “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin”.

Other examples concern children. Under Sharia law a father who divorces his wife can claim custody of his children once they reach the age of seven. This gender discrimination violates the fundamental legal principle in this country that custody should be determined according to the best interests of the child. These examples are just the tip of an iceberg as many women live in fear, so intimidated by family and community that they dare not speak out or ask for help. A lady came to see me in my home. I shall never forget seeing her hide behind a tree because she was so terrified of being seen. We should not have such fear in this country.

The first fundamental concern my Bill seeks to address is the development of a parallel quasi-legal system based on inherently discriminatory principles. This may involve proceedings operating under the terms of the Arbitration Act or it may involve less formal community forums for resolving disputes. While some operate in ways which are not problematic, others give cause for the second and related concern that many women suffer from gender discrimination in these contexts. This discrimination includes unequal access to divorce as between a husband and wife. A husband can obtain a divorce merely by saying, “I divorce you” three times, whereas a wife has to go through all sorts of procedures at a Sharia court or council. It also includes tolerance of certain forms of domestic violence, a man’s right to polygamy, inequality between men and women with regard to child custody and inequality with regard to inheritance provisions. It even affects rules of evidence, since under Sharia law a woman’s testimony counts for half that of a man’s.

Let me make clear what the Bill does not do. The Bill does not interfere in the internal theological affairs of religious groups. If people wish to submit voluntarily to the rulings of any body, religious or otherwise, even if that means surrendering their rights under English law, they are free to do so. The Bill does not force them to give up religious law or abnegate conscience in favour of the law of the land. The Bill also recognises existing legally sanctioned forums for arbitration, including Muslim arbitration tribunals or MATs and various forms of mediation available in religious or secular contexts. The Bill will not affect the continuation of these provisions or their growth and development in accordance with the law of the land.

Let me here acknowledge valid concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others, and say that I accept the need to amend the Bill to reflect recent developments in relation to family law arbitration. I intend to remove the references to family law in the new criminal offence created by the Bill. Family law arbitration will therefore continue to be permitted. However, the non-discrimination provisions of the Bill will apply. Therefore, this will not be an obstacle to mainstream family law arbitration, but will reinforce the need to address sex discrimination in religious arbitration.

I now turn to some specific concerns and how the Bill addresses them. The Arbitration Act 1996 facilitated the establishment of arbitration tribunals. Some operate according to Sharia law. They allow parties to settle certain civil, largely financial, disputes in such a way that the arbitration awards can be enforced in UK courts. However, there is a concern that even when these tribunals are operating within the terms of the Arbitration Act, some are practising sex discrimination. For example, a tribunal in Nuneaton adjudicated on an inheritance dispute between three sisters and two brothers and, in accordance with Sharia law principles, the men were given double the inheritance of the women.

Some arbitration tribunals appear to act outside their legal remit. The MAT claims on its website to be able to hear disputes involving,

“allegations of money squandering/misappropriation”.

There have also been reports of MATs dealing with acts of grievous bodily harm. An investigation by Edna Fernandes, reported in the Daily Mail on 4 July 2009, concluded that,

“scores more imams dispense justice through their own mosques”,

and that,

“sharia is being used informally within the Muslim community to tackle a plethora of crime”.

The Arbitration Act does not empower MATs to arbitrate on criminal matters, and it is surely unacceptable to condone a situation where non-Muslim offenders get a criminal record, but Muslims do not. My Bill would make it a criminal offence to falsely claim legal jurisdiction. Any person who purports to arbitrate in any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts would be liable, on conviction, to a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

One report has estimated that there are at least 85 Sharia forums in the United Kingdom. As far as we can ascertain, the Sharia courts or councils keep scant records, and have no right of appeal. There is nothing like the control over justices’ appointment and conduct that apply in secular courts. Most do not operate under the Arbitration Act. Instead, they informally resolve disputes under what is loosely termed “mediation”. As I have said, many women wrongly that think these informal tribunals are real courts and submit to their rulings accordingly.

The Bill cannot solve every problem, but it does offer one opportunity for redress. Where a negotiated agreement is formalised in a consent order, the Bill would make it easier to set aside the consent order if it was reached under duress, or where a party’s consent was not genuinely informed—for example, where a woman was not aware that she would have had different rights according to UK civil law. Also, my Bill would make it easier for women who are unhappy with discriminatory rulings to apply to the courts to have them overturned on the grounds of gender discrimination. The Bill also strengthens the power of the police and courts to protect victims of domestic violence from coercion and intimidation. It also enhances the public sector equality duty. For example, police, social workers or healthcare workers interacting with Muslim women would be encouraged to explain to Muslim women how their legal rights are diminished if their marriages are recognised only under religious law and not civil law. Many women have described how they are discouraged from having a civil as well as an Islamic marriage. This gives rise to grave problems, especially when, as often happens, a husband subsequently divorces his wife, leaving her with no civil rights.

In conclusion, as these are such complex, sensitive and delicate issues, I intend to request the Liaison Committee to consider the subject for one of the ad hoc committees in the New Year, or to establish an independent committee of inquiry to enable a wide range of views to be presented, reflecting a broad spectrum of experts and personal testimonies, and those with concerns about the Bill. A full report will be made available which will, I hope, help greatly to clarify many of the issues, explore ways in which the Bill can be amended to make it more appropriate, and open up these issues for broader public discussion.

We cannot continue with the present situation in which so many women are suffering from gender discrimination in our country today in ways that would make the heroines of the suffragette movement turn in their graves. We must address the danger that a parallel de facto legal system may become entrenched, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of our liberal democracy: the principle of one law for all.

12:13

[Lord Eden of Winton]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her eloquent and well informed speech, and I thank her for introducing the Bill and for all the hard work that I know preceded it. The noble Baroness is a redoubtable and fearless campaigner. For many years, she has worked tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of oppressed people, many of whom, in far away places, are the victims of despotism, discrimination and prejudice. Without her persistent efforts, it is certain that their yearning for a peaceful existence would never have been acknowledged. The noble Baroness has shone a light into some of the world’s darkest places. People crying out for help have found in her a determined and committed champion.

The plight of women in male-dominated societies is of particular concern to her. There are practices enforced in this country which deprive women of fair, let alone equal, treatment. Sharia courts actively discriminate against women, especially in matters affecting family relationships. Their rulings in such cases are directly contrary to the laws of this land. They deny equality of treatment for women and it is near impossible for the injured party to obtain redress though our civil courts.

In the United Kingdom, we rightly pride ourselves on being tolerant and generous towards people of other cultures whose faith may differ from our own. But we must guard against the encroachment of practices hostile to basic concepts of British justice. We might take note—careful note—of the current debate in Egypt, where attempts are being made to agree a new constitution. In today’s International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen, writing from Cairo, reports on the conflict there between liberals and Islamists. A new draft article states:

“The state shall take all measures to establish the equality of women and men in the areas of political, cultural, economic and social life, as well as all other areas, insofar as this does not conflict with the rulings of Islamic Shariah”.

As Roger Cohen puts it:

“The phrase ‘rulings of Islamic Shariah,’ offers no wiggle room. It contradicts the provision elsewhere in the draft constitution that, ‘All citizens are equal before the law, equal in their rights and public duties, there shall be no discrimination between them on grounds of sex’”.

In Egypt, the ultra-conservatives are making a strong bid to outmanoeuvre and overturn the moderates. We must be vigilant to be certain that nothing similar could happen here. It needs to be stated firmly that attempts to impose on British citizens—of whatever faith—a set of rules that run counter to the laws of this land are wrong. Parallel courts are unacceptable. For all our citizens we must be alert and active in protecting and preserving the very foundation of our civilisation—namely, equality of treatment under the law. It is to that end that the Bill is dedicated. I hope that it gets a favourable wind to carry it forward to the statute book.

12:18

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her Bill and support it in principle for two reasons. First, as a former chair of ACAS, where arbitration and mediation are its bread and butter, I feel strongly that the law in this area should not be brought into disrepute. Secondly, as someone who has played a part in fighting for the rights of women, I feel that we cannot allow the clock to be turned back.

ACAS uses both mediation and arbitration. Arbitration is where two or more parties agree on an independent person who will decide on their dispute. The terms of reference have to be mutually agreed beforehand and there has to be acceptance of the final outcome. Mediation involves a neutral person trying to help the parties to a dispute identify common ground and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. It is the parties which settle, not the mediator.

ACAS has panels of experts for both arbitration and mediation and I believe it is still one of the jewels in the crown of our national services. That is all the more reason therefore to be concerned about the many reports that mediation and arbitration are being confused in the name of the law and that their remit is sometimes unclear and sometimes exceeded. I am also concerned that the definition of mutuality is sometimes being stretched to such limits that a women is said to consent to a process when in practice, because of a language barrier, huge cultural or family pressure, ignorance of the law, a misplaced faith in the system or a threat of complete isolation, that mutuality is as consensual as rape.

Listening to and reading some of the stories of women who have experienced some of the abuses of a system that claims to follow Sharia law take me back to women’s rights 45 years ago. I lived in Chiswick Park, where a women’s refuge had just been opened for victims of domestic violence. It was not called domestic violence of course; it was called “domestics”, as if it was some kind of cleaning product. The police would never get involved in “domestics”. If you were a man, you could batter the living daylights out of a woman and the police would not get involved, mainly because a woman would never dream of going to the police. The people who ran the refuge were regarded as weirdos and the women who were desperate enough to flee there were often shunned by their own families.

All this was brought back to me when I listened to some of the women asking for this change in the law. My own experience at that time was that I went along to the electricity showroom—which still existed— on Chiswick High Road to take out a hire-purchase agreement on an electric fire and was told that I needed my husband’s signature, for something I was paying for. I turned into a feminist overnight. I am not trying to compare something as trivial as the hire of an electric fire to decisions now being taken on behalf of women about their marital status, inheritance or personal safety. However, I am trying to remind the House that it is not that long ago historically that women were unequal before the law, that “domestics” were not a police matter and that women lived in fear and anonymity.

As long as some women live in fear and are trapped in their situation, we should act. The Government may well feel that this Bill is unnecessary as the law in this area is adequate. I would argue that turning a blind eye to fear and exploitation is not adequate. I do not believe that this is confined to Sharia law or the Muslim religion. These parallel laws that discriminate against women exist, sometimes, in other religions. It is important to emphasise that this is not an attack on one particular religion or, indeed, on any right to worship. It could also be said that the Bill does not go far enough and that it is too weak to make a difference. I would argue that this can be dealt with by means of amendments to the Bill.

No one pretends, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said in her able and moving speech, that passing this Bill into law will solve all the problems of women who live in fear and at risk of exploitation. However, it is about equal rights for women and will go some way to promoting what one of the campaigners called,

“a shared vision of citizenship”.

I support the Bill.

12:24

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, along with other noble Lords who have spoken so far in the debate, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this Bill, which I too support strongly in principle. The noble Baroness has shown extraordinary commitment to this issue and has prepared extremely well, including many other noble Lords on this issue. This debate is as well informed as any debate that occurs on a Private Member’s Bill. We can also rely on the noble Baroness to tell the House when there are new issues, which we may not have noticed, that are concerned with the safety and rights of women around the world. As it happens, on my way to your Lordships’ House this morning, I heard a horrifying report on the BBC’s “Woman’s Hour”, which described how the abhorrent practice of breast ironing of teenage girls may have been carried out in this country. I apprehend that this may well be the next issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be discussing in your Lordships’ House. There is a great deal to do on women’s rights and nobody can be relied on more than the noble Baroness to draw our attention to these issues.

There has been a good deal of lobbying on this Bill, and I commend to your Lordships material that has been made available, certainly to me, by the Southall Black Sisters. That material is extremely detailed, very cogent and provides a guide to the Committee stage or any independent consideration of the issues in this Bill.

The abolition of legal aid in many spheres, particularly its reduction in relation to family law, places women and their children in a very difficult position. I am not a religious person myself so do not feel any sense of antipathy to any religions. If I have an antipathy to religions, it is to all of them, not some of them, and I wish to be clear that what I say is not directed at any particular religion. I also recognise that some tribunals based on religious organisations provide very valuable assistance to those faced with litigation or potential litigation, particularly in the commercial sphere. As your Lordships know, I am a member of the Bar. I would say, as a member of the Bar, that my learned friends need no additional commercial transactions to litigate over. If anyone can save money by resolving disputes by other means, that is to be encouraged. However, there is evidence that mediation through Sharia courts is not mediation in any real sense at all.

We in your Lordships’ House, and indeed in the other place, should surely be reluctant to support any form of mediation or arbitration that grants to people who do not have fully informed consent rights any less than they would be able to obtain through the ordinary courts of the land. I make an analogy here with the medical profession. If I go and see a doctor who wishes to advise me that he or she thinks I should have an operation, I wish to be informed about the nature of the operation and the risks that it may bring about. Above all, I wish the doctor to be able to say to me that I do not need the operation at all and that there is alternative non-invasive treatment that may make me feel entirely better too.

In the Sharia tribunals that I have been able to examine through the evidence that has been placed before me, there is no equivalence to what one would expect ordinarily of doctors. Women are not told that they have a right to a much higher level of provision from their husbands after divorce. There are many documented cases where that can be shown. In many instances, women are not told that in the Sharia court they may have a lesser right to custody and residence of their children and that they should go through the civil courts if they want to have their full rights under the law of the land.

It is all too easy to say that these are community issues and that it is very important to reflect the mores of the community. Of course, I agree with that. I was a Member of the other place for a rural Welsh constituency for a number of years. Culture is no less strong in rural Montgomeryshire than it is in some of our inner cities, and we must give full respect to that. However, that respect must not dilute people’s rights. I believe that if one child in this country is taken away from his or her mother because of a religious doctrine and placed with what are essentially strangers, possibly in another country, that is a fundamental flaw in our law and it should not be allowed. That is something that the noble Baroness seeks to address.

I believe that the Bill will require detailed consideration. Earlier, I mentioned the Southall Black Sisters. They and other organisations which have contacted me have expressed the desire for some amendment, and I know that the noble Baroness accepts that as a principle. For example, we might consider whether we should adopt at least some of the provisions of the Ontario Family Statute Law Amendment Act, which, I understand, provides in Ontario for a working model. There, any decision made by a third party in arbitration or other proceedings has no legal effect unless it is exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario or of another Canadian jurisdiction. That kind of principle can be applied in the United Kingdom, particularly as we have separate jurisdictions, not in Wales but in Scotland and, to a great extent, in Northern Ireland.

I have particular concerns about Muslim arbitration tribunals—MATs, as they are known—which, as I understand it, have been in existence since 2007. Their effect is that dominant interpretations of Sharia law have effectively been given formal recognition within the law of England and Wales, even though they contradict the law of England and Wales. I have a real concern that MATs have strayed into criminal law, particularly in relation to its impact upon women. I, for one, am very reluctant to see determined in a court the proposition that a woman is obliged to have sexual intercourse with her husband on a set number of days in a month, but I have recently seen that proposition seriously set out as one that should be enforceable under Muslim law. It certainly is not any form of law that would be recognised in a rape trial, taking into account the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I am also concerned about the lack of rights of appeal and the lack of detailed reasons being given in writing in such tribunals. I am very concerned, too, about the use of the word “sacred”, or anything like that word, in relation to the judgment of relationships between citizens. For those and many other reasons, on which I could spend a great deal of time if we were not advised to take no more than nine minutes, I support the Bill and look forward to further discussions on it.

12:33

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I, too, wish to convey to her my congratulations not just on her commitment and determination in bringing this Bill forward but, indeed, on all the work that she does—often in hot, distant and dusty places—for people who live in difficult circumstances.

This is a profoundly important Bill. It seeks to make the necessary amendments to entrench in law a very clear articulation of the restrictions under the rule of law in this country, which must necessarily be understood to be applicable to the processes of Sharia law as they operate in the United Kingdom today.

It is important to say, as previous speakers have done, that this is not in any way a matter of prejudice. However, there is evidence that even before Muslim women enter into marriage some 60% of them experience some degree of coercion before marriage. This Bill seeks to give Muslim women who may be coerced or pressed into allowing a dispute to be settled in the Sharia tribunals the capacity to understand and to be able to assert their rights under the law. Most particularly, it seeks to restrict abuses of the law by communities and individuals which may ensue in the course of the Sharia processes. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, described graphically the terror that may be suffered by women in these circumstances.

Noble Lords will be very well aware of the history of the legal system of the United Kingdom. We are very proud of the way in which, generally speaking, the principles of law here have developed over the years and of the fact that we have a fine record of at least attempting to protect the rights of individuals—a protection which has grown infinitely since the passing of Magna Carta in 1215. Of course, there are many inadequacies in our legal system and these can result in great injustice and harm. Where we identify serious gaps—and the noble Baroness has identified a very serious gap today—then it is incumbent on us to address them as best we can.

We profess that certain rights are protected under UK law and that those whose rights are abused should have access to the legal system to seek redress. People who have suffered criminal assaults and those who seek relief in matrimonial matters have the right to anticipate that those matters will be dealt with in accordance with the principles of our law. Part 2 of the Bill states very clearly that in any arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act 1996 the evidence of a woman shall be equal to that of a man. This may well be resisted by some of those involved but it is not acceptable that decisions made under the protection of UK law are based on profoundly discriminatory processes.

The reality today is that many women living in the UK have suffered as a consequence of the way in which these tribunals have been permitted to operate; the extent to which they have claimed jurisdiction which they do not necessarily have in areas such as criminal law and, I think, previously matrimonial law; the fact that they do not operate to provide equality of arms—a matter addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a moment ago—in terms of representation, information and so on; and of the way in which their proceedings have been conducted. In addition, there is often a history of violence and duress, to which many women have been subjected over decades, leaving them in a position in which they may become physically incapable of asserting their rights.

It is Muslim women who are articulating these problems. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation stated:

“Sharia law discriminates against women and children and puts those who have experienced violence and abuse at further risk. Its rulings are incompatible with UK legislation including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Children Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act 1989”.

In these circumstances, Clause 4 is vital. It is an absolutely clear statement that where the criminal courts have jurisdiction, arbitration is not a possibility, and that discrimination is unlawful. Clause 7 gives necessary teeth to this provision by making it a criminal offence, attracting serious sanctions, falsely to claim legal jurisdiction.

Under UK law, children’s interests are required to be the final determinant in matters affecting them, yet in many cases under Sharia law women are forced to give their husbands access to their children even where British courts have ruled that they should have no such access because it would not be in the interests of the child, perhaps because of a history of violence.

Many women who seek redress through their imam are subject to multiple disadvantages. The English language may form an impenetrable barrier for many. Women who are isolated in non-English speaking communities are completely subject to their husbands, just as English women were a century ago. They will have no access to, and no capacity to seek, justice. If a woman cannot speak the language, cannot get independent advice, is fettered by a loveless and violent marriage, and is caught in a culture which accords precedence in virtually all matters to the husband, life will be profoundly difficult. The psychological consequences of that situation are well known. Such women simply have no idea of their legal rights. They may be cowed and beaten into submission to Sharia law, under which there may be no redress for them and their testimony will not be accorded the same value as that of men. That is a very lonely place for a woman of whatever age to find herself. Many of these women find themselves locked in a violent or polygamous marriage when they had thought that they were entering a monogamous union registered under UK law, yet the only place they can go to seek advice is the imam.

The Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, seeks to address a very serious wrong. It will have wonderful effects. I accept that it may require some amendment, but it will outlaw once and for all the Sharia practice of giving women’s testimony half the weight of men’s; it will make clear the redress that women can seek under civil law; it will make discriminatory the assumption in Sharia law of unequal distribution of an estate between male and female children; it will make discriminatory the assumption that a woman has fewer property rights than a man and vice versa; it will give women who have sought refuge in the United Kingdom a clear articulation of the limits of the Sharia tribunals; and it will mean that any future unlawful assumption of jurisdiction can result in prosecution.

The Bill has the support of many lawyers and organisations working to help Muslim women in these difficult situations. The noble Baroness listed a number of them, so I will not do so again. I simply reiterate my support for the Bill.

12:40

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I echo the warm words of congratulation and appreciation for the characteristically heartfelt and informed speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.

In February 2008, many column acres in the national media were given over to my friend and colleague, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to his supposed views on Sharia law. I say “supposed” because a large amount of the media response to his scholarly and considered lecture on Islam and British law bore no relation to the substance of his arguments. What the episode highlighted very effectively is that for the vast majority of people, this is both a highly emotive and little understood area of our legal landscape. I claim no special expertise, so rather than test your Lordships’ patience, I will quote from the most reverend Primate’s 2008 lecture because his words have some relevance to the issues before us today.

The Archbishop said that the,

“recognition of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’ in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women”.

He went on to say that no supplementary jurisdiction, or minority legal order, should have,

“the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights”.

I think few would wish to argue with what the most reverend Primate said, although many may regret that he was not quoted sufficiently and properly in the media.

The Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, seeks to frame a legislative response to such anxieties. It may not have got it right in all regards—I will come to my contribution on that shortly—but the noble Baroness has provided us with a welcome opportunity to begin to grapple with some genuine and pressing questions of principle and legal practice in this area, such as the proposal to make it unlawful for an arbitration agreement to include provision that treated parties differently on the basis of their sex, the value of their evidence, rights in the division of estates and their property rights generally.

The functioning of religious courts in the United Kingdom requires greater discussion and research, taking particular account of women’s organisations such as Women Living Under Muslim Laws. The briefing produced for this debate by the British Academy’s policy centre reminds us that:

“There are substantial gaps in our understanding of how minority legal orders are being adapted, interpreted and applied, and we know very little about the experience of their users. There is need for research on the interrelationship between these orders and the state legal system. This argues for extreme caution in proposing legislation that can significantly impact on any of these orders”.

With the need to consider caution foremost, I offer four questions to ponder. First, do the problems that the Bill is designed to address require fresh legislation or is sufficient redress already available under existing discrimination law and the Equality Act for those who are undoubtedly poorly served by the arbitration process? Is it not already the case that the High Court will not enforce an arbitration award that has been obtained unfairly and where coercion, tacit or explicit, is involved?

Secondly, what will be the impact of the creation in Part 5 of the new criminal offence committed by arbitrators purporting to exercise a judicial function in family matters on the work of family law arbitration schemes, such as that recently set up by the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators, to which the noble Baroness referred?

Thirdly, again in that part of the Bill, is there sufficient evidence to show that, for those Sharia councils that may be claiming false jurisdiction on criminal and family cases, making such conduct a specific criminal offence is the best way of preventing it from happening? Most religious courts are not arbitration courts so the majority of practices in these courts would be unaffected by the Bill. It is true that most Sharia councils in the United Kingdom do not claim to be civil or state courts but mainly function to unbind non-legally recognised religious marriages. Claiming secular authority would contradict their nature, which is to apply religious not secular law. The real problem may not be so much false claims to civil legality but a lack of awareness of and engagement with civil legality, which itself is a symptom of a wider religious alienation from state and civil society.

Fourthly, is the trend towards non-legally recognised marriages likely to be stemmed through legislation, and specifically through the measures included in the Bill? That is a problematic area requiring attention. The few academic studies that have been carried out indicate that the majority of issues in religious courts are in relation to divorce. My concern is that the legislative solution proposed in the Bill, with its implied emphasis on Muslims and Sharia, could have the opposite, and doubtless unintended, effect of stigmatising those individuals in communities it is aiming to help. Dr Aisha Gill of Roehampton University published a paper in 2007 discussing this issue in relation to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act. She argued that it may be better all round to channel resources into education and prevention rather than to develop targeted legislation.

Reference has already been made to other religions. In my capacity as the chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews, I would like to register a concern about what I again take to be the unintended side effects of some of the Bill’s proposals. I refer especially to the Beth Din, the Jewish religious courts. One such effect is that under the Bill any Jewish couple who may seek guidance from a Beth Din about their rights and obligations relating to property or children on the break-up of a marriage will have to be turned away if those adjudicating are not to break the law. For those Orthodox Jews who wish to follow ancient Jewish law and bequeath their estate to their sons while conferring substantial dowries on their daughters, if a man died intestate his children would not be able to seek an adjudication of the Beth Din as to the disposition of the estate.

I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her wish not to inhibit religious freedoms through this Bill. The point has already been made in this debate that she is a well-known and respected campaigner for the cause of religious liberty at home and abroad. She is much respected, not least by the Bishops’ Bench. However, as currently drafted, the Bill appears to present anomalies which could create problems for those who are well aware of their rights, are independently advised and want to approach their faith tribunals for adjudication in a matter which they believe to be covered by the rules of their faith.

12:50

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I also sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her initiative and hard work in bringing this important Bill before the House. I applaud her courage in addressing an issue on which most people find it expedient to remain silent out of fear of being seen as attacking the important freedom of religion. I speak from the perspective of the Sikh religion. In a recent BBC interview with J K Rowling about her new book, The Casual Vacancy, which looks at the life and fortunes of a Sikh family, she acknowledged her admiration for the Sikh faith. From its very beginning it gave Sikh women equal rights in all aspects of life. Unfortunately, Sikhs do not always live up to the high ideals taught by Guru Nanak and his successors. The main reason is a male-dominated sub-continent culture which is shared in many other parts of the world. Understanding this negative culture is central to understanding the importance of this Bill.

Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the health service, may have been a little over the top when he famously said that whenever he heard the word “culture” he immediately thought of bacteria. He was talking about nasty practices being justified on the grounds of culture. He had a point. We all know that as well as the nasty sort of bacteria that can cause disease and infection, there are also good bacteria that help to keep us healthy. It is the same with culture. In its respect for family life and emphasis on responsible living, it benefits us all, but there is also a negative culture that supports, legitimises and perpetuates evils such as male domination and discrimination against women. The problem for all our different faiths is that unthinking and discriminatory cultural attitudes attach themselves to religious beliefs and distort them beyond recognition. This sometimes makes it difficult for followers of our different faiths to distinguish between uplifting ethical teachings and dubious social practices based on the prejudices of the day. It is this negative culture, particularly in regard to women, that Guru Nanak both exposed and opposed.

Unfortunately negative culture, which over the centuries has given power and privilege to some at the expense of others, is extremely difficult to eradicate. Today on the Indian sub-continent and in many other parts of the world, the treatment of women often varies between discriminatory and barbaric. This is particularly true of the Muslim world where, as we have seen in the Arab Spring, long-oppressed communities are bravely trying to find and assert a forward-looking identity, looking to enlightened attitudes towards women and respect for other communities. Unfortunately, a powerful and strident minority has a totally different agenda of contempt for other communities and a total rejection of enlightened social norms. It was this desire to return to a muscular, male-dominated past that led to the recent shooting in the head of a 14 year-old girl in Pakistan simply because she asked for education for girls. Such barbaric behaviour is light years away from the teachings of the Koran on the need for compassion and concern for the oppressed. This same point was made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, on BBC television when talking about the same subject. This Bill seeks to support those trying to carry the Koranic imperative of compassion into 21st century behaviour and practices.

I have many Muslim friends and, as a founder member of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom, I have regular contact with people at all levels of Muslim society. They are both ashamed and stunned by extremist and bully boy behaviour. There is also growing disquiet in both religious and secular society about an apparent widespread conspiracy of silence in addressing such issues out of fear of offending cultural sensitivities, but silence simply encourages the bully boys and perpetuates injustice. As Edmund Burke reminded us, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. We need to remember that when Islam was founded, its teachings were far more enlightened than those of the surrounding cultures. Sharia law was developed to translate Islamic teachings into detailed guidance for everyday living. But society is always changing and what was acceptable hundreds of years ago, or even 20 or 30 years ago, may be considered oppressive today. As James Russell Lowell, the poet and social reformer, reminds us in a hymn:

“New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;

They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth”.

Arbitration and mediation in resolving differences in religious communities is fine if carried out on the basis of equality between all parties. Today, laws, codes or social practices that seek to perpetuate discrimination against women in any society are no longer acceptable. It is for these reasons that I welcome and give my full support, and that of my community, to this Bill. I am confident that it will have the support of many people of all faiths, those in secular society and, I hope, from all political parties in a common quest for a fairer and more cohesive society.

12:58

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Singh, in his thought for the day. I would just ask him to take comfort that Sikhs are not the only people who fail always to live up to their religious ideals. Christians are quite good at that too. I join the universal thanks and tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She really has been a lodestar for so many people for such a long time that we are all, directly or indirectly, in her debt. She goes where many of us ought to go and she does what many of us ought to do, and in introducing this Bill today she has performed another signal service for which we are all very grateful.

I do not like to see the law of my country sidestepped, overridden, ignored or, even worse, subverted, and I am therefore extremely grateful, as I am sure we all are, for the initiative taken by the noble Baroness, but the Bill is not enough. She has been extremely generous in what she has said about her willingness to listen to amendments. She has been very generous in recognising that any Private Member’s Bill is an imperfect vehicle for change. I give the Bill my support. I hope that it proceeds and is amended in Committee, and I would like to see it on the statute book, but I repeat: the Bill is not enough, because what we have got to seek to do in this country is to ensure that the rule of law, which means the protection of the law, is available for everyone. The Bill, whenever enacted, is not going to reach out into every community. I am just sorry that not one of our Muslim Peers is taking part in this debate today— I am sure that there are excellent reasons for that—because we have some very fine men and women of the Muslim faith who could have further enlightened our deliberations.

Yesterday, we had a very interesting debate on education. We were all constrained in the time we had to speak, but one point that I made, I should like, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, to repeat in part. A number of Peers in this House, from all parties and the Cross Benches, have been meeting in recent months to discuss citizenship and our young people. We are very anxious to reach the stage where every young person leaving school in this country has had a proper course in citizenship and goes through a citizenship ceremony and receives a certificate. What is the connection with the issue before us today? Well, it is a very simple one: it is only in that way that you can get across to every young man and woman in this country just what the rule of law is, what it means and what it means for them individually and collectively. Among the reading matter for such a course, I would certainly include Lord Bingham’s magisterial short volume, The Rule of Law, a fine distillation of the wisdom of a great mind.

It is very important that all the young people in our schools, who have such diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, realise that we are all subject to the same law and that we all have the same obligations, responsibilities, rights and protection. It is only by getting that across to every young person coming out of school that we will achieve what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve with this Bill.

We have a golden opportunity for this. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made a very brief, passing reference to Magna Carta. On 15 June 2015, we will be commemorating what these chaps up there, the statues of the Barons of Runnymede, achieved in 1215. Magna Carta is not, as somebody said recently, the end of the divine right of kings and the beginnings of democracy. It is the bedrock of our liberties and every one of us owes something to it, as does every citizen in every free democracy in the world. If we made it a target date and said that, in 2015, we would like every school leaver to leave school with a certificate of citizenship showing an understanding of their responsibilities to their community and their own rights and protection under the law, we would have achieved a very great deal. In a sense, we would have re-enacted a Magna Carta for the 21st century, and even the Prime Minister would know what that meant. I commend this to your Lordships in all parts of the House as a way of ensuring that the noble ideals of the noble Baroness come to fruition.

We have always prided ourselves in this country, and in this Parliament in particular, on the rule of law and the fact that we are the custodians of it. One only has to think of Palmerston in another place—he was an Irish Peer so did not sit here—and that extraordinary Don Pacifico incident. To protect one harassed shopkeeper, he invoked those immortal words, “Civis Romanus sum”, “I am a citizen of Rome”, thinking back to St Paul who used that in his day—not that St Paul was entirely good and sound on the women issue. In a very dramatic and graphic way, Palmerston was saying that everyone who was subject to the sovereignty of the Queen—in that case, Queen Victoria—was deserving of the protection of the law. That is a bold claim for us to make but, in our multilingual, multiethnic and multifaith society, we must see that in the 21st century all people have the protection of the law.

I have had the good fortune to attend a couple of the briefings that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, organised for those with an interest in the Bill. Until I got her first letter, I had not really given it much thought, but I came along and listened. Some of your Lordships here this afternoon were there last week when we heard the testimony of two brave young Muslim women who had been the victims—that is the only word one can advisedly use—of the injustice of Sharia law. The noble Baroness referred to others in her speech. I defy anyone to have listened to those testimonies and then come out of that meeting unmoved and undetermined. We are only as good as the way in which we treat the least of our citizens. Far too many in this country, through ignorance among other things, do not get the benefit of the protection of our laws. If we make a small step in the direction of remedying that deficiency by passing this Bill, we will have performed a real service.

13:07

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support the Bill and at the same time express my appreciation for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She has undertaken a great deal of research in support of the Bill. I have learnt a great deal from her and am grateful for it. I want to emphasise, as many others have done, that the Bill is not an attack on religious faith. I am a secularist but I believe strongly that everyone has a right to religion or faith, and to practise it without discrimination if they wish. I am concerned only if attempts are made to impose practices on those who do not share religion by citing religious or cultural reasons.

The Bill seeks to protect vulnerable people, mostly women, who may find themselves in a situation in which UK law would protect them but who nevertheless are not aware of the legal situation which provides such assistance or are prevented from accessing such a system because of community pressure. We have seen the development in this country of so-called Sharia courts that seek to give advice and judgments which often discriminate against women. They do so in areas where there is quite specific UK law in family and criminal matters.

That is particularly the case regarding divorce, where the woman may not be aware of her rights under UK law and may seek a decision from a Sharia court. She may encounter very much difficulty in that, as is covered in much of the research undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The so-called court may first try mediation, even in cases where there has been domestic violence against the woman. It may claim that the decision of the court requires the consent of the husband. Moreover, the woman’s evidence is worth less than that of a man. A woman who has been widowed may not remarry without the permission of a male relative. There may well be financial problems. A woman may not inherit on the same level as a man. There may be problems about children. Children over the age of seven automatically pass into the care of a man following a divorce decision by a Sharia court. Furthermore, polygamy is culturally acceptable.

Occasionally, the suggestion is made that there should be a parallel system of law to assist minority communities, and particular reference is made to so-called Sharia courts. When one looks at the cultural differences involved and the protection available to women via UK law, in my view, that is clearly unacceptable. There must be one law for all.

The previous century saw substantial improvements in women’s rights in the UK. Generations of women fought for those rights: the right to vote, to participate in public life, to equal pay, access to the professions and higher education, laws relating to the family and divorce and, of course, our current equality law. We will not have these advances undermined by the establishment of some form of parallel law at a much lower level. That is what so-called Sharia law envisages.

The Bill is intended to make it easier for women to bring claims for discrimination to the county court, and provides a positive obligation on public authorities to ensure that women in the situations to which our research draws attention know what are their rights and how to get them enforced. Social or religious pressure may often be imposed to prevent them accessing the UK justice system. That may be a problem, but there are already provisions in law relating to witness intimidation. The Bill is intended to cover those where a witness is assisting the police and is a victim of domestic violence. That sometimes happens. That should be included so that protection in such cases becomes a priority.

Clause 7 would make it an offence for people to assume judicial authority that they do not have. That would apply to community councils or groups of elders claiming to have legally enforceable powers and thus able to issue decisions of a discriminatory nature in defiance of the law.

Of course, all that is quite complicated, and many women who opt for a religious marriage do not realise that there will then not be protection under UK law unless they have a UK-registered marriage. The Bill is an attempt to deal with that by ensuring that there is a public duty to ensure that women are fully advised of their rights under UK law. We cannot continue to accept a situation in which women are suffering from forms of discrimination which we believed had been outlawed many years ago.

During discussion on the Bill, we have had the opportunity to meet women who have suffered from discrimination of the kind that the Bill is intended to eradicate. Many have had to cope with social and community problems and, often, domestic violence. They have often felt very alone. Fortunately, there are organisations that have been able to help such women. One such organisation is Southall Black Sisters, the organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has already referred. It supports women caught up in domestic or community pressure. It supports the Bill, although it thinks that it does not go far enough. It is concerned about the increasing pressure being exerted by many religious organisations which seek to intervene in family matters. It would like amendments to be introduced to the Arbitration Act 1996 so as not to allow any religious laws to be used in family matters. It also thinks that anyone seeking to arbitrate on family matters and using religious laws should be deemed to be committing a criminal offence, punishable with a fine or imprisonment. I have some sympathy with its point of view but have said that the Bill as it stands represents a very substantial step forward. There will be an opportunity in Committee or on Report for some of these views to be discussed.

During the discussion this afternoon I have received a message saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who had intended and very much wanted to participate in the debate, is unfortunately ill and unable to be here. I know that she would want me to say that she fully supports the Bill, which is in line with the campaign that she has been engaged upon all her life in support of vulnerable women, particularly those who are often not of a European background. She heartily hopes, as I, too, hope, that there will be support for the Bill from the House.

13:16

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, this Bill is intended to deal with a number of problems and injustices which have arisen at the interface between actions, whether formal or informal, by Sharia bodies and the application of UK law. The Bill is particularly important for the protection of women; it would be morally indefensible to turn a blind eye to this.

The first point which the Bill deals with is arbitration proceedings that operate according to Sharia and discrimination against women. The Bill does this in Clause 1(2) by making it clear that sex discrimination law applies to arbitration tribunal proceedings. This is to close a possible loophole in the Equality Act 2010 so that tribunals which operate legitimately under the Arbitration Act 1996 cannot use discriminatory Sharia rules, such as a woman’s testimony being worth half that of a man. It would be sad indeed if, having spent centuries in the United Kingdom on action to eliminate discrimination against women, we were to allow it to be re-established because we did not have the courage to speak out.

Secondly, Clause 1(4) sets out to make better information available to women in polygamous households and women who have had a religious marriage but may not be aware that it is not recognised under UK civil law. It has been estimated—although the reliability of these estimates is pretty difficult to assess—that about two-thirds of Muslim marriage ceremonies in Britain are not registered under the Marriage Act.

Thirdly, the Bill strengthens a court’s powers to set aside rulings where discrimination has taken place, thus making it possible for a decision of an arbitration tribunal to be struck down. Clause 4 is an important clause, expressly stating in the proposed legislation the present position that arbitration cannot deal with family or criminal law matters. This is a restatement of the current defence against a parallel legal jurisdiction in this country, described in the British Academy report as a minority jurisdiction.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with intimidation. Thirteen cases of intimidation are quoted in our briefing and are said to be the tip of the iceberg. More specifically, Clause 5 strengthens court powers to set aside court orders where there is evidence that consent to the agreement was obtained under duress including, importantly, the possibility for third parties other than the women affected to apply for the court order to be struck down. Clause 6 makes clear that a victim of domestic abuse is a witness to an offence and should be expressly protected from intimidation.

The Bill creates a new criminal offence for a person who purports to legally adjudicate on matters that ought to be decided by Crown, criminal or family courts. This is designed to prevent the creeping loss of our legislative system, to the detriment of the rule of law in the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, the Bill is a step towards the respect of equality for all under a single law of the land. For society as a whole, this is a very important point. In addition, and perhaps for me personally even more importantly, it may lead to some progress in reducing pressure, intimidation and discrimination against women, which should not be tolerated in Britain today. I thank my courageous colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing the Bill forward.

13:20

[Lord Kalms]

My Lords, the substance of the Bill is straightforward, and it should be acceptable to all Members of this House. It is this: that the law of the land is, and must remain, paramount; no law should ever override or sit above the law of this land; and, while amendments can and will be made to our laws, the fundamental bedrock principles on which our legal system is based not only cannot but must not be open for negotiation. Among our absolutely non-negotiable principles must be the principle of equality before the law. This hard-fought-for concept of one law for all remains among the greatest achievements not only of our country but of humankind. Any court not abiding 100% by the law of the land has no more status than a kangaroo court.

Before addressing the specific legal system that poses most threat to these principles, I shall first address a misleading counterexample that is often thrown up and will doubtless emerge from this debate. As a consequence of the Arbitration Act 1996, all sorts of individuals, authorities and quasi-authorities can provide, or hold themselves up as providing, a form of legal arbitration in the UK. This includes secular, non-religious organisations as well as religious organisations. Among the latter are the Jewish courts, or Beth Din, which arbitrate between Jews who volunteer themselves up to arbitration and its auspices. However, not only are the rules of the Beth Din complementary to UK law but they are, and of course must always remain, wholly subservient to it. It is not possible, for instance, for a Jewish court to adjudicate any arbitration case in such a fashion that the judgment runs contrary to the law of the land. In addition, the Beth Din are highly regulated by central regulating bodies.

This brings me to the case of Sharia courts. It was the Labour MP Sadiq Khan who said four years ago that Sharia was utterly unsuitable for the UK because, among other reasons, there was a lack of sophistication or regulatory power in the Muslim communities of Britain. It is no insult to Muslims to remark that, unlike the Jewish community, Muslim authority in the UK, as worldwide, is highly diffuse and lacks any centralising authority. Additionally, we have already seen that Sharia courts in the UK not only seek to tread outside the remit of the Arbitration Act but already do so. For instance, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal says by its own admission that most of its work falls outside the remit of the Arbitration Act, and is instead work that treads right into the realm of family law.

On the substance, there are two primary reasons why Sharia law provides a new type of challenge to the law of the land and why the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is right to bring this matter to our attention. The first is the issue of competing legal frameworks. To say that there might in future be cases in which Sharia courts overstretch their remit is to be grossly unaware of the present. There are already a large number of such cases which are publicly known, widely reported and the source of significant public concern. Self-described Sharia courts have, on a number of occasions, already reached beyond what might be acceptable in a case of arbitration and over into cases which include the criminal. To my knowledge, none of these cases has ever received police attention or investigation, and this is a scandal for which the police, among other authorities, must be held responsible.

Secondly, there is the clear issue of the contravention of a fundamental of our law. Foremost among the fundamentals being violated is the principle of equality of the sexes. This House must of course be careful to ensure that religious liberty is protected, but religious liberty and legal liberty are different things. Where religious liberty runs in direct contravention of the law of the land, the religious demand must be put into its correct place. It should be totally unacceptable to this House that a situation should exist in Britain in which women are routinely awarded second-class status to men. The principle by which, for instance, the testimony of women is regarded as being worth half that of a man is, sadly, a principle with a long, historical basis in Islamic law, and is practised in jurisdictions around the world in which Sharia law is implemented.

Even in the case of arbitration, that appears to me to be totally unacceptable. How can this House permit a situation to arise—or be permitted, let alone encouraged—in which a woman is given a second-class status? How can this country in any way hold its head up as a standard-bearer of human rights and genuine equality, so long as some women in our country are born to the same rights as men, and others born in the same country are not?

Doubtless, there will be Members of this House who protest that women who choose to submit themselves to decisions made by a Sharia court for arbitration must have their wishes respected, even if those wishes do lead, as they must, to their second-class status. This demands two points in response. First, there is the issue of whether this House and this country have any confidence in their own values. If we do not have that confidence, then we should say so, but we should know that it will lead to a situation in which people in this country can break the law, ignore any concept of jurisdiction and place themselves in a legal community apart from all other people in this country. That appears to be the basis not for national cohesion but for national breakdown.

The second issue, which cannot be stressed enough, is raised by the concept of “voluntary”. It is extremely easy for Members of this House to presume what those outside this place do is “voluntary” or otherwise. But around this country, as numerous experts in this field can attest, the question of what is and is not “voluntary” is highly contestable. We may, for instance, say in this place that no woman should submit to a ruling by a Sharia court unless she has volunteered to do so. But how on earth are people here to know whether such acts are voluntary? What protection does the state provide when the police and social services, where they are not drawn from the same community as the girl in question, are too timid or fearful of anything which runs counter to the community’s professed traditions or beliefs? There are many accounts of women who have found themselves trapped in precisely those situations. Whole groups and organisations have begun to be set up to support such women. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has brought some women from such organisations to speak to Members of this House, as we heard the other day.

Many of these areas are distinctly cut-off, ethnic and religious enclaves. How do people in this House suppose that a young girl born in such a town, and brought up to defer to religious leaders should behave when those same religious leaders hold themselves out also as legal authorities, when such authorities are in a position not merely to give religious advice but to lay down legal judgments? There is now substantial evidence that far from volunteering themselves up to judgment by Sharia courts, many women in Britain at this time are in fact forced to do so.

Today this House has an opportunity to make a stand and draw a firm line. It should be this: that no British citizen should ever sit before a court or judge whose basic principles are in opposition to the most cherished principles of this country and its law. Whether we have the confidence to draw this line clearly will not only affect the issue of integration in this country, it will send out a signal about the kind of country we and our children would wish to live in.

13:29

[Lord Swinfen]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on bringing this Bill forward. Members of this House of many religions have spoken today and, like my noble friend Lord Cormack, I am sorry that so far we have not heard any representatives from the Muslim faith, which I think would have been very useful.

It is well over 50 years since I was at school and most of the history that I learnt I have probably forgotten. However, I can remember being taught that in the Middle Ages we had the Royal Courts of Justice, but that those who worked for the church as clergy, or just worked for or were connected with it, were judged by ecclesiastical courts. The punishments and decisions of the two systems of justice were not always the same. I am glad to say that we got rid of that because everyone should be treated the same and fairly under the law. Unfortunately, another form of religious court appears to be coming into being. In due course, it could produce division through the peoples of this country, which we wish to avoid. We must have equality and fairness for all under the law.

In the briefings that I have read on this subject, I understand that many Muslim marriages are invalid under British law and that very few mosques have a licence to perform marriages. The vast majority of Christian churches are licensed to perform marriages and to register those marriages under the law of the land. In the Minister’s reply, I should like to know what is being done to encourage and ensure that mosques, Hindu temples and other religious establishments in this country are licensed to perform marriages so that all people are properly protected, particularly the wives and children of those marriages. In the eyes of God, I am sure that the marriage is the same whether it has the right piece of paper or not, but it helps in this world to have the right piece of paper to produce at the right time.

What is being taught in schools on the operation of the law with regard to fairness under the law, mediation and arbitration? We have heard from others that the results are not always the same. The rulings of Sharia courts, Jewish courts, Hindu courts or Sikh courts should be confirmed by a judge in the Royal Courts of Justice, probably in chambers, to see that they are compliant with the law of the land and that the rulings are being fair to all, no matter what their religion and what part of the country they come from. I support this Bill.

13:33

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill and appreciate all the hard work and research that has gone into it. I join others in applauding the bravery of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, whose record in speaking up for human rights and the oppressed is magnificent. While we are adjusting to multiculturalism—I think that in the future I will have to think of it as multibacterialism—in this country, there are some ground rules, some lines that cannot be crossed, no matter how compelling the religious practices at issue. Thus, the equality law of this country has caused, for example, Catholic adoption agencies to close because human rights trump religious beliefs in matters of equality. Very recently, the same test was applied to whether two men could share a room in a bed and breakfast rented out by a couple with religious objections.

The Bill has to face up to the difficult issue of drawing a line between good helpful mediation and arbitration on the one side and, on the other, the processes and principles that are contrary to equality law. Religious bodies certainly should not claim to deal with criminal offences or claim exclusive jurisdiction over civil issues, but much turns on the power and knowledge of those who appear in the courts, and we have to assume vulnerability in many, if not most, instances. Mediation can help in family law disputes provided that the parties meet on equal terms. Arbitration, however, may perpetuate irregularity of status that goes down the generations to the disadvantage of children if it is presented as the legal solution to a situation that needs finality in civil law.

In this Bill, the fundamental principles of British equality and respect for the rule of law, which imply one law for all, are fleshed out and serve as the parameters. Religious courts of all persuasions have to be subservient to the family law of this country. Yes, agreements can be reached and acted on with consent or presented to the court for enforcement, but we cannot allow shadow, and possibly unfair, family law and marriage law to go on sub rosa, to the detriment, in particular, of women and children. Their status, their dignity and their support have to be open under the law. They must have access to our courts, without being blocked, to enforce their family law rights. Each person in this situation needs to have knowledge about their situation and their rights in our common law in a language that they can understand. They must not be coerced into religious law, any more than any citizen should ever be coerced. In our law, duress vitiates contracts and marriages whoever you are.

Members of any religious community must not be left with the impression that they are outside the law of the land. For example, it is suspected that many marriages are entered into which are valid only under religious law and not under civil law. That must be wrong. There needs to be an effort to ensure that all religious marriages are properly celebrated under English law and polygamy is stamped out. There is no reason why all, or more, mosques should not register for legal civil ceremonies.

The law is encouraging private agreements in family disputes through prenuptial agreements and in relation to children’s residence and money. This is partly in order to save legal aid and partly in the interests of harmony. However, these agreements are made in the shadow of English law and can always be taken to court. There may be loopholes in the drafting of this Bill, but I understand that it is intended to try to assist with the fall-out effects of unrecognised marriages. I am sure wording can be found to ensure that that is the case.

The Bill has the support of a group mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, Southall Black Sisters, a black and minority women’s organisation that has existed since 1979 and has a national reach. Indeed, it thinks that it does not go far enough. It points out that cuts in legal aid will have the effect of causing more women and vulnerable people to use religious courts, which are, by and large, cheaper, and that these people will not be able to afford civil legal advice. This is another adverse effect of the drastic cuts in legal aid that have come about in recent years. This risks the growth of a second-rate justice system for minority communities, one which is not compatible with universal human rights principles. Southall Black Sisters is well aware of how women may be coerced into going before religious bodies and accepting decisions that are not in their interests within a system that lacks transparency and accountability and offends against the rule of law.

This Bill is important and will be welcomed by thousands who know about it and by many more who may be unaware of it but could benefit. I urge the House to progress with it.

13:40

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I join my noble friends and others who have congratulated my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, not just on this Bill but her general work. My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to her as a “lode star”. Having seen a good deal more of her work than perhaps he has, I would say that she is more like Halley’s Comet during her visits here. This is a rare occasion when she focuses on the troubles in our little patch. She is active on all five continents and is often in considerable physical danger. However, this is not a party called to celebrate her gallantry and generosity. I will therefore move swiftly on to the substance of the Bill that she brings before us.

The general principle in the Bill is pretty clear, and it is a principle that is subscribed to by all your Lordships: if we are to have two strata of law—a national and universal law, and some sort of minority laws within it—it is absolutely essential that the minority laws shall be in conformity with the national law. That is simple and it is a secular, not a religious, statement. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is here specifically as a secular being and is pronouncing on this so that those of us who are known to be of particular faiths can look to him to validate what we say as regards the logic and history of law.

It seems pretty simple to adumbrate that general statement that there must be conformity between the minor and the major systems of law, but it is not quite as straightforward as that. This debate and the Bill have focused attention on the particular faith of the Muslims and a particular form of practice in the Muslim faith with regard to the implementation of religious laws. It is not just sad but a desperate pity that there is no Muslim voice in this debate. I, for one, long to have some illumination as to what the regard for Sharia is among the different groupings of the Muslim faith, and what sort of material and emotions we are dealing with as we discuss it. My friend the right reverend Prelate said that we have to go carefully in this, and he is right. At the bottom of all this is a religious faith.

My noble friend has emphasised, as have others, that it is actually ignorance that is the great weakener of the female sex in these situations because they are not aware of the rights that they might otherwise have. However, it is not ignorance that takes all of them into those courts or leads all of them to be governed by their decisions; it is the faith of the participants that does so. As long as women believe that it is natural justice that they should be treated as they are under Sharia law, they will not seek to liberate themselves from it and, regardless of what the civil courts may say, they will abide by it.

The question of education is of prime importance. I admired my noble friend’s diatribe in favour of citizenship, and I rather think that I shall join his ranks. I think that Runnymede was actually a conference of barons securing their rights, which have filtered down more widely to us now, but that is a small point of history. I must not be drawn astray in the short time we have left.

The Bill has to be studied in detail in Committee. I support the right reverend Prelate in saying that of course it is bad legislative practice, and unnecessary, to put into law something that is there already. I strongly suspect that a good deal of this is there already, but the difficulty is that it is spread out in different pieces of legislation and amendments to them, and is not known about. This relates to education again—not of the people who go to the courts but of the courts themselves. I wonder if there is any requirement for people who sit on these bodies to be qualified in any way that is recognised by the British legal system. It would be a very good thing if they were, so that they are aware of the detail of the civil law with which they must conform. At some point there will be a conflict—and we should not be shy of that fact—between those who believe passionately that Sharia law is the be-all and end-all of their faith and those who do not. However, we do not know, because of the absentees from this debate, what proportion of the population of this country who subscribe to the Muslim faith fall into either group. We have to go cautiously, but if we are to have justice for our citizens, which is what they now are—brothers and sisters, as we would say—they must be protected in some way.

My noble friend has taken a bold step. In Committee, we shall be able to discover how much further, in what direction and how much more cautiously we have to proceed. I thank her for what she has done.

13:47

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for enabling me to stand in the gap and say a few words. I apologise to the House that, having overlooked today’s business, I am not much more prepared. I, too, thank and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and her international work, in particular in respect of the protection of minority rights and minority Christian rights abroad. She is venturing into a new arena and I commend her work.

Many of the concerns expressed about religious courts in the Muslim traditions are valid. However, such concerns could also be expressed about religious courts in other traditions. As has already been mentioned, it would be much more appropriate for reforms to be undertaken by the Government. It is wrong that this should be flying under the flag of religious persons, or certain groups and their interests. Despite the number of protestations today that this is not rooted in hostility to any one religion, the perception outside this House is that this is another assault on Muslims. The way forward, therefore, is for the Government to look at this, in partnership with the communities affected and in particular with women’s organisations such as Southall Black Sisters and people such as Dr Aisha Gill, whose work I commend to noble Lords.

I also agree that no laws should supersede the laws of the land where citizens reside. Coercion into religious law is unacceptable, especially for women as vulnerable as they are when facing such critical conditions as divorces, separation or violence against them. The evidence about violence against women leads us directly to gender injustices and inequality. As has also been said, by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, lack of adequate information and language barriers may indeed be culpable when it comes to why Muslim women in particular are not seeking mainstream legal protection; as must be the lack of funding for many of the well established organisations that have been working in this field and struggling to survive on their own.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, eloquently described the need for more than just enacting this law. Education and citizenship are absolutely imperative in achieving informed citizens and equal rights for women. I submit myself to his ongoing work in this area.

Finally, I humbly echo the thoughtful contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and urge caution in our deliberations. We must not journey along a path that further marginalises those who seek our protection.

13:50

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Uddin for her remarks and, indeed, I echo her final comments to the House.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on successfully introducing her Bill. I also thank her most sincerely for sending me the excellent briefing that she prepared on why she felt moved to bring forward this Private Member’s Bill.

There is no doubt, as this debate reveals, that there is very serious disquiet about the fate of some women who are subject to some religious laws—particularly Muslim women under Sharia law, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Kalms, pointed out, it is not limited to the mediation and arbitration services of the Sharia law councils. We cannot ignore those concerns. What contribution this Bill will make to remedy that discrimination is the question before us today, and the right reverend Prelate posed four excellent questions.

We on these Benches are proud of our record both in government and in opposition in championing women’s equality and fighting hard against discrimination wherever it is found. Indeed, almost all the legislation that seeks to protect women, dealing with discrimination and violence against women, has been introduced by Labour Governments. We massively increased the resources available to tackle violence against women; we recast the legislative framework; and we increased sentences for offenders. An irony here is that, because of the forthcoming reductions in legal aid, women who seek redress on domestic violence grounds will find that even more difficult, and we know that, because of the austerity agenda, things such as refuges will not be as widely available as they were.

It is not surprising that we would be very concerned if the Equality Act, which I helped to steer through your Lordships’ House in 2010, were deficient in the protection that it offers against discrimination. Therefore, my first question is directed at the Minister, as well as at the noble Baroness. Have the Government carried out, as it were, a sweep and identified the loopholes that this Bill seeks to plug, and does the Bill succeed in strengthening the existing legislation in the way that the noble Baroness proposes, or is part of the issue here enforcement of the existing legislation? If so, in what way, and how can we remedy that?

I am aware that many organisations are very concerned about the position faced by some Muslim women in the terms outlined by the noble Baroness and others today, particularly with regard to the rights of women who are not married under British civil law. I completely accept the argument that has been made by most noble Lords—that, as citizens of the UK, we are all subject to the same laws. We have to ensure that that is not just something that we say but a reality, and that is partly what the Bill is about.

I read with interest the media coverage that this issue received when the noble Baroness launched her Bill. I have read her briefing and that of the British Academy, which has already been referred to. I have also read what the Islamic Sharia Council has to say. Southall Black Sisters supports the Bill in general but is concerned about some of its detail. I was also very struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, many of whose reservations I think we may share.

I come from and grew up in Bradford, and this whole discussion has reminded me of something that we have had to deal with in Bradford in the past few years. The issue was the treatment of children, particularly boys, in the madrassahs and mosques. The IPPR think tank, with the support of the Gulbenkian Foundation, published a generally very positive report about the work of the madrassahs and supplementary schools. However, it pointed to the ill treatment of children, particularly boys. There was also a television programme and a radio programme, which noble Lords might remember.

I will reflect on how that was dealt with in Bradford. Using existing powers and the current legal framework, Bradford Council required that all supplementary schools receiving its support, including madrassahs, had to comply with certain conditions. All staff working with children had to undergo enhanced CRB disclosure; there had to be a fully operational child protection policy and a designated person for child protection; and there had to be attendance at child protection training.

To encourage supplementary schools, the council, through its diversity and cohesion service working with the local safeguarding board, produced a model child protection policy in 2007. This was translated into the many community languages that we have in Bradford, including Urdu and Bengali, to ensure that staff working with children in faith-based organisations fully understood their roles and responsibilities when it came to safeguarding the children and young people in their care. This was backed up by child protection training from the council. Positive behaviour management courses were introduced in 2009 to help the supplementary schools address challenging behaviour by young people. In 2011, the Council for Mosques and the local safeguarding board jointly funded a child protection social work post, based in the Council for Mosques, to advise madrassahs on safe childcare practices.

The reason I mention the ongoing programme in Bradford is that no new legislation was required to remedy what was clearly a matter of very great concern. What was required was the enforcement of existing legislation and practice and a great deal of communication on the ground. A great deal of sensitive work was carried out with local mosques and community leaders, and very firm signals were given about how child protection law applied in this case. The programme was led by members and officers of the council, and it remains part of its ongoing community cohesion work.

My question to the noble Baroness, and to the Minister is: how much work has been done to have those types of discussions and to apply those sorts of approaches to enforce the existing legal framework and ensure that the anti-discrimination law that we already have applies across the piece in the way that was intended? My question is about discussions that the noble Baroness may have had with the Government, law officers and community leaders to explore ways of ensuring that our equalities legislation is enforced and underpins the work of the arbitration and mediation services, as it should.

I was struck by a suggestion that the British Academy made. It stated:

“The EHRC should introduce a benchmark within its Equality Measurement Framework to capture the experience of women users of minority legal orders. The result should be published as part of the Triennial Review which monitors progress on equality, dignity and respect for UK citizens. This could form the basis for considering whether the EHRC has a role in supporting religious women who are users of minority legal orders, as suggested by the EHRC’s recent research on understanding equality and human rights in relation to religion and belief”.

I wonder whether this has happened, and whether it would be a very good idea.

We are tackling a very serious problem. It may be that equalities and other legislation need to be strengthened. I was very reassured when the noble Baroness said that the issue is complex, sensitive and delicate, and that it would be a very good idea to open it up for broader examination and debate in Committee. Ultimately, if action needs to be taken, there is no question that we will support it, but it needs to be at the end of that process. I accept that. The proposals in the Bill are very important. We on these Benches will dedicate ourselves to finding legislative or other solutions to the discrimination that has been outlined. We support the Second Reading and look forward to working with the noble Baroness and the Government to find solutions to these problems.

14:00

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing this matter for debate in the House today and explaining why she wants to see the measures in her Bill come into force. Her support of women’s rights across the world is well recognised and I admire her courage and determination in seeking decency and justice.

I have listened carefully to all the points that noble Lords have made, yet the Government have reservations as to whether the measures in the Bill are the best way forward, some of which have already been articulated sensitively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.

The noble Baroness’s Bill is driven by the concern that all citizens should have the same rights. It has been suggested that religious law principles applied by arbitral tribunals and religious councils in this country may undermine the principle of equal rights under the law. Let me make it quite clear that religious principles can be applied legally in the national courts context only if both sides have freely agreed to be bound by them. Regardless of religious belief, every citizen is equal before the law.

The Bill prohibits the use of arbitration in family disputes. The Government, like their predecessors, are keen to promote the use of non-court dispute resolution services for family and other disputes. Typically this is through mediation. However, couples, communities and other groups have the option to use arbitration and to apply religious considerations. For example, the Jewish Beth Din has long been recognised as able to conduct arbitrations applying Jewish law considerations. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, established in 2007, provides an alternative route to resolve civil law disputes in accordance with Sharia principles. In both cases this is because the Arbitration Act 1996 allows parties to an arbitration to agree any system of law or rules, other than national laws, to be applied by the arbitral tribunal. Crucially, both parties must freely have agreed to arbitration and to the use of religious principles. Even where religious law considerations have been applied to an arbitration, the resulting decisions are subject to review by the national courts on a number of grounds, including whether the agreement was freely concluded.

Religious councils that are not governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act are different. The recommendations of religious councils such as Sharia councils and the marriage tribunal in the Catholic Church are not binding in law because of this. Such recommendations are subject to the law of the land.

The noble Baroness raised concerns over coercion. No one should feel pressurised or coerced into using a Sharia or other religious council to resolve their dispute. Any member of any community has the right to refer to a civil court at any point, particularly if they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a particular way. If there has been coercion, the outcome of any mediation or arbitration cannot be enforced.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has raised concerns about religious councils adjudicating on matters of domestic violence and violence against women. Quite clearly domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse and is unacceptable in our society. We are determined to do all we can to tackle it and the Government’s approach is set out in the action plan Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls. It is essential that victims and potential victims are aware of the support and advice available. Indeed, the Government have been working with many groups on this. The Government are working with statutory, faith and other organisations to ensure that messages reach across all communities.

Many of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raises are already addressed in existing legislation. For example, the Equality Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act prohibits intimidation of all witnesses. Common law already restricts what can be arbitrated and the Government have no plans to change this. Several noble Lords raised consent orders being checked by the courts. The court is under a duty to question any order which appears unfair and can refuse to make the order.

Turning to the specific proposals in the Bill—and answering the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton— in Part 1 changing the Equality Act so that it applies to arbitral tribunals is considered unnecessary. Under the Arbitration Act tribunals must act fairly and impartially. Awards can be challenged in court if this duty is breached or there is other irregularity. Section 142(1) of the Equality Act already makes contracts unenforceable if they treat someone in a discriminatory way. This would apply to the results of mediations facilitated by a religious council if they were discriminatory. A consultation under Section 149 of the Equality Act is under way to establish whether the public sector equality duty that it creates is operating as intended. It would be wrong to amend Section 149 while the Government are carrying out such a review.

Turning to Part 2 of this Bill, arbitral tribunals must act fairly and impartially and can apply religious considerations only if all parties agree. It is already the common law that criminal acts and some family matters, such as child residence and contact, cannot be arbitrated. As I said, it is government policy to encourage alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration in limited circumstances to resolve family matters. However, it is important for people to be aware of their rights under our country’s legal system. In Part 3, the proposed changes to the Family Law Act 1996 are deemed unnecessary, as contracts are unenforceable if made under duress. The judge will not make an order unless he or she is satisfied that there was consent and equal bargaining power between the parties.

In Part 4, Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act already makes it an offence to intimidate those assisting an investigation, witnesses and potential witnesses. This includes victims of domestic violence.

In Part 5, I finally turn to the proposed new crime of falsely claiming legal jurisdiction. The Government believe that introducing the proposed offences is unnecessary. This is because Sharia councils and other religious councils have no jurisdiction in this country, therefore any decision they make can never be legally binding. If any decisions or recommendations made by any religious councils or arbitration tribunals were illegal or contrary to public policy or national law, then national law would always prevail.

[Baroness Deech]

The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said more than once that if something improper happened in a religious court, the courts of the land would ignore it or undo it. Is not the problem that those who have these religious orders made will never know about the courts of our land or will never get to them? Therefore the English courts do not have the supervisory power that the Minister has suggested and which we wish they had.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, because that is precisely what I wish to come to. I was setting out what I call the legalistic frame of why the Government have reservations about the Bill’s provisions, but I assure the noble Baroness that there is much more to come.

Increased awareness requires changes to society, not changes to the law. This means that it is not just a job for the Government. Communities and community organisations must also give a lead in communicating so that the rights of all our citizens are understood and protected. The Government are committed to working with communities and faith groups to take this forward. Practical co-operation between faith groups is crucial to the integrated society we want to build. It is about people from different backgrounds working together for a common good and tackling shared social problems.

The Government work with many faith bodies: the Church of England, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Network of Sikh Organisations UK and national Muslim organisations including the British Muslim Forum, Muslim Hands UK and the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board. Perhaps I may also say, as noble Lords have referred to the Southall Black Sisters, that the Government have worked in conjunction with that organisation and others to raise the points made particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords, and in formulating, among other things, an information pack to ensure that rights are better and more widely known.

Noble Lords have also highlighted their concern about those Muslim marriages which are not registered. These are not legally valid in England and Wales and do not enable parties to seek a financial settlement in the family court if the marriage breaks down. The Government are aware of the problem and the great hardship it can cause. As a result, the Government are examining ways to increase awareness of the legal consequences of religious-only marriages so as to ensure that the rights of families and children are protected. The Department for Communities and Local Government also works with local bodies such as the St Philip’s Centre in Leicester and the East London Three Faiths Forum. These bodies, along with many others, do excellent work to encourage and help link up faith-based social action, including people from different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

For all the reasons I have set out, the Government are not convinced that introducing the measures proposed in this Bill—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He has given an Olympian exegesis of the processes and laws and consultations that are available to deal with the intellectual problem that underlies the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. However, we are concerned here with real people and real cases. How long does my noble friend expect it will take before these Olympian provisions and attentions lead to the removal of these injustices from the history of real people in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention because it gives me an opportunity to conclude by saying that the Government are fully committed to protecting the rights of all citizens, and there is legislation in place to uphold those rights. What I said earlier is that the Government are actively working with groups to ensure that there is awareness and a change of attitude. The Government believe that that is the best way forward to ensure that the points of view that have been expressed so widely around the House—

[Lord Elton]

I am sorry, I am right behind my noble friend—in one sense only. I intervene just to ask my noble friend whether, when he develops the policies he has told us about in Olympian terms, he will be very careful as regards the sources of the briefings he is given and the research that has gone into them. It is clear that some of the briefings I have seen have simply been drawn from the bodies that are being investigated themselves, with no connection at all with those who have suffered at their hands, or indeed did not even know that they had any recourse.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I can assure my noble friend that the Government and all the other groups that are interested in resolving this issue will be looking at all the evidence. In reaching the conclusions on how best to take it forward, we will be bringing forward a matter that is sensitive, and therefore the Government are working hard with other groups to ensure—

[Lord Cormack]

I appreciate that this is my noble friend’s first wind-up from the Dispatch Box and that he has the good will of the whole House. However, will he discuss with his colleagues in government some of the citizenship points that I raised during this debate, because it is only through having a thoroughly well educated population aware of its rights and responsibilities that we can finally lay to rest the things which concern us so much in this House?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am delighted to agree with my noble friend. I shall certainly raise those matters that he raised as well as those points that all noble Lords have expressed in this debate.

[Lord Swinfen]

Before my noble friend sits down, could he answer the question that I asked when I spoke as to what the Government are doing to ensure that mosques are licensed to carry out marriages and that there is a civil document for those who are married rather than a purely religious document which is not valid in English law?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I have said, the Government are working with faith groups. One of the points that will be considered is that some mosques are registered but not all. I certainly think that this is an interesting way forward.

14:16

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the widespread support for this Bill from all parts of your Lordships’ House. I have also listened carefully to criticisms, reservations and suggestions for improvement and will ensure that all of them are taken into account as I and my colleagues working on the Bill proceed to the next stage.

Perhaps I may briefly respond to two of the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester just to have it on the record. First, he asked whether it is not already the case that the High Court will not enforce an agreement if it is discriminatory. It is very rare for the High Court to inquire into the facts behind an agreement; for example, to find out whether there is real consent. The evidence proves that the current legal framework is not enough. My Bill, as I said, will make it easier to overturn a discriminatory agreement. Advocacy groups which work with Muslim women want this Bill for precisely this reason. I hope that that may reassure the right reverend Prelate.

The right reverend Prelate also asked whether people who go to religious bodies for advice on property rights and child custody have to be turned away for fear of breaching the new criminal offence. I understand that the answer to that is absolutely not. As I said in my introduction, people can submit voluntarily to any rulings or advice they wish; there is no coercion with regard to people who voluntarily accept discriminatory proceedings because of their faith commitments or for any other reason. My Bill serves only to try to help people who decide that they do not wish to submit to discriminatory rulings.

As I mentioned, we will seek to explore the very important and, I repeat, complex and sensitive issues which the Bill seeks to address either in ad hoc committee or an independent committee of inquiry. This will provide an opportunity to obtain further evidence of the need for some legislation and to fine-tune the Bill with amendments in Committee. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, filled the gap in more senses than one by not only speaking in the speakers’ gap but also bringing a Muslim voice to this debate. We really appreciate that and we look forward to representatives of all different faith traditions, as well as those committed to secular viewpoints, coming to the committee of inquiry, whichever form it takes. All will be able to bring wisdom, experience, concerns and evidence to such a committee and, therefore, I hope that it will be very representative in the evidence that it receives.

[Baroness Uddin]

Will the noble Baroness accept that in any proposition made or further work done in relation to this matter, she and her other colleagues will ensure that there is proper leadership from Muslim women—not just their participation, willing or otherwise, but their proper leadership? In that way, she will achieve better, more constructive results.

[Baroness Cox]

I indeed give that assurance. It speaks exactly to my own commitments, so I am to offer it unequivocally.

Briefly, I respond in two ways to the points made by the Minister in putting the Government’s position. First, I am not sure whether during my speech the Minister heard me clearly take on the point of arbitration. I said that we will amend the Bill to meet exactly the concerns that he raised in his response to the debate. That point has been anticipated and dealt with.

Secondly, the position of the Minister and the Government is, among others, that the Bill is unnecessary because Sharia courts are not proper courts with powers of jurisdiction. The Minister made the point that every citizen in the country has access to the UK justice system. However, the power of Sharia councils lies in how they are perceived by their communities, allowing the creation of de facto legal structures and standards which contradict fundamental British legal principles—and the fundamental principle in this country of promoting gender equality and eradicating gender discrimination. Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Deech just highlighted, many Muslim women do not know what legal rights are available to them. Social or religious pressure is often put on them to participate in proceedings of a profoundly discriminatory nature. The Government do not seem to recognise the very real existence of an enormous disparity between the de jure situation and the de facto reality that causes such problems for so many women in this country today.

In due course and with the benefit of the further findings which will become available, I hope that we may help the Government to move in a more sympathetic direction to consider the much-needed measures to address the problems which currently threaten that fundamental principle of one law for all and alleviate those problems associated with gender discrimination which cause so much suffering to so many women in the country today. If the Minister had met some of the ladies who gave evidence to our briefing sessions, heard their stories and realised that they are just the tip of the iceberg—they speak about so many other women who dare not come forward because of the intimidation and pressure in their communities—then he would take the suffering more seriously than perhaps the timescale he has set out indicates.

I repeat my gratitude to all noble Lords in the Chamber today and to the many others—as I said, too many to name—who support this initiative. It seeks to protect our precious heritage of the legal system enshrined in our democracy and our much cherished commitment to the eradication of gender discrimination. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 2.23 pm.