House of Commons
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
1. What progress he has made on his review of the prison regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
We are reviewing what is called the incentives and earned privileges scheme to ensure the public can be confident that any privileges earned in prison are gained through hard work and good behaviour. We want this to be a comprehensive review and its findings will be available in due course. I can tell my hon. Friend that, for example, the situation whereby some prisoners have access to Sky subscription TV channels, which many of our constituents cannot afford, will not be allowed to continue.
Mel Stride
I congratulate my hon. Friend on placing mentoring at the centre of prisoner rehabilitation. My constituent Mary Stephenson is running a scheme called “belief in change”, which is currently under threat from the withdrawal of EU funding. Would my hon. Friend meet me and Mary Stephenson to see whether there is anything we can do to help assist that project?
Jeremy Wright
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent. He will be pleased to learn that the system we have in mind for dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders will reward those who have good ideas—ideas that work—in driving down the reoffending rate. He is right that we want to see more mentoring, as we believe it is very effective. Many other things will be affected, too, and we look forward to hearing about them.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Last month, the Secretary of State announced the immediate closure of seven prisons. When will the replacement prison, referred to in the same statement, be constructed?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Gentleman knows that what we announced was to investigate the feasibility of a large prison. We also announced that we will build 1,200 places or thereabouts at prisons that already exist. We will look carefully at all proposals made to us for suitable sites for a large new prison. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one possibility is a site in north Wales, which councillors in his area are extremely keen that we consider carefully.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In widening the system’s capacity for delivering work, what progress has the Minister made with getting ONE3ONE Solutions on to the Government’s preferred supplier list?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend will know that we are very keen to look not just at direct contracts from Government work but at other work for ONE3ONE Solutions to pursue. We want to make sure, of course, that there is a balance to ensure that ONE3ONE Solutions is not closing out jobs that could be provided to British firms elsewhere. We will want to make sure that it has the maximum opportunities to pursue those jobs within prison that will help prisoners learn skills—both hard skills and soft skills—as this was an agenda that my hon. Friend was successful in pursuing as my predecessor.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Much was made in the Government’s announcement on the prison regime at the weekend of the ability of gay inmates to share cells. As far as I am aware, that is already not permitted, so will the Minister inform us how many gay inmates have been sharing cells with their partners, or is this further evidence of the announcement being designed to chase the headlines?
Jeremy Wright
The point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was making—frankly, I would be surprised if the hon. Lady disagreed with it—was that it is clearly not appropriate for someone to live in that form of domestic arrangement while in custody. It is important that prisons are safe, secure and decent, but it is equally important that their regimes are properly austere and that the public have confidence in the way in which people act while they are in prison.
Jenny Chapman
I think the Minister makes my point for me: the Government do not know the figure, and this was clearly about the headlines. However, while the Secretary of State has been fretting over the weekend about the pocket money, the trainers and the overalls of inmates, he has failed to keep the most dangerous prisoners locked up. Indeterminate sentences help keep offenders inside until they are safe to release. The governor of Whatton prison, Lynn Saunders, told The Guardian:
“I think I am fairly liberal in my attitude—I haven’t come across anyone”
serving indeterminate sentences for public protection—
“in this prison who I didn’t think should have an IPP. Not one.”
Why did this Government abolish indeterminate sentences, putting the public’s safety at risk?
Jeremy Wright
I think the hon. Lady knows very well that we have replaced IPP sentences with extended determinate sentences. We have also introduced a mandatory life sentence for a second very serious violent or sexual offence. Those are entirely sensible sentencing approaches. The position with IPPs had become a disorganised and chaotic one, which we could not allow to stand. I am afraid that that is another classic example of the last Government’s introducing a measures that they had not thought through properly.
I also think that the hon. Lady is entirely wrong to minimise the seriousness of the need to ensure that the regime in prison commands public confidence. If she believes that the public take no interest in what happens to prisoners while they are there and in the privileges to which they have access, I think she is wrong, and if she believes we should leave the position as it is, she should say so.
Mr Speaker
I do not know whether the Minister wants an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I am sorry to tell him that that answer was far too long. We need to speed up.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
2. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of his proposals for the probation service on low and medium-risk offenders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
The proposals in our “Transforming justice” consultation paper are designed to deliver a criminal justice system that punishes offenders properly and helps them to get their lives back on track. We want providers of rehabilitation services to tackle the root causes of offending, and to ensure that they have the right package of support to help offenders to turn their lives around. We will announce further details of our proposals once we have considered the responses to the consultation.
Kelvin Hopkins
Lower-risk, profitable components of the probation service are to be handed to the private sector. Yet again, the Government are simply putting public money into deep private pockets and bringing additional costs into the system. Given the year-by-year decline in reoffending, why are they intent on unleashing a potentially risky and certainly costly upheaval of the existing system, rather than investing to improve it?
Jeremy Wright
The first point to make is that we do not think that what we propose will be more expensive than the current arrangements. Quite the reverse: we think that it will save the taxpayer money. The second point is that we intend to bring in good ideas from not just the private sector but the voluntary sector, so that we can start to drive down those all-important reoffending rates. The argument for opening up rehabilitation to other agencies, private and voluntary, was advanced by the last Labour Government during the passage of the Offender Management Act 2007: we are simply implementing their idea. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman was not persuaded on that occasion either.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend assure us that providers will be commissioned to tackle the root causes of reoffending, and that they will help offenders to turn their lives around by, for example, providing mentors and signposts to employment training opportunities, as well as mental health and anti-addiction services?
Jeremy Wright
There are many reasons why someone might be leading a chaotic lifestyle, and if we really want to get to the bottom of reoffending and to turn lives around, we need to address them. My hon. Friend is right to focus on addiction, and he is also right to focus on employment. We know that one of the most effective ways of rehabilitating people is to get them into work, and that is certainly the sort of thing that we expect providers to do under the new system.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
May I ask the Minister about community sentences? If an individual has not performed as he or she should, who will assess, against the usual criteria, whether there has been an actionable breach? Will it be an inexperienced privateer, or will it be a fully qualified probation officer—who, incidentally, will have had no previous contact with the individual concerned?
Jeremy Wright
The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that a public sector probation officer will make the judgment on whether a breach should be subject to action. Those providing interventions will be obliged to supply information about what has happened, but the judgment will be made by the probation officer.
The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that, in a great many cases, a large number of the interventions provided for those who have been sentenced under community orders are made by the voluntary sector. It is not true that probation officers currently do everything themselves, and the flow of information between them and those who do is generally very good.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
3. What progress he has made on his plans for the probation service; and if he will make a statement.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The Ministry of Justice recently published the consultation paper “Transforming Rehabilitation—a revolution in the way we manage offenders”, which sets out our plans for reforming the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in the community. The consultation closes on 22 February 2013, and we will announce further details of our proposals once we have considered the responses.
Mrs Glindon
Under the Secretary of State’s proposals, services will be fragmented across a wide range of providers and will be rewarded through payment by results, which will prevent public sector probation trusts from competing for those services. So how will he ensure that the high levels of performance now provided by probation trusts in protecting the public and reducing reoffending will be maintained?
Chris Grayling
Let us be clear about why we are doing this: reoffending rates in this country have barely changed in 10 years, and it is not true to say that we are getting the kind of performance across the probation service that the hon. Lady suggests. There is good work being done in the probation service, in the voluntary sector and in the private sector, and my aim is to have a package of proposals that brings to bear the strengths of all three in reducing reoffending rates.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Why have the Government come up with the idea that the commissioning of probation services should be done by a national body, rather than a local or regional one, given that that undermines the way in which local bodies concerned with preventing crime can work together and the ability of local and regional voluntary sector organisations to take part?
Chris Grayling
There are two reasons. First, we do not believe that the expertise exists on a localised basis to procure payment by results in an ambitious way—the kind we are proposing. Secondly, many probation trust management teams are enthusiastic about being part of the contracted-out world themselves, so I hope and expect that we will see some of them forming partnerships and creating new bodies that will take the service forward.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
4. When he last met the Joint Committee on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I have not met the Joint Committee on Human Rights since I became Secretary of State for Justice. I was due to attend an evidence session before the Joint Committee on the Government’s human rights policy on 18 December 2012, but the meeting was postponed and will now take place on 12 February 2013.
Simon Hughes
I look forward to the Secretary of State’s visit. When we were debating the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, before he took over as Secretary of State, his Department gave a commitment to review legal aid, particularly in relation to immigration and asylum, a year later. The Committee is now addressing that issue in relation to unaccompanied minors. Will he look at the evidence being given, address that issue before he comes to meet the Committee and see whether we ought not to amend the legal aid arrangements so that vulnerable people with immigration or asylum issues get the proper legal support and advice they need?
Chris Grayling
I am very happy to give that commitment and to look at that issue before the evidence session, and I look forward to discussing these issues with my right hon. Friend and his colleagues.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
It seems that the Government’s process on reviewing human rights legislation is, to put it kindly, somewhat slow, at a time when the practical implications are more urgent than ever, not least in relation to gay marriage, which we will debate later. Will the Secretary of State speed up the process, as everyone wants to see that?
Chris Grayling
As my hon. Friend knows, I feel strongly that we need to make changes to the human rights framework. Unfortunately, it is my belief that there is not a majority in this House for such changes, and it will therefore fall to a future majority Conservative Government to deliver them.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the level of delay in criminal proceedings involving vulnerable witnesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
We want the criminal justice system to move faster, and deliver justice sooner for vulnerable witnesses and victims. We are looking at how to tackle delays across the criminal justice system to improve efficiency.
Ann Coffey
I thank the Minister for that reply. Victims of child sexual exploitation, already traumatised by their horrific experience, face gruelling cross-examination in court, often by multiple defence lawyers, in the process of justice. Does she agree that justice for those vulnerable witnesses is not served by lengthy adjournments—I am glad that she does—and that having specialist training in tackling child sexual exploitation would help judges better to balance the needs of victims and the accused in court proceedings?
Mrs Grant
I fully understand and sympathise greatly with what the hon. Lady has said, and I agree with her that concerns can affect a witness’s willingness to participate in the criminal justice system. That is why the Ministry of Justice is embarking on a strategy to improve efficiency and the effectiveness of the system. That work will look at the entire process, from offence to completion of the case. I have recently written to her about a case in her constituency. I hope she has received that letter and I am happy to meet her to provide further reassurance.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides the right special measures to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses so that they can give the best evidence possible?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would also add that the special procedure measures that are now available in the form of pre-trial familiarisation visits, support from the witness service, separate entrances, exits and waiting areas, and access to a live link can help to reduce the stress and anxiety of going to court. We are considering what more we can do to improve support, including using new technology to change how evidence is given.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Minister said in her recent interview with The Times that she believes that the new Victims Commissioner
“feels a wonderful opportunity…to see victims put at the heart of the justice system”.
Is that why the Victims Commissioner will do only 10 days a month and why, two months after the announcement, she still has not started? Is the Minister not guilty yet again of failing victims of crime?
Mrs Grant
The Victims Commissioner is a very able woman who is able to multitask, like many of us. We have had a number of meetings with her and she, like me, wants to put victims and vulnerable witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong. We are prioritising victims of serious crimes, victims who are persistently targeted and the most vulnerable victims so that they get the support and care they need.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of appeals related to the work capability assessment.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
Some 103,000 appeals against decisions related to the work capability assessment were disposed of between April and September 2012. The estimated total associated cost was £23.5 million. In the previous financial year, 189,000 appeals were made, at an estimated total cost of £45 million.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As he knows from his previous responsibilities, many of those appeals were a result of incorrect initial decisions in a work capability assessment. Given that Department for Work and Pensions figures that I have obtained show that more than 35,000 people in the support group have to repeat the WCA, including people with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and other progressive conditions, does the Secretary of State not accept that there would be less cost to his Department and therefore to the public if we stopped reassessing people who are not going to get better?
Chris Grayling
Of course, that is really a matter for the DWP. It is my job to provide an appeal route for those who wish to appeal, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that before I left my previous job I asked officials to change how we reassessed people who had been through an appeal so that there was a more sensible length of time between appeal and reassessment.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far more efficient throughout the entirety of government if the decisions that were made were right the first time? The work capability assessments have not delivered that since they were introduced by the previous Government. Will he talk to colleagues in the DWP to try to ensure that decision making is right first time in the interests of Government efficiency and of the people who undergo a lot of anxiety and worry as they go through the appeals process?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend will know that that was a matter of great concern to me in my previous job. None of us benefits from getting decisions wrong and a huge amount of effort has been put into getting them right. Of course, our Department must provide a route for appeals when they are necessary, but I can assure him that a huge amount of effort goes into trying to ensure that we get decisions right first time.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
7. If he will consider increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from a maximum of six months to a maximum of 12 months for the purpose of making greater use of magistrates’ courts.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
We are considering a number of ways to make the best use of magistrates’ courts, including the option of increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our priority in the short term, however, is to extend supervision to short-sentenced prisoners to ensure they receive supervision on release to help them stop offending.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has clearly been undertaking work experience on a farmyard. We are grateful for his contribution.
Mr Hollobone
Kettering is fortunate to have an excellent bench of magistrates and the whole nation should be grateful for the tremendous unpaid work carried out by 24,000 magistrates up and down the country. Is the Minister aware that £40 million could be saved in the criminal justice system were he to undertake this simple revision of magistrates’ powers? Justice would be better, cheaper, quicker and more local as a result.
Damian Green
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s high regard for magistrates both in Kettering and around the country. They are indeed volunteers who do a very good job. I am aware of the Magistrates Association’s proposals and the costings and savings that have been suggested. Those proposals bear scrutiny, because there will be second-order effects such as potentially more people in prison and more defendants electing to have a Crown court trial. As I said, the main thing to do is to ensure that people do not reoffend, which is why we have concentrated on extending supervision to short-sentence offenders.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that that puts pressure on jury service? A constituent of mine—an elderly 69-year-old lady who is not ill but slightly infirm—has been asked to do her third stint of jury service, and she has to take three buses to get to court. Is there anything the Minister can do about pensioners who have been asked numerous times to do jury service, are not capable of doing it, and do not want to do it?
Damian Green
I am slightly confused about why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question in relation to magistrates courts, which do not have juries. As the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) might well have the effect of more cases being heard in Crown courts, there would be more demand for juries. Jurors such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) would be more in demand, so I am not entirely sure that his question is in accordance with the original question.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I declare an interest, as my wife is a magistrate. Occasionally, she comes home in tears of frustration, because she and her colleagues have not been given the powers to enable them to do the job in the way in which they wish to do it. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider extending sentencing powers so that they can take some of the waiting and the queues out of justice in future?
Damian Green
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the queues, as he put it, in Crown courts in particular are coming down. We will consider the proposal from the Magistrates Association and others to increase the maximum sentencing length, but that has to be considered along with many other reforms that are needed to improve the process of justice throughout the criminal justice system.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I think that that sounded like a no to extending magistrates’ powers. In addition, a third of indictable offences of violence were dealt with by issuing cautions last year, rather than their coming to court. While the cautioning of violent and dangerous criminals is being dealt with outside court, minor offences are being sent to the Crown court. Does that not look incompetent, even by this Government’s standards? What does the Minister have against magistrates, and why is he treating them with contempt?
Damian Green
That is the most absurd interpretation of what I have just said—that I was considering the proposal originally made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). May I tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), given his way with the facts, that the use of cautions has come down considerably since the Government of whom he was a supporter were in power?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
8. How he plans to ensure that the voluntary and charitable sectors play a full role in the rehabilitation of offenders.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
Retaining the expertise and dynamism of the voluntary and community sector within the justice system is central to our approach. We have already announced an extra £500,000 of grant funding to support voluntary sector organisations, helping them to compete for contracts. My team and I are meeting a large number of such bodies early in this process to ensure that they are as fully on board as possible.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. His recent statement on transforming rehabilitation has the potential to be hugely positive for the voluntary sector, but it is crucial that charities can compete for contracts on a level playing field. What action have the Government taken to make sure that charities are not at a disadvantage when competing for contracts on a payment by results basis?
Chris Grayling
I would make two points to my hon. Friend. I absolutely agree with his premise but, first, the cash-flow element of the proposals that we have introduced will not be as tough as that for the Work programme. Part of the task is to pay for the requirements of the court, so the cash-flow situation will be rather different. Secondly, I am making sure that we really engage the social investment sector, which can play an important part in ensuring that voluntary sector organisations can compete on that level playing field and win on it.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that we privatised and contracted out hospital cleaning, and that led to MRSA. We privatised and contracted out school meals, and that led to turkey twizzlers. Why does he think that in relation to the probation service—such an important service—privatising and contracting out will lead to a better end?
Chris Grayling
If I am not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government who introduced the legislation that makes these changes possible. The Opposition say one thing one day and another thing the next. The truth is that reoffending rates in this country have barely changed in a decade, despite extra money being spent, and I want to bring those rates down.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
9. What plans he has for the modernisation of the prison estate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
Our strategy for the prison estate is to replace accommodation that is old, inefficient or has limited long-term strategic value with cheaper modern capacity. We also have a rolling programme of maintenance that prioritises our investment across the prison estate.
Jeremy Lefroy
Stafford prison was built in 1794 and is one of the most cost-effective in the estate. Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I visited Stafford and heard from prisoners of the work done by Joanne Tomlinson on anxiety management and how it had transformed their lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that modernisation is more about what goes on inside prisons than about the bricks and mortar?
Jeremy Wright
I certainly agree that what people do is just as important as where they do it, and I congratulate those involved in the work that he described at Stafford prison. However, very often what people do is despite the environment in which they are working, rather than because of it, and my hon. Friend will accept readily, I am sure, that where we can provide newer accommodation, it will make it easier for people to do the good work on rehabilitation that he and I both support.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that with 800 or 900 prisoners a year from north Wales going outside north Wales, there is a need for prison accommodation in north Wales, but that the debate that he is having now would be better served by more discussion, more plans and a meeting with Members of Parliament to see whether we can reach some consensus?
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support for a prison in north Wales. He might want to discuss the matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who may not necessarily agree with him. It would be wise for everyone to consider very carefully the proposals that will come forward for suitable sites. We will do that. We have identified north Wales as one of the places where there is a strategic need, so we will consider carefully any proposals that are made.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
10. What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of prisoners (a) entering and (b) leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
A survey of 1,435 prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in 2005 and 2006 showed that 45% of prisoners reported having taken a class A drug in the four weeks before custody. No recent estimate has been made of the proportion of prisoners leaving prison with an addiction to a class A drug.
Duncan Hames
I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I gently suggest that it would be worth while to have more recent estimates and to address the situation of offenders as they leave prisons? Has she ruled out suspicions of collusion by any prison staff in explaining why access to drugs in prisons is so widespread?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
We cannot break the devastating cycle of drugs unless we deal with the issue of drugs in prisons. Why does not the Government adopt the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, which are simple: mandatory testing of prisoners when they enter the prisons, and mandatory testing when they come out of prisons? That will give her all the figures she needs in order to deal with this serious problem.
Mrs Grant
We feel that investing in comprehensive testing may not be the best way to tackle the problem, but the Government welcome the Home Affairs Committee report, “Drugs: Breaking the Cycle”, and we will of course give careful consideration to all the findings and recommendations.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that at Ford prison in my constituency the independent monitoring board has reported that 85% of the prison population is involved in the use of spice, a synthetic cannabinoid. I am not convinced that current orthodoxies in the Prison Service to combat drugs in our prisons are working: is she?
Mrs Grant
Our plans to transform rehabilitation will radically change the way in which we manage offenders, and they will also provide much more effective support for offenders on release. Fewer prisoners are testing positive for drugs than at any time since 1996. However, there is still much more to do, and that will involve our working very closely with the Department of Health and others to provide the best possible recovery services.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
18. I am provoked by the very complacent answers that we have had. All the Government are offering is warm words on this. They say they have no recent evidence, but we all know from our own experience that not one single prison in the whole of Britain is free of illegal drugs. If the Government have no evidence of people going in as shoplifters and coming out as heroin addicts, the rest of society does have it. Should not the Government adopt a policy that is at least robust and realistic and look at the traffic between prison officers and prisoners on drugs?
Mrs Grant
As I made clear, we are looking carefully at the excellent report by the Home Affairs Committee. However, we genuinely believe that our transforming rehabilitation plans will provide much better continuity of care and help to get prisoners off drugs in the long term.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the legislation on squatting in residential premises introduced in 2012.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The offence came into force only on 1 September 2012, but early indications are that it is being enforced, and reports suggest that it is deterring would-be squatters from occupying other people’s homes.
Mike Weatherley
There are indications that as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 squatters are increasingly targeting commercial properties. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to evaluate the size of the problem of squatting in commercial premises nationally and to take action to amend the law if necessary?
Damian Green
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are monitoring this closely, because it is possible that displacement squatting, as it were, is happening. We are in the early stages of collecting evidence. If he has specific examples from his own constituency of squatters occupying non-residential buildings, we will look at it very carefully, because squatting is a damaging offence.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternatives to short-term prison sentences.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternatives to short-term prison sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Ministry of Justice has published evaluations of the effectiveness of community orders and custodial sentences in reducing reoffending. Reoffending rates are still too high, and that is why we have set out plans to transform rehabilitation.
Andrew Stunell
While there has been a very welcome fall in crime and antisocial behaviour, many victims still feel alienated by the justice system and its impenetrable sentencing guidelines. Will the Minister speed up the move to restorative justice so that victims can feel much more engaged and the community will benefit from the justice system?
Tim Farron
Government pilots show that restorative justice programmes have caused a 14% reduction in offending. What steps are the Government taking to roll out schemes more widely throughout the country? Will the Minister give a specific pledge to protect funding for projects such as the Sycamore Tree foundation at Haverigg prison in Cumbria?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree, though, that we have far too many people in prison and that when they get to prison not enough is done to turn them into good citizens? Is there not plenty of evidence that effective treatment outside prison, in the community, works? Can we not improve those alternatives, because the probation service is crucial in helping to make them effective?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point. Obviously, who goes to prison is a matter for the independent judiciary. Prison is absolutely the right place for some offenders, but I agree that for other offenders credible punitive community sentences can be a more appropriate disposal.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Has the Minister considered the effectiveness of short-term prison sentences for women, not only in reducing reoffending but the disruption and damage caused to dependent children by custodial sentences of a few weeks in prison?
Mrs Grant
Yes, I have considered that very carefully. Indeed, I have visited a number of facilities. I visited a wonderful facility in Gloucester a couple of weeks ago and will visit Alana House in Reading on Thursday to look at the exact issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Community sentences must, however, be credible as sentences and with the public. They cannot be fluffy options. They should have a punitive element and they should absolutely challenge the woman, or the man, to change her life. That is why the Crime and Courts Bill will require every community order to have a punitive element.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
13. What plans he has for the provision of prison places.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
We will always ensure there are sufficient prison places for offenders sentenced to custody by the courts, and we will seek to do so increasingly in cheaper, more modern accommodation. We intend there to be at least as many adult male prison places at the end of this Parliament as there were at its start.
Gordon Henderson
When considering any future extension of the prison estate, will my hon. Friend consider the Isle of Sheppey as a suitable location for that expansion?
Jeremy Wright
We will consider all reasonable bids. My hon. Friend knows that we have looked, and are looking, into the feasibility of a new large prison. We have identified three parts of the country where we think there is a particularly strong case, but we will look carefully at any reasonable bids.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
But of the Minister’s Department’s plans to resurrect Titan prisons, an Economist headline said, “You can’t keep a bad idea down”. Why the U-turn in Tory prisons policy after four years?
Jeremy Wright
Do let us remember whose bad idea it was. We are not resurrecting it; we are talking about a prison that is economically viable and that will save the taxpayer money, but it may not and almost certainly will not be exactly what a Titan prison was. There are many ways of doing this. We could, for example, have a number of smaller institutions on one site and still achieve the same economies of scale. The hon. Gentleman should not believe that this Government will make the same mistakes as his made.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
15. What progress his Department is making on the use of prisoner transfer agreements to allow the removal of foreign prisoners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
We are working hard across Government to remove foreign national offenders from this country. Last year we removed more FNOs under prisoner transfer agreements than the year before. We recently made our first transfer under the European Union PTA and signed a compulsory PTA with Albania, which is the first time we have done so with a high-volume FNO country.
Jeremy Wright
They have. We signed the agreement with Albania earlier in January, which is very recently indeed. We hope that we will start making returns under that agreement very shortly. As I have said before, it is important that the agreements, wherever we can negotiate them, are compulsory prisoner transfer agreements so that prisoners do not have the choice about going back.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
16. What his Department’s policy is on reform of judicial review.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
As set out in our recent engagement exercise “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”, our policy is to reduce the burden on public services of ill-founded judicial review applications, while protecting access to justice and the rule of law. We are working with the judiciary to ensure that we achieve that balance.
Mr Bain
Has the Secretary of State not seen Liberty’s response to his consultation on judicial review, which finds no statistical or any other evidence that it impedes growth or stifles innovation? Why does the Secretary of State believe it is right to remove rights from local communities and vulnerable people in immigration cases just to find an excuse for why this economy has not grown in five of the past nine quarters?
Chris Grayling
The problem with judicial review is that it has mushroomed beyond any expectation. It started with a few hundred cases when it was first introduced and there are now more than 10,000 a year. Often, those judicial review processes are based on a public relations exercise or an attempt to derail the reform temporarily by using a technicality. Judicial review should be a genuine process to challenge the public authorities when they get it wrong; it should not be an excuse to fly a kite.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
17. If he will develop a feedback process to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for the overturning of employment and support allowance decisions by tribunal judges.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals’ decisions is a matter for the judiciary. However, as the hon. Lady will remember, in my previous role we put in place new arrangements last year. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is now working with the DWP to evaluate the findings so that decision making can be improved wherever we can do so.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, his successor as employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), told the Work and Pensions Committee that it was important to expand the reasons given by tribunals far beyond those on the dropdown menu, so that opaque statements such as “cogent oral evidence” are not given as the reason for an appeal being upheld. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those reasons will be expanded greatly?
Chris Grayling
Of course, the intention of the change was to identify relevant information that would improve decision making. We have learned quite a lot from the dropdown menu. The two Departments will of course discuss any improvements that will increase the quality of decision making and reduce the number of appeals.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
Since becoming Justice Secretary, I have embarked on a programme of delivering more for less and of boosting public confidence in the justice system. We are consulting on transforming rehabilitation and will shortly be considering reforms to youth justice.
In the past, my Department has routinely undertaken 12-week written consultations in some areas, including legal aid. I want to be clear that although the Government still want to hear the views of stakeholders and the public on many matters, they should no longer expect a 12-week consultation, even where that has been the practice in the past. Instead, in line with the new Cabinet Office principles, we will take a fresh look across all areas at whether, how and for how long we should consult, according to what is appropriate and proportionate in each case.
Gordon Henderson
I was going to use this opportunity to follow up on my previous question, but since I got a good answer, I will not bother.
Mr Speaker
I think that the hon. Gentleman has created a precedent, but I do not know whether it will ever be followed.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I only wish that I had received a good answer from the Justice Secretary. He has been busy in recent weeks chasing headlines with general statements on everything from Titan prisons to spartan prisons, and from gay prisoners to smacking children. May I ask him about the specifics? I note that his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), could not answer earlier, but then he did not do the media appearances. When will the first Titan prison open, where will it be and how much will it cost?
Chris Grayling
We are not planning to build a Titan prison. We have a very good model for prison development in Oakwood, which opened recently in the west midlands. That site has multiple blocks and first-class training facilities. To my mind, it is an excellent model for the future of the Prison Service. We are looking at a number of sites and hope to reach a decision in the next few months on the best option. I would like to open a new generation prison as quickly as possible, because it will save the taxpayer money and the facilities will be better.
Sadiq Khan
Four weeks ago, the Justice Secretary announced to the BBC, Sky and anyone else who would listen that he was going to open new super-mega Titan prisons in the near future and that he would undertake feasibility studies. Given his comments on Sunday, can he tell the House how many current prisoners are gay and are sharing a prison cell with another gay person?
Chris Grayling
I do not know how many people in prison are gay. I want to ensure that the regime in our prisons is appropriate, commands the confidence of the public and provides an appropriate environment for rehabilitation and training. We must have a prison system in which everyone can have confidence.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
T3. An increasing number of international companies are looking to the UK for its legal services. That trade creates billions of pounds for our economy. Will the Minister tell the House what plans there are further to promote British legal services abroad?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
As my hon. Friend knows, our legal firms and educational establishments are great assets to this country. The Ministry of Justice continues to work very closely with UK Trade & Investment and the profession to promote those wonderful services overseas. I am sure that my hon. Friend would take great joy in looking at the Unlocking Disputes campaign, which is a good example of recent fruitful activity.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
T4. The Teesside coroner takes almost twice as long as the national average to conclude inquests, causing further anguish to grieving families. This matter has been raised many times with the Ministry. Why on earth, given his failing and unprofessional service, is the coroner still in post? What steps will the Secretary of State take to remove him?
Chris Grayling
I will not give a detailed response in the Chamber but I am happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman. I take seriously any concern about the effectiveness of the judiciary—which is, of course, independent—and I also take seriously my responsibilities as Lord Chancellor. I will look into the issue.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
T8. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to improve the youth detention system, and in particular to ensure that the great work done by secure children’s homes continues?
Chris Grayling
As I indicated earlier, I intend to bring forward shortly a consultation paper on the youth estate. Our challenge at the moment is that across the youth estate we are detaining a small number of young people at a very high cost and with an unacceptably high reoffending rate—something like 70%. I want to see whether there is a better way of doing things to reduce that reoffending rate and help turn the lives of those children around.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
T5. This morning I met Bill Waddington, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association. Despite what the Minister said in response to an earlier question, I was assured that there has been a sharp increase in cautions for serious offences, including sexual offences and violent assault. That is soft on criminals and harsh on victims. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Bill Waddington to discuss the issue?
Chris Grayling
I take seriously the issue of cautions being administered for serious offences. Indeed, one of the first things I did as Justice Secretary was commission work on the issue, and I am due to meet senior police officers to discuss it in the next few days. I do, however, caution the House to be careful. For example, we would all view a caution for rape as completely unacceptable, but in some cases where the victim is absolutely unwilling to give evidence it may be the only way to get something on the record about an offender. We must be careful about this issue and try to get it right.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T10. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential to reduce reoffending by providing treatment in prisons for gambling addiction?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
We recognise that prisoners have a variety of causes for their offending and my hon. Friend is right to highlight one of them. We want to ensure that prisoners have access to the necessary schemes and interventions—both in prison and through the gate to the outside—to deal with whatever their issues may be. I will certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend says about gambling and at whether more can be done.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
T6. Just when MPs of all parties are seeing growing demand for housing, including as a consequence of the Government’s welfare and benefit changes, eight Shelter housing advice centres are scheduled to close. Those centres are lifelines to those in housing need, often at a time of crisis in their lives. Will the Secretary of State meet me and hon. Members from all political parties who are concerned about how to support those in housing need in their constituencies?
Chris Grayling
We will always discuss concerns that Members of this House have about their constituencies, but Labour Members must understand that we are dealing with an unprecedented financial crisis. We inherited from them a situation in which this country was borrowing £1 for every £4 that it spent. That inevitably means tough decisions that they may not always like.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Magistrates courts in Swindon and Wiltshire are about to make important decisions about the allocation of crime and family work. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and those on local magistrates benches to ensure that very long journeys in order to access justice do not become the norm?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. Like me, I am sure that he will welcome the work done by the Courts Service to produce alternative ways in which people can give evidence—video links and so on—which mean that some unnecessary journeys and waiting times in courts can be removed.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T7. There are 500,000 victims of sexual offences but only 5,600 convictions. Why does the Secretary of State think that the number of sex offenders who are prosecuted is falling under the coalition Government?
Chris Grayling
We take the whole issue of sexual offences very seriously, which is why one of the coalition commitments is to expand the availability of rape crisis centres. I visited the team running one such centre in Devon last week, and I pay tribute to them for their work. The Government will do everything they can to ensure that offenders and people who commit serious sexual offences are brought to trial. Any ideas that come through our rape crisis network of ways we could do that will be listened to.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I want to refer to the Justice Secretary’s proposals to reform the probation service. I have received a communication from the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire who expresses grave concern about the degree of consultation prior to that announcement, and about the level of involvement and discretion that the commissioners will have in providing those services locally.
Chris Grayling
One thing we are doing before launching our policy is consulting on the broad direction of travel. That creates an opportunity for police and crime commissioners and others with an interest to take part. We are listening.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
T9. Most people accept that there is a need for change in the motor accident claims sector, but is the Secretary of State satisfied that new plans to raise the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000 will ensure that accident victims continue to find adequate independent local advice and access to justice?
Chris Grayling
I think the new plans will do that. Indeed, I think there is a case for saying that the small claims court limit of £5,000 is too low. I am keen for people to have access to a proper legal process, but the benefit of the small claims court is, in part, arbitration. The plans make the process simpler and cleaner for people who have been through a difficult time.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Last month in Bradford, Qamar Malik was one of the last people to be locked up on an indeterminate sentence for public protection. Malik is a dangerous, predatory paedophile who was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assaulting a six-year-old girl and of twice attempting to abduct a 12-year-old girl. Under his IPP, he will not be released until he is considered safe to be released, but under the Government’s new regime people such as Malik will be released whether or not they are safe to be released. How does that make my constituents any safer?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend knows how I hate to disagree with him, but he needs to recognise that we are replacing IPP sentences with measures that are just as tough and a lot more effective. The truth is that if someone is convicted of offences of a very serious nature, the judge has the option of passing the ultimate indeterminate sentence—a life sentence—if that is merited. We are therefore taking measures to protect the public. We are replacing an ineffective sentencing regime with a much more effective one.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
As the Minister progresses his plans for probation services, what consultations has he had with the devolved Administration? When did he last meet the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and were probation services on the agenda?
Chris Grayling
I last met the Northern Ireland Justice Minister about 10 days ago and am meeting him again tomorrow. No doubt probation services will be one thing we discuss.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the renewed threat that convicted terrorists will pose to society on release and the amount of security and intelligence resources that will have to be devoted to monitoring them, will the Minister confirm that the use of automatic early release would be entirely inappropriate for them?
Jeremy Wright
Our expectation would be that people receive an extended determinate sentence for an offence of terrorism, under which release would not be automatic. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Further to that question, the Minister recently confirmed in a written answer that 12 terrorists convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006 will be released from prison this year. How does he intend to ensure that the probation trusts responsible for their supervision have the necessary additional resources?
Jeremy Wright
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the arrangements made for offenders of that nature will be multi-agency public protection arrangements. We want to ensure that local authorities and all other agencies responsible for joining in under MAPPA have the support they need. We will look carefully at what he has said and ensure that that happens in each of those examples.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Magistrates courts play a key role in the administration of justice in the UK, but too often their operation can be deeply chaotic—it can be unclear when cases will be heard, cases start and stop, and it is hard to follow proceedings. Will the Department consider reorganising how magistrates courts work so we get efficient and clear administration of justice in them?
Damian Green
I am at one with my hon. Friend on that. I visit magistrates courts and was at Maidstone recently to see a very well run magistrates court—it is well run not least because the court officials and those feeding the court can use new technology, which, increasingly, will speed up the process.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I thank the Ministry of Justice for granting the appropriate licence to the university of Leicester to exhume the remains that have turned out to be those of Richard III. Will the Minister confirm that under the terms of the licence, it is up to the university to decide what to do with the remains and that the university has handed them to Leicester cathedral and that Richard III will be buried there?
Chris Grayling
On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate all of those who have been involved. It is an historic occasion and an extraordinary piece of history. I hope everyone will come together for a proper service to mark the occasion, and for a formal internment in the cathedral.
Mr Speaker
We are not debating the question of whether Richard III incurred parking fines.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I have been in touch with the Youth Justice Board about the decision to change Ashfield young offenders institution into an adult prison. I am told that young offenders from the Bristol area will now be sent as far away as Feltham. I am concerned about their contact with their families, chances of rehabilitation and so on. What reassurance can the Minister give me that those facts will be taken into account?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady puts her finger on one of the great difficulties we have with the youth justice estate. As numbers drop, it is inevitable that we will need to re-roll capacity, and that could mean young offenders and their families being further away from home. However, we will do everything we can for each reallocated young person to ensure that they are as close to home as we can make it. She will recognise that not everybody at that young offenders institution comes from the Bristol area, so it may be that some will be nearer to home.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am immensely grateful to the Minister. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but Chris Ruane will have to have the last question.
Chris Ruane
You have not disappointed me, Mr Speaker. The prisons Minister misunderstood the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on the issue of a prison for north Wales. Will he meet north Wales MPs of all parties to discuss this important issue, in the interests of clarity?
Jeremy Wright
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is interested in clarity, because Government Members have been somewhat confused about what the Labour party in north Wales wants. Perhaps it would help if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were to meet their local councillors and decide what the Labour party in north Wales wants. We will then be happy to talk to them.
Points of Order
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for a Minister to refuse to meet hon. Members to discuss important matters relating to their constituencies. It seems extraordinary that a Minister has refused three times to meet elected Members of Parliament, who should be given respect.
Mr Speaker
Even if something is extraordinary, that does not necessarily render it disorderly. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter between the Minister and the Member. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If the Minister wants briefly to respond, he can.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, because I want to ensure, in the interests of clarity, that the hon. Gentleman understands what I have just said: once he and his colleagues have worked out what it is they want, I am very happy to meet them.
Mr Speaker
I hope there is just a possibility of an outbreak of harmony, but as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is on his feet I somewhat doubt it.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that right hon. and hon. Members have only two privileges that are not available to every citizen in this country? One is freedom of speech in this Chamber, subject to your rulings, and the other is access to Ministers.
Mr Speaker
I am reluctant to enter into a debate on this matter. The first point is unarguable; the second is something about which I have just opined. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to lure me further, because that would be unfair and the right hon. Gentleman would never knowingly be unfair.
Building Regulations (External Retaining and Load-Bearing Walls)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Building Regulations (2010) to include regulation of external retaining and load-bearing walls; and for connected purposes.
On 26 July 2008, the lives of my constituents, Peter and Lindsay Burgess, were changed for ever. At the time, the Burgesses were living in Meliden, in Denbighshire, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is in his place. Mrs Burgess, accompanied by her three-year-old daughter Meg and 18-month-old son Wilson, had been for a walk to the local shop.
On the way home, while Mrs Burgess pushed Wilson in his pram, her daughter, Meg, followed a few steps behind. With no warning, a 72-foot-long section of wall collapsed, spilling tonnes of rubble, breeze-blocks and earth over the pavement and burying Meg. Mrs Burgess screamed, pulled at the rubble with her hands and tried to pull Meg out, but unfortunately Meg was declared dead 10 minutes after arriving at Glan Clwyd hospital in nearby Bodelwyddan. Tragically, Meg was crushed to death as a 5-feet 2-inch wall fell on top of her. The 72-foot-long wall was built of 9-inch breeze-blocks right next to the pavement, and fell pretty much in one piece under the weight of 26 tonnes of rubble piled up behind it.
This was not a typical garden wall; it was a large-scale engineering project, but the materials used to build it were not adequate for its purpose. The wall had not been properly anchored into the ground, no measures had been taken to protect pedestrians walking along the pavement, and it collapsed just moments after it had been backfilled. The builder, George Collier, was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence at Mold Crown court in October and was given a two-year jail sentence. Officially, justice has been done, but Meg should never have been killed in the first place, because the wall should have been built safely.
The pain and anguish that Mr and Mrs Burgess have dealt with these past four years are unimaginable to everyone in the Chamber, yet they have carried themselves with incredible dignity and strength, and now that they have achieved justice for Meg, they are determined that no one else should have to go through what they have been through. That is why they have set up Meg’s campaign, which seeks to license the domestic building trade in the UK and to bring free-standing, load-bearing and retaining walls within the scope of building regulations. Today’s motion seeks to address one part of Meg’s campaign, and I hope that it finds favour on both sides of the House.
Meg is not the only person to have been killed or injured by a collapsing wall. The exact numbers are difficult to quantify, but a written parliamentary question I asked last year revealed that, on average over 10 years, more than 1,000 injuries a year were caused by the collapse or partial collapse of exterior walls. Significant numbers of people are injured every year, yet changes to building regulations have not been forthcoming.
On behalf of Mr and Mrs Burgess, I would like to express gratitude to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), for meeting us in December to discuss the intricacies of Meg’s campaign and to thank him for the promises he made and for his commitment to ensure that local authorities are fully aware of their current responsibilities in relation to dangerous structures.
Nevertheless, more needs to be done. As things stand, retaining and load-bearing walls are not covered by building regulations. There are centrally available guidelines about how a retaining wall should be built, but sadly they are not always adhered to. A Department for Communities and Local Government consultation document published in January 2012 revealed that more than 50% of small builders surveyed did not follow any form of official guidance for building walls.
The fact is, Mr Speaker, that you and I could go out this afternoon, watch a video on YouTube, erect a 5-foot wall and pile up tonnes of rubble behind it, and there would be no obligation on us to seek official guidance or consult experienced structural engineers and building control would not need to inspect our work. In Meg’s case, despite the builder’s 30 years of experience in the groundworking trade, he chose to cut corners and build a wall without the structural integrity required to retain the weight he planned to pile against it. Had the builder followed the guidelines, Meg would still be alive today.
That is the crux of the issue. Although the builder clearly did not follow construction guidelines, at no point did anyone check whether he had done so. Had retaining walls been included in building regulations, the property owner would have had to submit plans for the wall to the local authority for approval and to indicate its purpose as a retaining wall, the design would have had to incorporate the additional strengthening measures required for it to carry weight and the work would have had to be inspected before any earth was piled against it. Any building inspector would have instantly seen that the proposals for the wall were not up to scratch and that it would be unlikely to support its own weight, let alone the weight of rubble and earth piled up behind it. Any building inspector would have been able to see that the wall was not strong enough. No earth would have been piled up behind the wall, and Meg would still be alive today. Instead, Mr Collier thought he could get away with saving a few hundred pounds on materials, and a few hours of labour. As a result, a young child is dead.
This motion would enable a Bill to come before the House to bring retaining and load-bearing walls within building regulations. This is a simple, straightforward proposal for which other countries across the world have seen fit to legislate. In Australia, for example, any retaining wall over 1 metre in height requires development approval. They have also been legislated for in a number of US states, for instance in Colorado, where any retaining wall over 3 feet high requires a site plan to be submitted and a permit to be obtained from county planning departments. In the Republic of Ireland, planning permission is required for retaining walls over a certain height, depending on the local authority responsible.
Regulation of retaining walls is not without precedent in the UK either. Section 5 of the Hastings Borough Council Act 1988 states that
“no retaining wall shall be erected otherwise than in accordance with plans, sections and specifications approved by the Borough Council”.
Therefore, in the borough of Hastings—indeed, in the borough of Hastings alone—by Act of Parliament, anyone who wishes to erect a retaining wall over 1.5 metres in height must have their plans approved by the borough council.
Although I understand that local authorities may object on the grounds of increased work load, the Hastings Act shows how simple and straightforward it would be for them to administer such a proposal. I am totally supportive of the Government’s red tape challenge, but this is a potentially life-saving measure that could, and should, be adopted as soon as possible.
I am delighted by the huge number of hon. and right hon. Members who have chosen to pack this Chamber for this ten-minute rule Bill motion. I hope they will all join me in supporting the motion and in urging the Minister to consider carefully the merits of bringing retaining and load-bearing walls within the scope of building regulations. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Stephen Mosley, Chris Ruane, Chi Onwurah, John Stevenson, Stephen Metcalfe, Sarah Newton, Mr Alan Reid, Pamela Nash, Graham Stringer, Andrew Miller, Jim Dowd, Mike Weatherley present the Bill.
Stephen Mosley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013 and to be printed (Bill 132).
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 400 / Noes: 175 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 499 / Noes: 55 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 481 / Noes: 34 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 464 / Noes: 38 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
There is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, and 71 Members want to speak. We will do our best to accommodate them all, but it will be appreciated if Members do not keep coming up to the Chair asking whether, and if so, when, they will be called. They shall just have to be patient. We look forward to the debate.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr Speaker, you and I know that every marriage is different—indeed, any husband or wife of a Member of this House has a distinct set of challenges to face every day—but what marriage offers us all is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving stable relationship to strengthen us and mutual support throughout our lives. I believe that that should be embraced by more couples. The depth of feeling, love and commitment between same-sex couples is no different from that depth of feeling between opposite-sex couples. The Bill enables society to recognise that commitment in the same way, too, through marriage. Parliament should value people equally in the law, and enabling same-sex couples to marry removes the current differentiation and distinction.
There is no single view on equal marriage from religious organisations. Some are deeply opposed to it; others tell us that they see this as an opportunity to take their faith to a wider community.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give the House a cast-iron guarantee that, if the Bill becomes law, no religious denomination, no place of worship and no clergyman—or equivalent in other religions—will be forced through legal action in the courts or in the European Community to carry out weddings against their wishes?
Maria Miller
The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts some of the later parts of my contribution. I can tell him that we have taken seriously all the points that he has raised about the need for protection. He will see how we have put those measures in the Bill in some detail.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the letter that was written to hon. Members by Lord Carey of Clifton on the issue of equality between same-sex and different-sex couples? In it, he talks about
“the failure of the Government to address the important issues of consummation and adultery. While these concepts will continue to remain important aspects of heterosexual marriage, they will not apply to homosexual marriage. On the one hand, this does nothing to promote the ideal that marriage is both equal and should be a lifelong union.”
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend will know that there is already no legal requirement for consummation. Our provisions will mean that adultery stays as it is and that couples will have the opportunity to cite unreasonable behaviour, as do many already. The issues that he raises are dealt with very well in that way.
As I was saying, there is no single view on equal marriage from religious organisations. I also know that some colleagues in the House feel that they cannot agree with the Bill for principled religious reasons, and I entirely respect that stance. I do not think that it is the role of the Government to tell people what to believe, but I do think that Parliament and the state have a responsibility to treat people fairly.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Will the Minister take this early opportunity to confirm that the opponents of the Bill, including many hundreds of my constituents, are not homophobic, not bigots and not barking?
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I very much support the Bill, but I regret that it is being programmed. Consideration should be on the Floor of the House and there should be two days for the Second Reading debate so that those on both sides of the argument can fully express their views.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend knows that I take these matters very seriously indeed. We have to ensure that there is sufficient debate, and I think that we have made sure through the usual channels that that is the case. I hope that he will be pleased with the progress that we have made on that.
Maria Miller
I should like to make a little more progress. I will take some more interventions in a moment.
Some say that the Bill redefines marriage, but marriage is an institution with a long history of adaptation and change. In the 19th century, Catholics, Baptists, atheists and many others were allowed to marry only if they did so in an Anglican Church, and in the 20th century, changes were made to recognise married men and married women as equal before law. Suggestions that the Bill changes something that has remained unchanged for centuries simply do not recognise the road that marriage has travelled as an institution.
Mr Winnick
Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there was a great deal of opposition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967? I voted for the Bill, but there was much opposition to it. Does she agree that today hardly a single Member would wish to return to the situation prior to the 1967 Bill and that it is possible that if this measure is passed it will be generally accepted in the same way within a few years?
Maria Miller
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. What we have to do is not just legislate for today, but for the future.
Steve McCabe
I am going to support the Bill tonight because I think the principle is right: I am not sure why I should enjoy a right or a privilege that is denied to others. But why has the Minister not confined herself to civil marriage? Would that not be a much easier area for Parliament to deal with?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman will know that many religious organisations have expressed an interest in being able to undertake same-sex marriages. We believe it is right for them to be able to do that. That is why the Bill contains provisions for them to do that, if they so choose.
Maria Miller
If hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress, I shall take more interventions later.
As we have heard, marriage should be defended and promoted in every way. To those who argue that civil partnerships exist and contain very similar rights, that marriage is “just a word” and that this Bill is unnecessary, I say that that is not right. A legal partnership is not perceived in the same way and does not have the same promises of responsibility and commitment as marriage. All couples who enter a lifelong commitment together should be able to call it marriage.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I will vote for the Bill’s Second Reading because I support the principle that the Minister has just enunciated, but the last intervention made an important point about ensuring that we legislate carefully on those things that the state can deal with, which is civil marriage, and not trespass on religious beliefs. Will she make it absolutely clear that she will be open both in Committee and on Report to amendments that might give us a much better balance and be capable of reassuring many more people?
Maria Miller
My right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. What I can do is reassure him that we have been working very closely with the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and both organisations feel that there is a set of protections, which the Church of England in particular said it did not want to see changed.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On religious organisations, the Minister will know that 5% of the UK population is Muslim. What proportion of the Muslim community responded to the consultation? How many were for it and how many were against it? My understanding is that not a single mosque responded by supporting the redefinition of marriage.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend will know that this issue is not about numbers; it is about working together and providing protections to make sure that individuals from whatever faith group can continue to be assured that they can practise according to their faith. That is the point of today’s debate.
Caroline Lucas
I very much welcome the Bill, but does the Minister understand the disappointment of those who believe that the Church of England is not being given the choice accorded to other faiths to marry same-sex couples if they so choose and that far from being forced to marry same-sex couples, the Church of England is being forced not to marry them, even if some elements would like to do so?
Maria Miller
I can give the hon. Lady complete reassurance today that this Bill is not in any way trying to treat the Church of England or indeed the Church in Wales differently. The end result for the Churches will be exactly the same as for other religious institutions. The difference, of which I am sure she will be aware, is that the Church of England and the Church in Wales have different duties under common law to marry people in their parishes. The canon law of the established Church of England is part of the law of the land, so we need different measures in place to recognise those differences. I absolutely assure her that if either of those organisations chose to opt in to same-sex marriage, the provisions of the Bill would allow them to do so.
Maria Miller
If hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress, we can have further interventions later.
It is clear from the contributions we have just heard that there is no doubt about the fundamental importance of faith in this country today, but I do not believe that as a country we have to choose between religious belief and fairness for same-sex couples. It is important to remember that religious views on same-sex marriage differ, too. The Quakers, the Unitarians and the liberal Jewish communities have all said that they want to conduct same-sex marriages. Indeed, Paul Parker, who speaks for the Quakers, said that the first same-sex marriage in a Quaker meeting will be
“a wonderful day for marriage, and…religious freedom”.
We have to respect and take note of that.
Our proposals will ensure that all religious organisations can act in accordance with their beliefs because equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith come at the cost of equal marriage. We are capable of accommodating both. This Bill does so in a very straightforward manner.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady assure us that, if at any time in the future the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a church not wishing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony was in breach of a discrimination Act, we would defy the European Court and not try to placate it as we did over prisoner voting?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend will find the sort of detail and the assurances he is looking for in a later part of my speech.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of faith. I as a Christian have no worries about voting for this Bill. What greater example of the equalities agenda could there be than Jesus Christ himself?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which shows that views on this matter do not follow party lines or lines of membership of a particular religious institution, but are far more nuanced than that.
Maria Miller
Let me make a tiny bit of progress before taking further interventions.
I shall now deal with the Bill’s provisions. As hon. Members will know, it has three parts. Part 1 enables same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies and allows religious organisations to opt in, while protecting those that do not. It also protects religious ministers and allows for the conversion of a civil partnership to a marriage. Part 2 enables an individual to change their legal gender without having to end their marriage. It also provides for overseas marriages in consulates or on armed forces bases. Part 3 allows for the standard final provisions, including secondary legislation.
As hon. Members will have seen when they studied the detail of the Bill, I have been true to my word and ensured that there is clear protection of all religious organisations and ministers who are opposed to this measure. All religious organisations—whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or any other—will be able to decide for themselves if they want to conduct same-sex marriages. The Bill provides for and promotes religious freedom through the Government’s quadruple lock. These protections are absolutely carved on the face of the Bill and are the foundation on which the legislation is built.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Minister explain why the Government are bringing this Bill forward now when it was not in the Queen’s Speech, when it has not been the subject of a Green or a White Paper and when the Government promised to do other things, such as bring in married couple’s tax allowances, that they are not doing? Is not the truth of the matter that this is about low political calculation and detoxifying the Tory brand rather than anything to do with principle?
Maria Miller
The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that. What we are doing is clearly an important part of the way in which we can make this country a fairer place in which to live, and the measure was clearly flagged up in our document “A Contract for Equalities” at the time of the election. I can tell him that we will continue to work with our colleagues in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is the right recognition of English and Welsh same-sex marriages in that part of the United Kingdom as well.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister has referred to the protections in the Bill, but we have already seen the case of Mr Adrian Smith, who lost his job, spent an enormous amount of money on legal fees, and suffered a 40% cut in his salary after making a private comment on a Facebook site. How, in future, are we to protect people such as Mr Smith who are working in the public sector up and down the country?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend, who I know takes a deep interest in these matters, is entirely right to raise that point, but the case he has highlighted proves that individuals can express their religious beliefs. The court found in that individual’s favour, which I think is important and should be noted by employers throughout the country.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Minister has spoken about protections for religious ministers. Can she offer the same protections to registrars? Given that the number of mixed-sex marriages should not be expected to fall, can registrars be confident that even if they decline to take on and preside over the new same-sex marriage registrations, they will not lose their jobs or experience negative employment consequences?
Maria Miller
As my hon. Friend will know, civil registrars are public servants. Recent court rulings have made clear that they must balance carefully their right to a religious belief with their equal right to ensure that they provide services in a way that does not discriminate against individuals. It is a very difficult issue, but I know that he has raised it for the right reasons, and I am sure that it will be considered very closely in Committee.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Roman Catholic Spain legalised same-sex marriage in 2005. Does my right hon. Friend know whether there has been a single referral to the European Court of Human Rights?
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My right hon. Friend failed to answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Can she tell the House, and the people of this country, where she has a mandate to inflict this massive social and cultural change? It was not in our party’s manifesto, and the Prime Minister told Adam Boulton on Sky that he had no plans to introduce it. There are many major issues with which the country needs to deal. This is an irrelevance, and it should not be pursued through the House, least of all with a three-line Whip on a programme motion that gives us no real opportunity to debate it.
Maria Miller
My fellow Hampshire Member and I know that we disagree on this matter, but we do so in a very fair and even-handed manner, and I want to ensure that that fairness and even-handedness are present in all aspects of the Government’s policy. I think that there is an extremely strong argument for the Bill to be passed, and I am presenting it today. The purpose of parliamentary debates is to discuss such matters in more detail.
Maria Miller
I think that I should make a little more progress. I will take further interventions in a moment.
I know that for many of my colleagues, the crux of the issue lies in the protections that I have mentioned, particularly the protections for the Church of England and the Church in Wales. They have a unique position because of the legal duty of their clergy to marry their parishioners, and furthermore, because the Church of England is the established Church, its canon law is part of the law of the land. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the Bill provides for no disadvantageous or, indeed, favourable treatment for the Church of England or the Church in Wales. It simply provides a pragmatic way of putting them in essentially the same position as other religious organisations. If they decide that they want to marry same-sex couples, they can do so.
We have worked hard with a wide range of religious organisations, including both those Churches, to ensure that the protections in the Bill work. Indeed, the Church of England has commented on the constructive way in which we have consulted it about effective legal safeguards, ensuring that its concerns are properly accommodated. The Church in Wales has confirmed that the Bill gives it protection, while still enabling it to make its own decision on same-sex marriage.
Let me now turn to an issue that has already been raised many times today: the question of legal protections and the European convention on human rights. There has been much discussion about the powers of the European Court of Human Rights, but I believe that its case law is clear: the question of whether—and if so, how—to allow same-sex marriage must be left to individual states to decide for themselves.
“It is simply inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the eminent QCs Lord Pannick, Baroness Kennedy and Lord Lester.
The belief that the Court would order the UK to require religious organisations to marry same-sex couples in contravention of their religious doctrine relies on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions. The first is that the Court would need to go against its own clear precedent that countries have wide discretion in the matter of same-sex marriage. The second is that the Court would need to decide that the interests of a same-sex couple who wanted a particular religious organisation to marry them outweighed the rights and beliefs of an entire faith and its congregation as a whole. The third is that the Court would need to discount the importance of article 9 of its own convention, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That would be rewriting the rules not just for one religious organisation in England and Wales, but for all religious organisations in all 47 states of the Council of Europe. I believe that such an outcome is inconceivable.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Our sexuality is fundamental to who we are. Surely the crux of the debate is the question of whether we accord equal rights, respect and esteem to people regardless of their sexuality.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend has made her point very powerfully. We need to ensure that, as a society, we treat people fairly. That is at the heart of what we are talking about today.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for religious freedom. Did she observe the Church of England’s statement at the weekend that it was not realistic or likely that churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings?
Maria Miller
I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to make that point, because I do not want anyone to leave the debate without the right information on which to base their voting decisions. She has underlined the importance of the facts.
Maria Miller
I hope that Members will forgive me if I make a little more progress. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of interest in participating in the debate.
Members also need to understand the wider consequences of the Bill. The introduction of equal marriage will not marginalise those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman—that is clearly a mainstream view—but neither will it continue to marginalise those who believe that marriage can, and should, also be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. We will not allow one belief to exist at the expense of the other. No misguided sense of political correctness will be allowed to impinge on that. It would be deeply divisive if, in righting a wrong for some, we created a wrong for others.
No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views that go against their beliefs. No hospital chaplain or worker will have to believe in a new definition of marriage. No religious minister will have to conduct same-sex weddings. The changes that we are discussing will not affect anyone more than they are affected already by choosing to live in a society that values tolerance and respect among its citizens.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend think of anything in the Bill that would harm or disadvantage any heterosexual person, be they of faith or not, in any way whatsoever?
Maria Miller
No, I believe that strengthening marriage in the way we are talking about will be of benefit to all people in our society.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that she would not introduce a Bill to this House if it in any way impinged on the religious freedom of Churches or ministers. If, during the passage of this Bill, attempts are made by Members—from all parts of this House, given that we have a free vote—to unpick those locks or find other ways to introduce same-sex marriage into the Churches, will she then withdraw her support for the Bill?
Maria Miller
The Church of England itself has made clear the importance of keeping the protections that we have in place as they are, and I join my hon. Friend in saying that any manoeuvres such as he describes would be counter-productive.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
One key issue that has been raised with me is how schools, particularly faith schools, will handle the curriculum in relation to this matter. I am inclined to support the Bill, but will the right hon. Lady say a little more on this issue? She mentioned teachers, but how will this be handled in the school curriculum, particularly in faith schools?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman is right to bring that out in more detail. He will, of course, have read the Education Secretary’s words on this, which were reported widely over the weekend. The point to make clearly to the House is that teachers would, of course, be expected to explain—and as professionals, they would—the law on marriage, but what we never would expect a teacher to do is promote something that ran contrary to their beliefs or their religious beliefs. That is an important point to make, and perhaps it clears up some of the misunderstandings in some of the literature that has been put around in respect of today’s debate.
Maria Miller
I cannot say no to my hon. Friend, but then I must wind up my remarks.
Mr Brazier
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has taken a lot of interventions. She says that nobody will be forced to teach anything that goes against their conscience, but what will be the position for faith schools that wish to promote a particular Christian view, or indeed other faith view, of marriage? Will they continue to be allowed to do so? Will she guarantee that no teacher who actively does so will be sued or prosecuted?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend will know that clear provisions are already in place for faith groups and faith schools to be able to talk about their beliefs on issues such as marriage. As with many other areas, be they to do with divorce or with children being born outside marriage, teachers have to deal with the issues sensitively. That, of course, is the point he is getting at. Just to reiterate, we would expect teachers, as professionals, to explain these issues to the children they teach, but we would in no way require them to promote something that did not accord with their belief—their faith—and I think that is right.
Maria Miller
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will conclude in order to give individuals the time to make their own contributions.
Despite all the discussion and debate, this Bill is about one thing—fairness. It is about giving those who want to get married the opportunity to do so, while protecting the rights of those who do not agree with same-sex marriage. Marriage is one of the most important institutions we have; it binds families and society together, and it is a building block that promotes stability. This Bill supports and cultivates marriage, and I commend it to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the speech by the Minister for Women and Equalities and commend her on the manner in which she made it, while often under pressure. I also commend the considerable thoughtfulness and integrity with which she put her points today. I strongly support the approach she has taken, because today Parliament has the chance to support loving couples who want to get married. It has the chance to make some of the same-sex couples I have spoken to in the past few weeks very happy, as they may finally set a date for their wedding. I hope we will support the Bill today to give those couples the chance to wed, to be married and to have their relationship celebrated and valued by the state in the same way as everyone else’s.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
During the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill in 2004, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) pointed out to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting next to the right hon. Lady, that that Bill would inevitably lead on to gay marriage. The hon. Gentleman replied:
“The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken… I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense…because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 228.]
What has changed since then?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has since celebrated his own civil partnership as a result of that Bill. I am sure that he would have happily invited the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), had he had the chance to do so.
Let me deal with how civil partnerships are different. Civil partnerships have been a hugely important step forward and Labour Members are proud that our Government introduced them some years ago, but it is right that we now take the additional step of introducing equal marriage across the country. Of course people have strong views on marriage—on their own marriage and on other people’s—and I understand that some in this House are strongly opposed to the Bill. I respect their views although I disagree with them. I hope that is the spirit in which this debate will take place today.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The right hon. Lady talks about equality, so why are Labour Members not arguing in favour of heterosexual couples being able to access civil partnerships?
Yvette Cooper
That is a separate issue, on which there was no consultation. I am sure that there will be a debate on that in due course later in our consideration of the Bill, and I know that people have different views on it. I believe that the case for equal marriage is a very powerful one.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Is not the essential point that what was once the love that dared not speak its name will now have not only recognition in law, but equality before the law? Is that not something we should be proud of as a House?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is completely right to say that this Parliament should have pride in giving people equal rights to be respected and to have their relationships celebrated in the same way.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the institution of marriage can only be strengthened if in future all citizens enjoy equality before the law and the ability to marry the person they love, regardless of their gender?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Couples who love each other should be able to get married, regardless of their gender and sexuality. We should enjoy that and we should celebrate that. We all love a good wedding: we pause when we walk by a church or a registry office and we smile at the couple coming out in a cloud of confetti, because we think it is a great thing that a couple want to get married and want to celebrate that.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in this wonderful, tolerant and free society we live in, real equality exists when we can celebrate our differences?
Yvette Cooper
We should certainly celebrate the chance for people to get married. We should celebrate the fact that different couples want to get married—that is exactly what we should support. This is not just about the wedding; we love a wedding, but we also all love the idea of a long, stable marriage. We love the idea of a golden or diamond wedding anniversary, where the couple are still caring for each other, even though they are bickering over the biscuits. We also all clearly like a good party, too.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The right hon. Lady is asking us to accept her party’s bona fides in respecting religious freedom. Why did she fail to include views of traditional marriage as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, and fail to support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on the same issue last week?
Yvette Cooper
I do not think it is right for individual views within individual faiths to all be protected characteristics under the Equality Act. I do not think that is the appropriate way to go.
We all love the idea of a wedding, we all support the idea of a strong marriage and, clearly, we all like a good party. I notice that the Department’s impact assessment suggests that passing the Bill could lead to an extra £14 million being spent on celebrations, which is a lot of confetti and rubber chicken. I do not think that it will be quite enough to boost the economy and deliver plan B, but I guess the Chancellor needs all the help he can get.
Call us hopeless romantics or call it the triumph of hope over experience, but most of us think that when people love each other and want to make that long-term commitment, that is a wonderful thing. Why would we prevent a loving couple from getting married just because they are gay?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady not agree that she is confusing marriage with weddings? They are different things.
Yvette Cooper
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so gloomy about the fun of a wedding, which most of us think is an enjoyable way of starting off a marriage. I hope that he celebrates golden wedding anniversaries, diamond wedding anniversaries and long-term marriage.
Toby Perkins
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of the people who argued strongly and passionately against civil partnerships just a few years ago have no argument with them now and recognise that they have been a success? Perhaps in a few years’ time, the argument will have moved on and we will all be able to recognise that equality in our country is a good thing.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Members of this House who opposed civil partnerships now strongly support them. Members of the House of Lords, including bishops, voted against civil partnerships when they were introduced, yet many in the Church now support blessings for civil partnerships. Attitudes have changed and it is right that they have. We should support that and support them as they change further.
Yvette Cooper
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I want to make a little progress.
Ian Paisley
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but the facts paint a very different picture. Since same-sex marriages were introduced in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, the number of mixed-sex marriages has decreased considerably—indeed, by tens and tens of thousands—[Interruption.] The facts are clear. When they were introduced in Spain, 208,000 people were married in mixed-sex marriages, whereas last year 161,000 people were married in mixed-sex marriages, so the numbers are declining, not increasing. The introduction of this legislation could reduce the number of parties in which the right hon. Lady appears to be interested.
Yvette Cooper
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the long-term trends in marriage across a series of different countries, including those that have same-sex marriage and those that do not, he will struggle to find a causal connection suggesting that the fact that some gay and lesbian couples can now get married means that heterosexual couples are all running from the church door or the registry office.
It is worth hearing why many gay and lesbian couples say they want to get married. One gay man told me:
“My parents have a really strong marriage—I’ve always seen how meaningful and important it is. We want the same thing—it’s hard to explain but its about the value of our relationship. I want my nieces and nephews to feel that Uncle Adam and Uncle James are getting married, just like their Mum and Dad.”
Another said,
“we want to have the same celebration and status as our parents and grandparents—it’s about being normal. I want to have children. But I believe children are brought up better in a married relationship.”
Someone else said,
“I asked the question, ‘Simon will you marry me’ he said yes. I said ‘Marry me’, not ‘would you like a civil partnership’”.
Civil partnerships have been a fantastic step forward, providing for the first time proper legal recognition for same-sex relationships, and they continue to be a great source of great joy and of security. It was right of Labour to introduce them in the face of deep controversy, but it is time to take the next step for equality and to allow gay and lesbian couples the chance to marry if they choose to.
Another person reminded me of the practical differences that some people face when they are in a civil partnership. They have to declare their sexuality every time they fill in a form for something such as a mortgage or insurance, as there is a different box for someone in a civil partnership than for someone who is married. Why should they have to? Another person said:
“Language does matter. Marriage is universally understood as a meaningful commitment. People might say that in time civil partnerships will mean exactly the same. We say: ‘why wait?’”
Why should they wait—they want to celebrate their relationship now—when they could get married?
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to support the debate and I will be voting for the Bill, partly because I have been overwhelmed by the number of young people in my constituency who got in touch with me to ask me to do so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that generational issues make up an element of the debate? Most of my constituents who support the Bill have been younger, whereas those who have been against it have been, let us say, in the later stage of life.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. One poll showed that two thirds of people overall supported same-sex marriage, whereas 80% of those under 50 supported equal marriage. That shows the strong positive feeling on this subject.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
There has been a lot of talk about equality and fairness from Members on both sides of the House. Would the right hon. Lady like to hazard a guess as to why the word “equal” has been taken out of the title of the Bill? Perhaps it is because it is not quite as equal as the Government first expected.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman obviously has some detail in mind. The fundamental principle behind the Bill is to support equal marriage, as it allows same-sex marriages to go ahead. It is right that the law should do that. I am sure that there will be debates in Committee about the precise detail.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, hope that the House will approach this matter with a sense of atonement? As she will recognise, in the 1960s the men and women who attended those first Pride marches in Trafalgar square following Stonewall were beaten by the police while this House looked in the other direction. Will she pay tribute to the leaders of London councils— people such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), as well as former Members for Brent and for Tottenham—who stood in the face of clause 28 because they chose to make a book called “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” available in their libraries?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is right that there has been immense discrimination over many years, including recently. People who are gay, lesbian or bisexual have faced considerable prejudice, including violence. This House has a duty to stand up against violence and discrimination and to stand up for the interests of equality.
Yvette Cooper
I want to make some progress, as I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak and that the time restrictions are considerable. Once I have done so, I will allow the Government Members who are standing up to intervene. I know that somebody behind me wanted to intervene, too.
Parliament should not stop people getting married just because they have fallen in love with someone of the same sex, and we should not say that same-sex relationships are intrinsically worth less. I know that many Members have raised objections: they fear that their Church or faith will be forced to hold same-sex marriages when they do not believe in it; they believe that, by definition, marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been through the centuries; they believe that at the heart of marriage is the biological procreation of children; or they fear that widening marriage will undermine other relationships, stability and society. I disagree with each of those four objections, but I know they are held strongly by people whose views I respect, so I will address each of them in turn.
The first is the fear that Churches will be expected to support same-sex marriage in future. It is clear that they will not have to. I thought that the Minister for Women and Equalities powerfully explained the safeguards in the Bill. We have a long tradition in Britain of respecting religious freedom, which is built into our law and traditions.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, as I promised to do so to other Members first.
The number of clauses in the Bill that deal directly with religion is unusual and is reflected in the decision of all parties to hold free votes. Freedom of religion is rightly protected in the Bill, as the Minister set out. No Church or religious organisation can be required to conduct same-sex marriage, nor can an individual minister, and if a religious organisation or an individual minister refuses to hold same-sex marriages, that will not count as discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The right hon. Lady set out in some detail her double, tripe, quadruple, even quintuple locks, and she has a padlock, Yale lock, bolt, chain and even burglar alarm as well. I hope, however, that she agrees that Churches should be able to change their mind to support same sex marriage in future if they want to, without unnecessary hurdles and barriers. The Church of England and the Church in Wales have additional hurdles built into the Bill which we need to scrutinise in Committee.
Mr Burrowes
I should like to draw out the central issue, which is the understanding of marriage. The right hon. Lady will accept that the institution of marriage is not simply beholden to and owned by a particular view, whether it is the Church or secular, or whether people are gay, married, and so on. It is a social institution valued by all. Does she agree, for example, with the gay writer and blogger, Richard Waghorn, who says:
“The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families”
changes under the Bill
“to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance”?
Yvette Cooper
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I will deal specifically with whether extending marriage in this way will have an impact on wider family life and the stability of society—it is a point with which I disagree—but I pay tribute to the important work that he has done to tackle homophobic bullying.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
In 2004, I voted enthusiastically for the Civil Partnership Bill, whereas the right hon. Lady did not. I am sure that she had good reasons. That measure gave full equality in the eyes of the law for people in same-sex relationships. Were either of us homophobic for not going for full marriage at the time? What exactly has happened in the past nine years? Is not the problem that we need to address not a lack of equality in the law, but a lack of equality, in some people’s eyes, in society? Just changing the name of a ceremony will not address that.
Yvette Cooper
I have addressed that point before. I have always strongly supported civil partnerships: I think that they were the right thing for the Labour Government to do at the time. However, I also think that attitudes have changed and moved on—it is good that they have done so—and it is the right time to introduce same-sex marriage.
Yvette Cooper
I need to make progress, as other hon. Members wish to make a contribution. However, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Something that I have detected in correspondence is a fear that, contrary to the assurances that we have been given, the Bill will, at a later date, be revisited and unpicked. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?
Yvette Cooper
I think that freedom of religion—an issue about which many hon. Members have expressed concern—is built very strongly not just into the Bill, but into our traditions and our long-term political history. It is something that we have always valued and I suspect that Parliament will always want to defend it. There are further safeguards in article 9 of the European convention. I agree with the Minister for Women and Equalities that it is inconceivable that the European Court would tell a Church or faith group to hold same-sex weddings. Despite the fact that many countries across Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Belgium, already have same-sex marriages, there have been no successful challenges in the European courts, and the Minister is right that the European Court allows a wide margin of appreciation.
We will want to discuss in Committee the issues affecting, for example, the Church in Wales. If it decided to support gay marriage in future, that could be subject to a veto by the Lord Chancellor and would require a separate vote in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that can be examined in Committee.
Religious freedom goes both ways. Churches that object should not be required to sign up to same-sex marriage, but nor they should be able to block everyone else doing so. Other people do want to sign up. Polling has found that a majority of people support same-sex marriage, and Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Jews all want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. The Government originally ruled that out, but we argued that religious marriages should be included if organisations want that. I welcome the Government’s change of heart. Let us be clear: no one group, organisation, faith or institution owns marriage. Religious organisations should not be required to hold same-sex weddings, but neither, in the spirit of freedom of religion, should they prevent other religious organisations or the state from doing so.
Other objections have been raised. Some people argue that marriage by definition has always—for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years—been between a man and a woman and should remain so. For some people, that is their faith, and under the Bill their faith can be respected, but that is no reason not to change the law. It is hardly surprising that for thousands of years same-sex couples were not allowed to marry—they were not even allowed to exist. Same sex was illegal, never mind same-sex marriage. Legal sex by definition was between a man and a woman—that, too, was the case for thousands of years—but no one says that we should turn the clock back.
We cannot hide discrimination simply by calling it a definition. Marriage has changed many times over the centuries—and thank goodness for that. For hundreds of years, women were treated as property in marriage, handed from their fathers to their husbands and denied rights of their own. Until the 1990s, women’s bodies were effectively treated as their husbands’ property. If a husband raped his wife, it was not even treated as a crime. Civil marriage was introduced over 170 years ago and was pretty radical at the time, but now, every year, 160,000 of us get married in a civil ceremony. Marriage has changed before, and it should change again.
Some people oppose same-sex marriage because they believe that marriage is by definition about the procreation of children. However, that is not true of civil marriage, and that has been the case for over a century. Many marriages are childless, and we do not prevent people who are too old or too sick to have children from getting married. We do not do fertility tests at the altar. Yes, in vast numbers of families, marriage is an important starting point for a loving family bringing up children, but gay couples bring up children too. As people live longer, the family commitments involved in marriage are much wider than bringing up children.
Most MPs will know the sadness but also the inspiration they have drawn from visiting a long-married couple where, for example, the wife is struggling to cope, struggling to remember the world around her and struggling to recognise even the husband with whom she has shared decades of her life, yet he carries on: cooking for her, washing her, getting her up, putting her to bed, talking to her even as she becomes a stranger in front of him. That is marriage. But I have also visited a gay man, who died some years ago after a long illness during which he was cared for every day at home, in hospital and eventually in a hospice, by his long-term gay partner. I do not see why that cannot be marriage too. The idea that the biology of procreation should deny same-sex couples the respect that comes with marriage is to ignore the full richness—the happiness but also the tragedies—of modern family life. For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health: that is marriage.
Finally, with those who argue that extending marriage to include same-sex couples will somehow weaken or undermine marriage and stability for everyone else, I profoundly disagree. Marriage has changed many times before and society has not collapsed. Other countries are doing this and their Churches and societies have not fallen apart. Spain—Catholic Spain—has had same-sex marriage since 2004. Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Portugal, Argentina and South Africa all celebrate same-sex marriage. Only last week France passed the first vote on the way to same-sex marriage. The President of the United States is in favour of equal marriage too.
If the same-sex couples who have told me of their love for each other are able to get married, that will not weaken marriage; it will strengthen it. It certainly will not make it any less likely that the heterosexual couple with kids who live next door to them will stay together. If marriage is to stay relevant, to stay important and to remain a crucial part of our family and social relationships, it also has to remain in tune with the values of every generation, and that means that it should keep up with rightly changing attitudes towards homosexuality. The truth is that gay and lesbian couples have been locked out of too much for too long.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a kind of inevitability about what many of us are hoping will be decided here this evening? We discriminated against women, we discriminated against Catholics, we discriminated against people from ethnic minorities, but very gradually and not always completely but perceptibly, this House has passed legislation to remove such discrimination. Is not this evening yet another example and another opportunity to do so?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that this is the next step on a journey, and it is the right one. We should not resist the values of the majority of people across the country who now support same-sex marriage.
Yvette Cooper
We have discriminated for too long. Until the 1960s people were locked up or punished for loving someone of the same sex. Gay men were told by the Home Secretary even in the 1950s that they were a “plague” on this country. Lesbian women were forced to hide their relationships, and teenagers were bullied at school, with no protection. Until the early 1990s teachers were unable to tell the child of a same-sex couple that their family was okay, for fear that that would breach section 28. So much has changed, and in a short time, too.
Yvette Cooper
Labour in government equalised the age of consent, ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces and made homophobia a hate crime—measures that were controversial at the time, yet now have widespread support. That is why I am pleased that the vast majority of Labour MPs have said that they will support the Bill today. We have come a long way, and with each step forward the sky has not fallen in, family life has not fallen apart, and the predictions that passionate opponents made at the time have not come true. Those opponents have for the most part changed their minds and moved on. I hope the same will be true again.
Mr Winnick
Would it not be appropriate on this day, when we are debating this subject, to bear in mind, among all those who were persecuted, Alan Turing, one of the most distinguished scientists of all, who committed suicide arising from the harassment that he suffered as a homosexual? He should be remembered, along with so many other people who were persecuted and disgraced simply because of their sexuality.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. As a society we should feel deeply ashamed of what happened to Alan Turing, who was a hero of this country.
Mr Speaker
I hope it is not a point of frustration from the hon. Gentleman.
David T. C. Davies
The right hon. Lady has taken an intervention from her hon. Friend. When will she take an intervention from the Government Benches?
Mr Speaker
I note the point. It is not a point of order but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record.
Yvette Cooper
May I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) that I have taken interventions from many hon. Members on both sides? Given the number of people on the Government Benches who are desperate to speak in the debate, I am keen to allow them the opportunity to do so, even though they have strong disagreements with each other.
Often the opponents of previous measures have changed their minds and moved on. I hope the same will be true again. I hope that opponents today will look back in 10 years and be unable to remember what the fuss was about. Today, let us vote for people to be able to marry, for the sake of those couples who really want to wed; for the sake of the Quakers, the Unitarians and other religious organisations who want to celebrate same-sex marriage as part of our respect for freedom of faith; for the sake of equality, removing unfair discrimination and challenging prejudice; and for the sake of marriage, to keep it inclusive and in touch for the next generation. In marriage let us celebrate, not discriminate. Let us be on the right side of history. Let us vote for the Bill today.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, who has designated responsibilities in the House, will be subject to a 10-minute limit. Thereafter, a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will apply.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
I am confident that we are all created in the image of God, whether we be straight, gay, bisexual, or transsexual. We are all equally worthy in God’s sight and equally loved by God. I am also sure that we are and should be equally welcome at God’s table. But equalness does not always equate with being the same.
For centuries, civilisations have recognised the value and importance to society of having an enduring and exclusive union between one man and one woman, not least for the raising and nurturing of children. That relationship is called marriage. The uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the distinctiveness of men and women, so removing that complementarity from the definition of marriage is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.
The Government clearly well appreciate the value of marriage. Indeed, one of the points about the Bill before the House today is that it makes no provision for heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships. Clearly, policy makers considered that allowing heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships would undermine the institution of marriage. So what this Bill will do is to end the concept of marriage as it has been understood by society in general and by almost all faith groups in particular for recorded time.
Each of us will have to decide how we vote on this matter, according to our consciences and on a free vote. I shall vote against the Bill. From the outset, Ministers have made it clear that they intend that the Bill will give protection and ensure that Churches that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages are not forced to do so. That is consistent with the legislation relating to civil partnerships, where it is for faith groups as a whole to decide to opt into the legislation to allow civil partnerships to be registered on their premises.
It may be helpful to the House if I, in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner, make clear to the House the views of the Church of England on the provisions that the Government have included to safeguard religious freedoms. Let me make it clear that I entirely accept the Government’s good faith in this matter and am appreciative, as is the Bishop of Leicester, who convenes the bishops in the other place, and as are senior Church officials, of the attempts the Government have made. The Government rightly wish to ensure that every Church and denomination can reach its own conclusion on these matters and be shielded so far as possible from the risk of litigation.
The so-called quadruple locks are sensible and necessary. It was unfortunate a couple of months ago when the Government were talking in terms of “banning” the Church of England and the Church in Wales from doing anything, because that was a completely misleading account, and I am pleased to see that nothing of that kind now features in the Bill or in the Minister’s explanation. The simple point is that the Church of England and the Church in Wales have not wanted anything different in substance from all other Churches and faiths—namely, to be left entirely free to determine their own doctrine and practice in relation to marriage.
Achieving that is slightly more complex in relation to the Church in Wales because, at disestablishment, it retained the common law duty to marry all parishioners. It is even more complicated in relation to the Church of England because as well as the common law duty, its canon law remains part of the law of the land and it also has its own devolved legislature which, with Parliament’s agreement, can amend Church legislation and Westminster legislation. So I am grateful to the Government for trying to get these matters right. By and large, I think they have done so.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Tony Baldry
I shall not give way because I am conscious that a large number of colleagues wish to speak in the debate and I do not wish to be selfish.
I should be grateful, however, if my right hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that clause 11(5) might still benefit from some further attention, given the need to avoid her having to act as the arbiter in relation to particular areas of the ecclesiastical common law. This is an area where time ran out in the discussions, and I hope that the Government will be open to some further drafting changes if they can be agreed during the passage of the Bill.
Before I leave the question of the locks, let me be clear that we think that the Government have done their best in these, given their intention to introduce same-sex marriage. But, as many other commentators have made clear, there is an inevitable degree of risk in all this, given that it would ultimately be for the courts, and in particular the Strasbourg court, to decide whether provisions in the legislation are compatible with the European convention on human rights. There is absolutely no doubt that once marriage is redefined in this very fundamental way, a number of new legal questions will arise and no one can be sure what the eventual outcome will be. The Government believe that this is a risk worth taking. The Church of England does not. As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church does not, and nor do a number of other faith groups, including the Muslim faith.
The Bill has raised a number of extremely difficult second-order issues. Although the failure to consummate a marriage will still be a ground on which a heterosexual marriage can be voidable, the Bill provides that consummation is not to be a ground on which a marriage of a same-sex couple will be voidable. It also provides that adultery is to have its existing definition—namely, sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. It therefore follows that divorce law for heterosexual couples will be fundamentally different from divorce law for same-sex couples, because for heterosexual couples the matrimonial offence of adultery will persist while there will be no similar matrimonial offence in relation to same-sex marriage. The fact that officials have been unable to apply these long-standing concepts to same-sex marriage is a further demonstration of just how problematic is the concept of same-sex marriage. Clearly, every right hon. and hon. Member will have to come to an individual judgment on these issues, in accordance with our own consciences, and the House will accordingly come to a collective judgment.
On the specific protections that the Government are seeking to give to Churches that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages, I believe that they are being done in the best of faith and as robustly as the Government feel able, but I simply reiterate that there is no way in which any of us can know just how robust these protections will be until they are tested in the courts. Notwithstanding the genuine efforts that the Government have made to protect Churches that do not wish to celebrate same-sex marriages, the Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony. Such a move will alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Moreover, changing the nature of marriage for everyone will deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am deeply saddened by the divisions and upset that this issue has caused to people on both sides of the argument. Sadly, in some quarters the divisions arise because the debate has been characterised as bigoted religion on the one hand versus equality on the other. Neither of those is true. True Christians are not bigoted, and this is not a matter of equality, no matter how often it is referred to as equal marriage. Some of the divisions arise from the campaign to steer people into thinking that marriage is simply about love and commitment. It could also be said that the Bill falls foul of Parliament’s convention of not legislating retrospectively, because changing the fundamental nature of marriage will affect existing marriages.
Under the law as it stands, as tested in the European Court of Human Rights, civil partnerships are equal to marriage. They might not have the same name, but they are equal. It has been argued that society views marriage and civil partnerships as being different and that same-sex couples feel that their relationship is not valued by society in the same way as is marriage. However, it is not even 10 years since civil partnerships were created, and already society has moved ahead in its appreciation of the commitment that those formal partnerships demonstrate.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
As an atheist, I enjoyed the right to get married outside the Church. Surely those who do believe have a right to get married within their Church?
Robert Flello
I will come to that in a moment.
Perhaps the parts of society that do not view civil partnerships as being exactly identical to marriage do so because a large proportion of society views marriage as being about the union of a man and a woman for the creation and care of children, and not simply about the love and commitment of the happy couple, as important as that is. On the other hand, civil partnerships are a celebration and recognition of the love and commitment that two people of the same gender have for each other.
The state has sought to treat marriage in a special way in recognition of its intrinsically child-centred nature. That is the only reason why the state has previously had any interest in marriage at all. If marriage were simply about love and commitment, we would first have to define love as being sexual love, because otherwise non-sexual relationships that are based on love and commitment would also have to be treated as marriage on the basis of the definition of equality. If the definition of marriage is simply love and commitment, why is the state interested at all? What business is it of the state’s to register and record such unions? It is because marriage is about so much more that the state has historically wanted to be involved.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the state has intervened in marriage for several reasons, one of which relates to property and has nothing to do with children?
Robert Flello
I fully accept that the state has changed some aspects of marriage, but not its intrinsic, fundamental values.
The irony of the Bill is that it takes the current situation of equality of marriage and civil partnership and creates inequality. Under the terms of the Bill, there will be marriage in two forms—traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, which are neither the same nor equal. The Bill creates further inequality, with traditional marriages being allowed within some Churches and same-sex marriages not allowed. Same-sex couples will have the choice of civil partnership or marriage, whereas opposite-sex couples can have only traditional marriages—yet more inequality. The Bill is trying to engineer a cultural equivalence to tackle a perceived lack of equality in wider society. That does not sound to me like the basis of marriage.
The Government say that the Bill protects religious organisations, but there are conflicting legal opinions that robustly challenge that view. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop a future Government legislating to allow, or indeed require, Churches to celebrate same-sex marriages. In fact, some commentators have said that they cannot wait until the Church of England and other faiths have to conduct same-sex marriages. Given that the Bill creates inequality, a legal challenge would surely be successful.
I am amazed that the Government should bring forward this Bill at a time when there are other pressing issues. Despite having gay friends and relatives, the issue of same-sex marriage has never once been brought to my attention; I have never had a constituent write to me asking me to raise it. I recall that many MPs were quick to praise the civil partnerships legislation as being everything that the gay community wanted—that it created the equality for which they had fought for so long. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I hope he is still my hon. Friend—has previously said that in his view the idea that the gay community would want marriage is nonsense.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that is open to the creation and care of children—not in all cases, but fundamentally that is its intrinsic value. This Bill will fundamentally change that. Despite all the issues that have been raised and the insults hurled by those on both sides of the argument, I will oppose the Bill. I believe that it creates inequality and that it does not tackle an existing inequality on the basis that the current legislation has been tested in the European Court and it has been shown that there is no inequality. I will oppose the Bill, and I urge any right hon. and hon. Members who are thinking of abstaining to vote against it.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow such a wise speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and I will follow on from his main point.
This Bill does not create equality. It highlights the inequalities that will always exist, because the definition of marriage is based on the definition of sex. It is absolutely impossible to shoehorn same-sex marriage into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to provide equality. The gay lobby have said themselves in their campaigning that they have been looking for a Bill that will give them the same rights as heterosexual couples and enable them to enjoy faithful and committed relationships. This Bill in no way makes a requirement of faithfulness from same-sex couples; in fact, it does the opposite. In a heterosexual marriage, a couple can divorce on the grounds of adultery, and the legal requirement for adultery to have taken place is that someone has had sex with a member of the opposite sex.
In a heterosexual marriage, a couple vow to forsake all others. They are basically saying, in accordance with liturgy and the 1973 Act, “I will forsake all others because to you I will be faithful in honour of our vows and my faithfulness to us and our marriage.” A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow. They do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery; there is no requirement of faithfulness. If there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?
The Minister says that there is no requirement for consummation in a marriage. No, there is not, but a marriage is voidable without consummation. There is no requirement for consummation in the Bill because the definition of marriage and the definition of sex is for ordinary and complete sex to have taken place. Same-sex couples cannot meet this requirement. The Government have tucked this aspect right at the back of the Bill, possibly because they do not want it to be debated in Committee. That is sad, because it is part of the inequality. If I were part of a gay couple, I would feel like a poor relation as a result of this Bill. I would feel that it was a shoddy Bill in which gay couples are not as well considered as heterosexual couples. It highlights the inequalities.
Gosh, I am down to one minute left. I hope that the Minister will elucidate on one point. Mr Tatchell apparently said outside the gates of Downing street that the Prime Minister had been inspired by his words and that the Prime Minister used lines from his speech to promote the Bill. I admire Mr Tatchell—he is a brave man who says what he thinks and I respect his right to do that—but he also says that, on this issue, equality is not enough and that he is part of a movement of social revolutionaries who are out to turn society and the world upside down. Will the Minister please tell us that Mr Tatchell has not inspired this Bill and that it is not based on his words, and will she repudiate the overall intentions of Mr Tatchell and his lobby?
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Today is a significant day for Britain as an equal nation. Today is about equality, but it is also about one of the fundamental principles that I think each of the political parties represented in this House recognises, namely that, basically, we should live and let live: we should let people get on with their own lives and give people who are gay the same basic rights that the rest of us enjoy.
I have received a tremendous amount of representations and the vast majority from those on both sides of the argument have been respectful and passionate and have reflected deeply-held views. I have had three meetings with objectors in Chesterfield to understand their objections and, if this Bill passes its Second Reading, I will have further meetings with them to understand the actual detail. As hon. Members will know, a Second Reading debate is about the central principles of a Bill. Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), say that the Bill has flaws, but if Government Members were to vote against every Bill because of an occasional flaw, the Government would never get anything past Second Reading. We need to understand that what we are talking about today are the principles, which are of central importance.
I recognise that some people—predominantly older members of society—are worried about the way the world is changing and the things that they are seeing. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that there is no compulsion on faith groups to do anything and that, while the Church of England will have the opportunity to opt in, it will not be forced to do something that it does not want to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) also made very well the point that marriage belongs to all of us, rather than simply to religious groups. I am also glad that the Minister has confirmed that there will be no requirement on teachers to promote gay marriage and that, in fact, as with civil partnerships, the Bill will make no difference to the questions they might be asked. That is important, because some of my constituents were concerned about it.
As a Christian, I see Christianity as a tremendously generous religion. As I have said previously, I think that Jesus Christ led the way on promoting equalities. There are any number of stories in the Bible that make it absolutely clear that Jesus stuck up for groups that had been oppressed over the years. As a Christian, I feel entirely comfortable voting in favour of this Bill. As someone who got married at the famous Crooked Spire church in Chesterfield, I do not think that my marriage will be besmirched or undermined in any way by the fact that gay people in the future might also be able to say that they are married.
Some of those who have written to me seem to believe that the argument is about whether heterosexuality or homosexuality is better. They seem to argue that, because gay marriage will be an option, some young people will suddenly decide that they are not straight anymore, but gay.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that this is about equal respect for everybody?
Toby Perkins
Absolutely. I have never said this in political terms before, but at the end of her life my mother was gay. It was difficult for me as a young man growing up in Sheffield to think that my friends might discover that. People do not deserve to live in that way, so this is fundamentally about mutual respect. I think that is why the majority of people, as polls have shown, ultimately support the proposal. They recognise that people are made differently and have a right to enjoy the same things as others.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many strands to the views of the religious community? One of my constituents contacted me to say:
“Our church have advised us to write to you opposing gay marriage. Forgive me if I don’t…Marriage is a matter of love, love is for all, not a select few.”
Toby Perkins
Indeed. That is an incredibly important point. This whole debate reminds me of a colleague on Chesterfield borough council who recalled that, when he told one of the older councillors that homosexuality had been legalised— thinking that he would be appalled—the response was that he did not mind it being legalised so long as it was not made compulsory. I think that many people in Britain will recognise those basic principles.
On the question of whether there was a manifesto commitment, I have read the Conservative party’s “A Contract for Equalities”, which makes it absolutely clear that the Government will consider gay marriage. When I debated the subject with the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) this morning, she informed me that when she stood for election she was not aware that the Conservatives had a contract for equality. Perhaps that says something about how we need to start putting equalities at the top of the agenda. It is important, however, that the Conservative party had been talking about the issue.
Finally, today is a very important day and I think that in years to come we will look back on it with pride and say that we made the right decision. There is still time to discuss some of the detail and there will be an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and for people to make further representations, but today is about saying that we recognise that there is a place for gay people in our society and that they have the right to enjoy the same respect for their relationships as the rest of us enjoy for ours. I hope that Members will support that.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who has articulated what many people of faith across our country have struggled with before coming to the conclusion that love should be for one and all and that marriage should not be an exclusive institution.
I declare an interest: I am a gay man who grew up in a rural part of our country in Cornwall and am from a working-class background. I grew up 20-odd years ago in an environment that made it hugely difficult for me to be open, honest and up-front with my family, friends and workmates about the choices I wanted to take in life and the people I wanted to see. That was unacceptable 20-odd years ago and it is unacceptable today, but it remains the case for many hundreds of thousands of people across our country.
I welcome this historic Bill, which I think will end a form of discrimination and, perhaps more crucially, send a signal that this House values everybody equally across our country. That signal will deeply affect people like me in the same way as I was affected 20 years ago, when I saw this House vote to equalise the age of consent. That was the first time I saw other gay people on a TV screen and it was the first time that I realised that I was not alone. It changed my life.
As we all take this historic step, we should remember that 70 years ago thousands of gay men and lesbian women were put to death in the concentration camps, 40 years ago thousands more were criminalised and had their lives ruined, and 30 years ago people were still being subjected to scientific torment in search of a cure. We have come a long way in a short time, but it is absolutely right that this House takes the next step and delivers full legal equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in our country.
I say to those hon. Members who will say, “Well, of course he would say that, because he’s a gay man,” my view is born of a hatred of discrimination and prejudice of all types, whether it be about gender, skin colour or religion. As a community, we should value diversity and treat everybody equally. Those values are enshrined in Cornwall’s motto, “One and All”. That is the community I grew up in and it is a community I am proud to represent—one that values community. The motto is not, “One and All, apart from if you’re black, Catholic or gay.” It is a community that distrusts the abuse of power. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Minister is right to have ensured that this House will not compel people or religious organisations to do anything that they choose not to do. We have struck the right balance between ensuring that there is equality and preserving religious freedom.
As a House, we must question those who wish to hoard privilege for themselves. We know that marriage is an important institution that delivers many benefits, including stability, health and happiness. If we recognise those benefits, why would we keep them from some of our neighbours who seek to enjoy them and whose faith allows them to do so? We would not tolerate that level of discrimination in any other sphere of life and we should end it tonight in this one.
Equal marriage will not be the end of the struggle for gay equality, in the same way that delivering the franchise to women and ending apartheid were not the end of those battles. However, it will allow us to start asking the right questions and to answer the other problems, and it will send a clear signal that we value everybody equally.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on his honest and open contribution to this debate.
I will give my personal view, which I know differs from the views of the vast majority of members of my party. I respect that difference.
For the first time in history, a Government have proposed a Bill that will change the very nature of marriage in law. Until now, society and the Church have had a shared view of the essential purpose of marriage. It is primarily an institution that supports the bearing and raising of children in a committed and constant relationship. The traditional understanding of marriage has three basic elements: it is between a man and a woman, it is for life, and it is to the exclusion of all others.
Article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights describes the family as
“the natural and fundamental group unit of society”
and defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. It states that the family is
“entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Those elements are designed not to exclude people or create inequality, but to promote the unique benefit of marriage in our society: it secures family environments and provides the essential qualities of safety and reliability for children.
Worryingly, the Bill rarely mentions children or parenthood. It emphasises the decision to take part in a ceremony more than the commitment to a lifelong relationship or having children. It is as if those elements are of no consequence.
The Bill proposes to change the definition and therefore the meaning of marriage in the interests of equality. The words “equality” and “fairness” have been used extensively by supporters of the Bill. I have concerns about the development of the Bill on those terms. The equality agenda has been narrowly limited to dogmatic principles of uniformity. Such language makes open debate and disagreement about the Bill look like prejudice.
The Bill promotes the erroneous notion that “uniformity” is a good definition of “equality”. Men and women do not have to be the same in order to be equal. Having the same experience does not make people more equal. We should be promoting equality, not uniformity, and be able to celebrate difference.
For a Bill to be driven by the word “equality” and then to promote inequality seems to demonstrate a spectacular failure. An example of that is the fact that a civil partnership is available only to same-sex couples. This is not a Bill that has equality at its heart. In honesty, it is a Bill that dilutes the meaning of marriage.
Holding a traditional view of marriage should not be seen as discriminatory. Unfortunately, the Bill has promoted that notion. It has not created tolerance, but has highlighted division. The Government cannot guarantee protection for Churches or individuals with a traditional view because they cannot predict or control what happens in the courts. What has happened to Catholic adoption agencies is a good example of that.
Moreover, the Bill no longer promotes exclusiveness. It does not consider adultery to be a violation of commitment and so it undermines the nature of marriage and the way in which marriage promotes predictable, long-term family environments for children. That is a worrying move for a Government to make. Are the supporters of the Bill really saying that marriage is good for society, while at the same time reducing the substance and value of marriage?
The Bill has many pitfalls. Changing the definition of an institution that has served society well is hasty and destructive. I cannot support such a move. I urge the Minister and the House to read the ResPublica green paper on marriage and British civic life that was launched yesterday evening and to think again.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), with whose speech I concur.
I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.
When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.
I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.
A way forward has been suggested, but it has been ignored. I do not subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument. The argument is that if the Government are serious about this measure, they should withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well. That would be a way forward. This is not.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I suggest very gently to the hon. Gentleman that what he has just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who are in civil partnerships, but to quite a few people on both sides of the House?
Sir Roger Gale
The argument is not mine, but that of an eminent lawyer in this House. Its merit is that it would create what I think the hon. Gentleman wants, which is equality. It would create a level playing field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means the union between a man and a woman and nothing else.
Sir Roger Gale
The hon. Gentleman may seek to bat my argument away, but I promise him that in this House and outside it, there are very many people who share this view.
To conclude, I urge Members on both sides of the House not to abstain. If they support this measure, they should vote for it. If they are against it, they should vote against it, as I shall myself.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
A man called Mr Proctor came to my surgery two weeks ago. He had never been to see an MP before, but said that he had never felt so strongly about an issue before. He wanted to know where I stood on the issue of redefining marriage. I said that given that he was calling it “redefining marriage”, I took the opposite view from him. He said, “Well, you’ve lost my vote.” I said that I felt as strongly as he did about this issue and that if it meant that people would vote against me at the general election, so be it.
Mr Proctor and I had a long discussion about the redefinition of marriage. I did not deny that it was a redefinition, because until now marriage has been possible only between a man and a woman. I explained that what I wanted to do was to widen access to an institution that has brought stability and happiness to many relationships.
Mr Proctor was a probation officer. He had seen lots of family breakdowns and their terrible consequences. He believed that the traditional husband and wife set-up was the best for bringing up children. He blamed absent fathers for the riots in London in 2011. I could not see how that linked to gay couples enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples and bringing up children in a stable relationship. He believed deeply that a child—in an ideal world—needs both a mother and a father. I believe as deeply that a gay couple can bring up a child equally well.
We agreed to differ, but then Mr Proctor said, “What I’m bothered by is that people like me are regarded not as having a different point of view, but as bigots and homophobes. I am neither a bigot nor a homophobe. I have strong views about this and they are traditional views, but why does that suddenly make me completely beyond the pale?” We talked about equality and equal treatment and how we were not forcing people into same-sex relationships. He and I discussed the idea of equality for a while. “Equality for whom?” he asked. He felt not just excluded from my idea of equality, but criminalised by it. He wanted to know what would happen to people such as himself—people with traditional views.
I thought a long time about what Mr Proctor said—about the importance of not being zealots and bigots ourselves, but understanding the other point of view. We are, I hope, going to make a change that will make it legal for two men or two women to be married. Just as when we outlawed incitement to racial hatred we started a cultural shift in the way society thinks about race, so hopefully this legislation will do the same. But we want to take people with us, not leave them behind feeling that their views are neither heard nor understood. Living in a democracy means that the majority view generally prevails, but that makes it even more important to ensure that the minority view is considered and taken into account. I like and respect Mr Proctor, but I disagree with his point of view, and I look forward to voting for same-sex marriage this evening.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Marriage is one of the most important institutions in our society. It concerns many of us that it is in decline, yet while many move away from marriage, one group turns towards it. Gay couples are now asking to be admitted. Here we have a section of society who are saying that they want to declare commitment and that they value stability, in the sight of the public and perhaps of God. We defenders of marriage should be gratefully opening the doors, yet the reaction of some has been to slam them shut.
It is said that gay people should accept civil partnerships—and no more—which confer most of the legal rights of a marriage. Thousands of people such as me have cause to be grateful for the courage of hon. Members who voted for that change. Entering a civil partnership was the most important thing I have done in my life. At that time, civil partnerships were opposed by the Churches, a significant proportion of the public and many hon. Members. Just eight years later, only a small minority of the public oppose civil partnerships and many hon. Members who voted against the change now say they support it. People choose marriage for a reason: they know that it means something special. Indeed, it is because marriage is different that many are opposing the change, so we cannot say that civil partnerships are the same or dismiss the debate as being about a name. How many married couples would like to be told that they were barred from matrimony and able only to take out a civil partnership?
The Church of England and the Catholic Church object to gay marriage. I disagree with them, but their religious freedom is surely among the greatest prizes in our democracy. I would not vote for this Bill unless I believed that it protected religious freedom. No faith group should be compelled by law to conduct a gay marriage against its will, and none will be, but religious freedom cuts both ways. Why should the law prevent liberal Jews, Quakers or Unitarian Churches from conducting gay marriages, as they wish to? With the proper safeguards for faith groups and individuals to exercise their consciences and to disagree, I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds to oppose a measure that allows gay marriages for others. No one has to enter a gay marriage. No one’s Church has to conduct a gay marriage. We simply have to agree that someone else can enter a gay marriage.
Are the marriages of millions of straight people about to be threatened because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join? What will they say? “Darling, our marriage is over: Sir Elton John has just got engaged to David Furnish”? I appreciate the sincerity with which many people oppose equal marriage and the serious points made. Ensuring that religious freedom is protected is a proper concern, but some of the objections do not bear scrutiny. We are told that because there will not be a legal definition of “consummation”, there is some terrible flaw in the Bill, but many loving heterosexual marriages exist without consummation. Are they invalid? For some, the objection is to homosexual conduct itself. Today that is a minority view—one thankfully in decline.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that that attitude is in decline, but does he agree that although achieving legal equality is critical, it is—and only ever will be—part of the battle for acceptance?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
I believe that many who do not share that view nevertheless have a principled concern that gay marriage would mean redefining the institution for everyone, yet Parliament has repeatedly done that. If marriage had not been redefined in 1836, there would be no civil marriages. If it had not been redefined in 1949, under-16-year-olds would still be able to get married. If it had not been redefined in 1969, we would not have today’s divorce laws. All those changes were opposed.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to praise the right hon. Gentleman’s advocacy of the cause of equal marriage—and give him a moment longer to speak. I agree with him that the definition of marriage is, in fact, what means most to us as individuals. I define marriage as being about a loving, long-term relationship. That is something to be celebrated and open to all in our society.
Nick Herbert
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an institution that should now be open to all.
When I was born, homosexual conduct was a crime. Not so long ago, it was possible to sack someone because they were gay. People did not dare to be open. Thank goodness so much has changed in my lifetime. That progress should be celebrated, but we should not believe that the journey is complete. I think of the gay children who are still bullied at school or who are fearful about whether their friends and families accept them. I think of sportsmen and women—vital role models—who still do not feel able to come out. The signal we send today about whether the law fully recognises the place of gay people in our society will really matter. Above all, I think of two people, faithful and loving, who simply want their commitment to be recognised, as it is for straight couples. That, in the end, is what this Bill is about.
Millions will be watching us today—not just gay people, but those who want to live in a society where people are treated equally and accepted for who they are. They will hear our words and remember our votes. I hope that, once again, this House will do the right thing.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
May I say what a privilege it is to follow that excellent speech?
Given the time constraints, I will focus my comments on my perspective as a member of both the Anglican Church and the Ecclesiastical Committee of this and the other place. I entirely support the Government’s decision to make this a permissive law, allowing those religions and denominations that wish to celebrate the loving same-sex relationships of their members to do so. As the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, it would have been completely perverse to say to Quakers, the United Reformed Church or progressive synagogues, which wish to value and support their gay and lesbian members fully, that they would not be allowed to do so.
Indeed, there are many Anglicans and Roman Catholics who wish that their Churches were as open and welcoming as those that support the Bill entirely. In fact, all the opinion polls show that a majority not just of the public, but of Anglicans and Roman Catholics in this country support equal marriage. However, in their wisdom, the leaderships of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are not yet prepared to take such a step. That is their prerogative. It is perfectly possible to make the argument that, as a particular religion understands it, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. However the Churches’ credibility in arguing that would be a lot greater if they welcomed and celebrated civil partnerships. The fact that they do not do so leads me to conclude only that their objection to the Bill is not about the institution of marriage or even the word, but about a residual prejudice against same-sex relationships.
The Church of England has claimed, and repeated in the briefing provided for today’s debate, that because of its established status and the need for state law and canon law to be compatible, it requires an extra safeguard in the Bill that specifically does not allow same-sex weddings in the Church of England and Church in Wales—the so-called quadruple lock. When, however, in the presence of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Members of this House and the other place asked the Bishop of Leicester, who speaks for the bishops in the other place, why the Church wanted that quadruple lock, he said
“we didn’t want it, hadn’t asked for it, and hadn’t been consulted.”
When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be grateful if she cleared up the confusion in Anglican circles on the issue of the quadruple lock. Were the Church of England to embrace same-sex marriage at some stage—as I and many in the Church hope it will—will the Minister confirm that there will be no need for more primary legislation or an amendment to primary legislation in this House, as has been stated?
I am not a constitutional expert, but having been in this House for 15-odd years I am not aware of any precedent whereby an outside institution can unilaterally decide to change primary legislation passed in this House. I therefore question the Church of England’s claim that were it to change its mind in future, it could do so just like that—easy, the Synod could get on and vote for it and we would not have to do anything. My fear is that it would be another long and convoluted process and that we would have to amend primary legislation. Will the Minister check once again whether the quadruple lock is necessary in law, and whether the Church is being completely upfront with its members about the hurdles in front of it?
I would also be grateful if the Minister explained what would happen in the case of a Church of England priest who wanted to marry members of their congregation in another church—a Quakers meeting house, for example, or a United Reform Church. Would that priest be banned from doing so under the proposed law?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Four minutes are not enough to lay out an argument about this matter, so let me set out some ground rules. I very much agree with the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). If this Bill passes through Parliament and becomes law, it will not be the end of the world as we know it; a new Sodom and Gomorrah will not take hold of our island. Similarly, if it does not go through, it will not signal some resurgence of intolerance or inequality. No one will lose any rights to equal treatment and respect under the law and in the eyes of society.
No doubt some of our constituents who urge us to vote against the Bill do so out of an intolerance of same-sex relationships per se, or even homophobia. Likewise, some of those who urge us not to vote against the Bill, with charges of bigotry, closed-mindedness and religious zealotry, are equally guilty of intolerance and bigotry. I am sure that the vast majority, if not all Members of this House, are not homophobic, and neither are the vast majority who support the Bill bigots. Let us therefore have this important debate on the basis of respecting each other’s position, and hope that that rubs off—for once—on some of our over-zealous constituents and lobby groups.
Let us get away from the ridiculous mentality that too often pervades arguments on sensitive issues: that if someone is for some reason not in favour of a specific issue, they are against the whole cause—that if someone is not in favour of gay marriage, they must be homophobic or against equality. What nonsense! I feel immensely special and proud to be British, but that does not make me racist or guilty of regarding citizens of other races as inferior.
I supported the Civil Registration Act 2004. It should have been introduced earlier and it gave same-sex couples the same rights under the law and the tax system that I enjoy as a married person. I do not regard a couple’s civil partnership as inferior or unequal to my marriage; it is simply different. That Act was an end in itself; it achieved equality. I reread the debate and found no accusations against supporters of civil partnerships at the time that we were bigoted or homophobic because we were not legalising gay marriage and going all the way. What has happened between 2004 and now to make this Bill so urgent and pressing that it takes priority despite no manifesto commitment by any party, no coalition agreement, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no general campaign saying that we desperately need it?
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As always, I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. In so much as the Bill is an answer to any question, it may be an attempt to meet the perception that civil partnerships are somehow not enough. Given his argument, does my hon. Friend agree that the progressive outcome from what has so far been a hugely divisive process would be to meet that perception without redefining marriage and mortally offending so many of my—and I am sure his—constituents?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which returns to a point raised earlier. This should be about equal respect. The real problem is not a lack of equality under the law but people’s perceptions of a lack of equality for those with different sexual persuasions. We must redouble our efforts to root out that lack of equality, but changing the nature and the word of a ceremony will not do it and we completely mislead ourselves if we think that it will.
Why are we here? Why has the Bill received such priority despite not having been in manifestos when there are other bigger priorities and inequalities? Why is it that women cannot become Members of the upper House because they cannot inherit a title? That is a big inequality. Why are we not putting through a law on the bigger inequality of forced marriage? Why has the Bill taken priority? The answer is because this is bad politics.
There are many reasons for opposing this Bill, only some of which are religious. Many of those reasons are secular. Atheist, I think, have a duty to protect the rights of those who, through many different deeply held faiths, will take a different view of this form of marriage. Many of the reasons not to support the Bill are based on poor, rushed drafting with a whole raft of “What nexts?” How much more will marriage be redefined? Many of those fears may turn out to be hollow, but on such a fundamental rewriting of an historical truth that has held that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, we are entitled to more security than quickly cobbled together, fangled quadruple locks that lawyers are already queuing up to unpick. Who are we, this Government of this country, to redefine the term marriage that has meant one man and one woman across cultures, ages, geographical boundaries since before state and religion themselves?
I do not claim that my church marriage is superior to another Member’s civil partnership. It is not; it is equal in the eyes of the law and society, just different. Let us get away from the basis that we need things to be the same to be equal. It is not the same thing.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise strongly to support this Bill as a practising Christian who now worships in the Church in Wales. I also rise, as I did the other day, with the greatest courtesy and respect for the sincerely and deeply held views and beliefs of fellow Christians and others who disagree with me on this matter. Although I disagree with the legal, political and theological arguments that have been made in opposition to the Bill, and cannot speak in detail today about why I believe such arguments are in error, at least we live in a society where such views can be courteously put forward and courteously opposed.
I am grateful for and proud of the steps that the previous Labour Government took towards establishing equality, and I also pay tribute to this Government for bravely introducing this Bill. I thank the Equalities Minister and her colleagues for the consideration that they and their officials have given to the Church in Wales, which as a disestablished Church with a legal duty to marry is uniquely placed.
Late last week I spoke to those in the office of the Archbishop of Wales and it was clear that they believed the Bill as currently drafted is much improved. In response, the Church has stated:
“The duty of Church in Wales ministers to marry will not be extended to same-sex couples. However…there is provision in the Bill for the law to be altered without the need for further primary legislation by Parliament.”
Although it is of great personal regret to me that my Church currently does not permit same-sex marriage, what is exemplified in that quote—as, indeed, it is in the rest of the Bill—is that it will not be forced to do so under the proposed legislation. There could not be a more respectful and appropriate compromise. Let me be clear: I will argue and pray for my Church to change its mind from within, but that is fundamentally a theological decision for my Church. The Bill is about not compulsion but permission—permission for the state to offer the legal institution of marriage to all those who request it, and permission for religious organisations to do the same should they so wish.
I spoke in detail last week about why I believe the Bill will provide ample protections for those whose earnestly and sincerely held beliefs will prevent them from wanting to take part in, conduct or otherwise engage in ceremonies of same-sex marriage, in addition to the extensive protections that people of religious belief are afforded by the Equality Act 2010. Hon. Members who remain concerned should test and secure assurances on that, but I believe there is no cause for fear.
All struggles for equality in human history are hugely different, but they have common characteristics. I do not wish to be crude or crass in making comparisons between debates on slavery, votes for women and other issues, nor do I imply that any Member of the House would have voted for slavery or against votes for women, but there are important historical parallels in the development of Christian and non-Christian views on those issues. With the greatest respect, I believe future generations will look back in deep confusion at some of the views expressed in this debate.
It is rare that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will hear me quote an American southern Baptist minister. Pat Robertson is no proponent of same-sex marriage—indeed, he is a staunch opponent—but when questioned recently on why an America built with direct intent on Christian values had justified slavery, based in part on interpretations of biblical verse, and yet moved on to abolish it, he said:
“We have moved in our conception of the value of human beings until we realized slavery was terribly wrong.”
Slavery and same-sex marriage are different issues, but I hope the House today moves on in its conception, towards people of all sexualities. I also hope we move towards the state—and, I hope in time, more faiths—being able to open up the offer of the commitment signified by marriage.
One of my constituents wrote to me simply to ask:
“Please vote in favour of this Bill…so that my partner and I can get married.”
When I decide that I want to make a lifelong commitment of love to a partner, whether that be to a woman or to a man, I hope to get married in the traditions of my faith and in the presence of the God in whom I believe. I respectfully ask hon. Members this question: why should we, in all good conscience, deny my constituent, fellow hon. Members or any other person in this country a remarkable and worthy institution that is currently afforded to the majority but denied to a minority? We will not diminish marriage by allowing same-sex couples to marry, but strengthen it. I urge the House to vote in favour of the Bill.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We should indeed treat one another with tolerance and treat everybody’s sexuality with understanding, but the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether English law should declare for the first time that two people of the same sex can marry.
Parliament is sovereign—we can vote for what we want—but we must be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, in seeking to make the point that Parliament is sovereign, said that Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman or a woman a man. Of course, in 2004, we did exactly that with the Gender Recognition Act. We are now proposing to make equally stark changes to the essence of marriage. During the civil partnership debates, I was given solemn assurances on the Floor of the House, including by some sitting on the Opposition Benches now, that the Civil Partnership Act would not lead to full same-sex marriage.
Chris Bryant
Assurances from me do not necessarily determine what happens in Parliament in future. Several hon. Members have raised what I said in that debate. At that time, I believed that civil partnership was the be-all and end-all of the story. I have since entered a civil partnership and believe that the world has moved on. Many Conservative Members who voted against civil partnerships know that Britain’s mind has changed and want to reflect that in a change of the law.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In respect of Parliament being sovereign, it matters not what anybody says in any debate, because Parliament can trump it with a new law. On the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—it is not the first time he has been wrong—I voted for civil partnerships expecting that to be the end of the story. We are now confronted with thousands of people in our country who are in, or want to enter, civil partnerships but would like to be married. That is what the Bill is about.
Mr Leigh
That is precisely what I want to talk about —the nature of marriage.
The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church beautifully describes the institution. Anybody of any faith or no faith who supports traditional marriage could echo these words. The catechism says that marriage is a “covenant” in which
“a man and a woman establish themselves in a partnership”
for “the whole of life”, and that marriage is
“by its nature ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”
What does that tell us? I and many millions of our fellow citizens believe that marriage is, by its nature, a heterosexual union. We believe it is the bringing together of one man and one woman. It is not just a romantic attachment, which can exist between any two people, and nor is it just a sexual relationship. The act of marriage, by its very definition, requires two people of opposite sexes. If we take that basic requirement away, what we are left with is not marriage.
The Minister claims that marriage has always evolved. The Bill is not evolution, but revolution. It is true that I am blessed with six children. I realise that not every married couple is able to have the gift of children, and that some married couples may not want it, yet that does not change the fact that the concept of marriage has always been bestowed with a vision of procreation.
Every marriage has procreating potential in that marriage brings together biologically the two elements needed to generate a child. The very reason that marriage is underpinned with laws and customs is that children often result from it. They need protecting from the tendency of adults to want to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. Marriage exists to keep the parents exclusively committed to each other, because, on average, that is the best and most stable environment for children. If marriage were solely about the relationship between two people, we would not bother to enshrine it in law, and nor would every culture, society and religion for thousands of years have invested it with so much importance. Marriage is about protecting the future.
Marriage is not about “me, me, me”, nor about legally validating “my rights” and “my relationships”; it is about a secure environment for creating and raising children, based on lifelong commitment and exclusivity. Marriage is also profoundly pro-woman—it is generally men who have the greater propensity to want to wander off into other relationships, when, in general, women are left holding the baby.
We must get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of equality. I am a Conservative. I believe we should be concerned with equality, but not at the expense of every other consideration—not at the expense of tradition. We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage. Otherwise, what is a Conservative party for? Indeed, we are alienating people who have voted for us all their lives, and leaving them with no one to vote for.
I should add a comment from a lady who e-mailed me. She said:
“As a gay woman in a 24 year relationship, I commend you for your stand against the nonsense now being perpetrated by”
the Government.
“We have civil partnerships to give legal protections, I contracted one in 2006. I have been a Conservative voter for 50 years…and see this latest piece of nonsense as a final kick in the teeth for loyal Conservatives.”
I will vote tonight to proclaim my support for the future of our children and for the essence of traditional marriage.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
All hon. Members have had many letters from constituents about the Bill. One I received came from a couple who first met in 1978 and have been in a loving and committed relationship ever since. They are accepted, welcomed and supported as a couple by their friends and family, and they have waited 35 years for the House finally to catch up with what they and their friends already knew: that their same-sex relationship is every bit as valid, important and equal as their straight friends’ relationships.
Over the period of that couple’s relationship, there have been huge changes in how society at large views them and other same-sex couples. I marched in protest 25 years ago when the House passed section 28—legislation that offensively characterised same-sex relationships as “pretend”. The fact that we have a quite different Bill before us today is testament to the power of politics to change minds and build a better society.
I condemned the Conservative Prime Minister who promoted section 28 all those years ago, but today I pay tribute to the Conservative Prime Minister who has provided leadership on this issue. The Bill is also a tribute to the legacy of campaigners such as Michael Cashman and Chris Smith, to numerous socially progressive campaigners in the community, to LGBT people who have suffered hatred and discrimination in their lives because of who they were born, and to the same-sex couples and individuals whose determination to secure equality was driven by the knowledge that the love they experienced in their relationships was no less than anyone else’s love.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against discrimination. Does he agree that one group still discriminated against is the trans community, and that one important outcome of the proposals is that they will make it possible for individuals to change their legal gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without being forced first to end their marriage? That will be a great relief to many trans people in the community.
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point that I am happy to agree with. I hope that changes will be made in due course to reflect that.
The argument that extending marriage to same-sex couples in any way diminishes anyone else’s relationship is spurious. One person’s happiness does not diminish another person’s; rather, it adds to the total sum of human happiness, and surely that is to be welcomed. The measure strengthens rather than weakens marriage by extending it to more people. To those who do not like gay marriage, I say, “Don’t marry someone gay, but please don’t deny that right to loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”
Equality is indivisible. One cannot be partially equal: either one is equal or one is not. The prize of the Bill will be to build a lasting political consensus in favour of equality. Today, the House must put itself on the right side of public opinion and on the right side of history by recognising in law at last that every person has the fundamental human right to love and to marry whomever they choose.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I feel a certain distress about how the debate has been managed over the past six months and the pressure that has been put on so many of my colleagues by pressure groups and Churches who should have known better than to deploy such tactics. I feel that I have been living with a false sense of security after the legislative changes of the past decade. I am indebted to the Prime Minister not only for the Bill, but for the changes he has brought about within my party, which have led to my own election and that of many others and changed the face of the parliamentary party. As a result of the debate over the past six months, we may have gone two steps forward, but I fear we have also gone one step back. The modernisation of the Conservative party is not yet complete.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Has the hon. Lady, like me, been particularly angered and frustrated by the tactics of the campaign director of Coalition for Marriage, who has sent out e-mails urging people to write to their MPs saying:
“You will be remembered if you vote for this Bill. You will be held to account for it. We will tell your friends and family and we will not vote for you.”?
This is a free vote. Members should be voting with their conscience, as a free vote requires, not on the basis of threats to electoral prospects.
Margot James
The hon. Lady makes the point far better than I could have done. The Coalition for Marriage and some Churches have deliberately and consistently misinterpreted the Government’s intentions by pretending that we were forcing Churches to marry same-sex couples. That was never the intention of the Government, and I and other colleagues would never have supported the Bill had it been so.
Belatedly, only this weekend, the Church of England has finally admitted that it is not realistic or likely that Churches will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. It is so easy to say that now, when practically every person I meet who does not follow political deliberations in great detail has said to me about the Bill, “Oh, it’s about weddings in churches for gay people, isn’t it?” That is the misapprehension that many of my constituents who are opposed to the Bill have laboured under, including members of my own constituency association. I would like to put on record my appreciation of those individuals who have treated me with courtesy and respect such that I can, in conscience, support the Bill this evening without fear or favour. Many of them, however, believe that we are legislating for gay weddings in church. We are not. I am satisfied by the advice of the Attorney-General that that is an infinitesimal possibility. We have heard about how nobody can legislate against a challenge in the courts, but case law in the European Court of Human Rights makes it infinitesimally unlikely that any such challenge would succeed.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that many European countries that are members of the Council of Europe have introduced same-sex marriage while at the same time protecting religious freedom, and that it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to do the same in our country?
Margot James
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In fact, there was a case from Austria in 2010, Schalk and Kopf, in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there was no obligation on any country, on any secular Government, to guarantee the rights of gay people to marry each other.
It has been argued that equality is not all that matters—that we are different and we should celebrate differences. I agree: we should celebrate cultural and other differences. However, having been different for most of my life, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that being treated equally is very welcome indeed. We still have some way to go, not just for gay people but in other areas too. My party should never flinch from the requirement to continue this progression; otherwise we may end up like the Republican party, which lost an election last year that it could have won were it not for its socially conservative agenda.
One last point that has not been raised is that gay people have always been allowed to marry—as long as they choose someone of the opposite sex. This has been the case in politics and in Hollywood for reasons that are well known. Many gay people today appreciate civil partnerships, but want more—they want the status of marriage. I am thinking particularly of younger gay people, who did not have to grow up in the environment that some of us had to grow up in. I support their right to declare their love in a state of marriage. I can assure hon. Members that this will not undermine tradition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a great privilege to stand here today in the greatest seat of democracy in the world. I am honoured to be a part of this debate on the redefinition of marriage. The single biggest mailbag I have had in all my days as an MP, MLA and councillor has been on this issue. I listen to my constituents—not just one or two, but all of them. In this case, I listened to the 1,700 of my constituents who have contacted me to tell me clearly that they are opposed to any change and to the redefinition of marriage.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister walked into the House to great applause in relation to Europe. I was pleased as punch for him and what he is going to do with the referendum. He said he would be giving a commitment with all his heart and soul, and I am of the same mindset on this issue: with all my heart and with all my soul, I oppose the redefinition of marriage in this House and elsewhere.
More than 99% of my constituents who have contacted me have said that they do not want this. I have listened carefully to the argument that this is a matter of equal rights. That is not how I or my constituents view this matter. The introduction of civil partnerships, which enshrined legal and financial rights, ensured that people in civil partnerships had the same protection as a married couple. There is parity of rights here, so this is not a matter of equality of rights.
With great respect to the House and to everyone here, the sheer volume of those who are against this change cannot be ignored. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That has not changed for thousands of years. My constituents tell me they see no reason to redefine marriage, and I agree. We do not need to push through a measure that so many people believe will affect their ability to live out their Christian faith, but which does not give rights or correct wrongdoing. There is much potential for harm. This is not scaremongering; these are grounded and justified fears.
The proposed change in the law has the potential to bring inequality to anyone who disagrees with the redefinition of marriage, or who does not teach it, or who feels unable to promote or assist its promotion in their work. It will leave Churches vulnerable. On behalf of the Elim Church, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Brethren of the Church of Ireland or the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, the Methodists, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Orthodox Jews—all those faiths who do not want a redefinition of marriage—I ask the Government not to ignore them, but to listen to what they and a few of us here are saying.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my puzzlement that this proposal was in nobody’s manifesto? Indeed, our own Prime Minister, only three days before the general election, said he would not be introducing it. None of us stood on a mandate to introduce this Bill.
Jim Shannon
I understand exactly how the hon. Lady feels. I would feel the same if I were a Tory.
The quadruple lock the Minister referred to makes worrying reading. There is no protection for public sector chaplains in the armed forces; NHS and university staff will be denied, for fear of losing their jobs, the freedom to express the opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. Some 40,000 teachers have expressed the valid fear, backed up by legal opinion, that they will not be able to opt out of endorsing same-sex marriage and allow someone else to teach that aspect of the curriculum. There is something horribly wrong about a teacher losing their job for seeking to bow out gracefully of teaching that section by allowing someone else to step in. It is also wrong that parents have no protection enabling them to remove their children from classes in which they will be taught something that is expressly against their beliefs. When did we become a country that enforces ideals on people to the detriment of their personal faith? I do not believe that we are such a country, and I urge everyone today to ensure that we do not become it.
What about council registrars who feel unable to follow the new definition because it is contrary to their faith? The Minister has claimed that the quadruple lock will ensure that Europe cannot change. She and everyone else in this House knows that Europe decisions have been made in Europe that overturned legislation in this country. I have five examples, but I will give only one, because time is against me: Islington council sacked registrar Lillian Ladele for requesting an accommodation of her conscientious objection to same-sex civil partnership, and the European Court confirmed that a public authority could force employees to act against their beliefs on marriage and sack any who resist. That demonstrates that a quadruple lock and any other kind of lock will fall down when it comes to the European Court. Is there any other reason why the Minister believes that Europe will support us?
In December 2011, the Prime Minister stated that the UK is
“a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so”.
Today, I urge the Government to put that statement into practice and show that we are not ashamed to live by the Christian principles of loving God, loving our neighbour and living by the word of God. Do not take away people’s right to do that and say it is for equality. It is not. Parity of rights is already secure. Instead, let people live their faith without fear of persecution, aided by this Government. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the Bill.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful for the tone of the debate so far, including from the Minister for Women and Equalities and the shadow Home Secretary, for the passion from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for the call for tolerance from friends such as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I share with someone whom I hope I may call my friend, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), whom I welcome here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) the scars of past battles fighting against section 28, for example. It was not easy in the face of huge prejudice.
I come to this debate as the person I am, with the complexities I have as an evangelical Protestant by faith and a Liberal since my teens. So these are not easy issues for me, and they are not easy for many people here. I hope that we all understand the difficulty that colleagues and our constituents have in understanding the other side of the argument. Two of the strongest arguments made against the Bill are that none of us made an election manifesto promise to legislate for this and that this is a redefinition of marriage, the last being the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
On the first point, it is true that it was not an election commitment, so I ask the Minister, the Government and Parliament to proceed slowly and carefully and to seek maximum consensus. Heavy programming and tight timetables will be the enemy of good legislation, and I hope that the Government will be sensitive to that.
Simon Hughes
I will be voting against the timetable motion for just that reason, but I shall support the Bill. Edmund in “King Lear” said, “Stand up for bastards”. We need to stand up for gay people and their civil rights, but we also need to seek maximum consensus. A restrictive programme motion, therefore, would not be the right way forward.
Simon Hughes
I have apologised to him both publicly and privately. I was on a platform with him the other day, and he was very generous to me and supported me. We have worked together on many occasions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Other countries do these things much more easily than we do. In other countries, couples have a civil ceremony and then a faith ceremony. It would have been much better to start in that way, but it is too late to do that now, not least given the position of the established Church. I hope, therefore, that we will give the Bill a Second Reading today, but then work on the areas that, in my view, are not yet in a fit state to be enacted.
The Bill ought to be amended to make it clear that the principal purpose is to provide for equal civil marriage for gay and straight couples and for others to opt in if the Churches and other denominations so wish, but that is not how the Bill is drafted. The Bill ought to make it clearer that we are not seeking to redefine traditional marriage as previously understood in custom and law. That would be helpful to Church communities and others. I have talked to many in churches and elsewhere and I believe that there is a constructive will to improve the Bill, even among people who might not in the end support it. I imagine that a majority will vote to give the Bill a Second Reading, but we must disabuse people of the notion that it will place a prohibition on how people may speak and preach about these things and on what happens in schools. I am sure, however, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, will address that issue intensely and will be able to give guarantees to people who fear that the Bill will affect their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of belief.
I hope that we will address two other things. I supported civil partnerships. I think the Church was wrong to oppose them at the time, and I hope that it and other faith groups now understand that they would do themselves a service if they allowed services of blessing for people in civil partnerships. It would not be good, however, to provide for an easy transfer from civil partnership to civil marriage, which is what the Bill proposes. If we are to have civil marriage, there ought to be an obligation on everybody to have the ceremony of civil marriage, so that the full import is understood. I also do not understood why the Government are not making civil partnerships available for conventional male-female relationships as well as for gay people.
I hope that there will be changes. In an intervention, I asked the Minister to consider positively, both in Committee and before Report, constructive suggestions for change. Given the complexity of the Bill, we need tolerance and respect. On Saturday night, I watched the new film, “Lincoln”. Of course, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, there are no exact parallels between the battle over slavery and this, but there is a lesson: people then took different sides of an intense argument, even though they came from the same faith or other backgrounds, but things move on and we have to learn that understanding each other’s positions and seeking the maximum consensus is the best way to proceed. I hope that is how we will continue.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the tenor of this debate, as Members clearly have different opinions about same-sex marriage, and the nuances of the various views held have been expressed well.
As someone who believes firmly in equality and human rights, I strongly defend people’s rights to express their views freely within the law, regardless of how repugnant I might find them or how strongly I might disagree with them. However, I would remind opponents of same-sex marriage of the much-quoted words of the late American politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”
Much of what we hear from the opponents of same-sex marriage is opinion masquerading as fact, so that they can then take the next logical step of insisting that their position should be imposed on everyone else.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would testify to the huge postbags—or large number of e-mails, to be more exact—we have all received on this subject from people on both sides of the argument. I particularly want to challenge two assertions that opponents like to pose as facts: that same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage; and that this is not about equality.
The definition of marriage has been changed by the state over time, so it is not correct to suggest that the concept of “marriage” has not changed. In fact, legislation around marriage has rightly changed over the years to keep up with public attitudes, from the beginning of real state involvement in marriage in the 1750s to the introduction of non-religious civil marriages in the 1830s, and from allowing married women to own property in the 1880s to outlawing rape within marriage in the 1990s.
The remarriage of divorcees is now allowed, and since the passing of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 it is now possible for a trans person to marry in their affirmed gender. On the other hand, religious marriage will continue to be a matter for religious organisations, not the state, to define—or redefine, for that matter. So this is about not redefining marriage, but extending it to a category of people who are already, de facto, eligible to enter into marriage as a result of the introduction and broad acceptance of civil partnerships. Surveys have shown that 80% of adults under the age of 50 in the UK now support same-sex marriage legislation, including three in five people who describe themselves as having a religious faith.
On equality, much progress has been made in fighting discrimination in the last few years. I am proud of the fact that Labour was in the driving seat for much of that, and I know from the current backlash against the Equality Act that progress is fragile. We need to keep up the momentum and same-sex marriage is an important next step in making progress.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have become adept at adopting the language and arguments of the equality agenda to justify diversity under the law in respect of allowing civil partnerships for homosexual couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. However, no matter how they try to dress it up, such a distinction is discriminatory. While the fact of discrimination provides a powerful case for this change, the growing public support I referred to earlier gives the best possible context for delivering it.
I do not share the view of some that marriage is so vital and important that we should support this move for that reason alone—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Time is up. I call Craig Whittaker.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Throughout all the debates and controversies surrounding the same-sex marriage proposals, recognition of the purpose and values of marriage has been assumed rather than discussed. No real debate has taken place on the nature of marriage itself. Every e-mail and letter I have received in support of this Bill has mentioned the word “equal”. It is interesting to note that the Government have dropped that word from the title of the Bill. That is probably because it does not promote equality.
A Bill that keeps the traditional meaning of marriage for some sections of society, saying that marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children, then gives others in society a different meaning of marriage, saying that marriage of same-sex couples is lawful, is not equal. The Bill also does not change the meaning of adultery: if a person in a same-sex marriage has an affair with someone from the opposite sex, that is deemed to be adultery; but if they have an affair with someone of the same sex, it is not classed as adultery and is therefore not grounds for divorce. How is that equal?
A Bill that takes away the meaning of the purpose of marriage, whose intention is traditionally child-centred, and tailors it to become a partnership model changes the basic building block of society and makes it adult-centred. How is that equal for children? Why does this Bill not offer civil partnerships for heterosexual couples as well as for same-sex couples, or civil marriage for same-sex couples, too?
Marriage is clearly both a foundational and a progressive institution; it is both traditional and radical. It secures well-being and manifest advantage for children born under its auspices, and stability for men and for women. However, traditional marriage is under threat, and has been for many years. The steady erosion of marriage over the last few decades is a grave social and economic ill. Why, then, does the state want to undermine it even further? With about 50% of children in our society being born out of wedlock, the state should be looking at ways to strengthen the institution of marriage for the sake of children, rather than eroding the true purpose of marriage even further. There is a plethora of evidence to suggest that the best platform to address poverty, acceptance, socialisation and a place in society for children is parental sacrifice and the love of the children of their union—the traditional family unit, sealed by traditional marriage.
Those who advocate the extension of marriage to same-sex couples have been very strong on the value of equality, but at the same time almost silent on the specific nature of the concept of marriage they want equal access to. Rather than erode the traditional meaning of marriage for the majority, there is a simple solution to address the problems arising from this Bill, which, as it currently stands, is incredibly divisive, rather than inclusive. The Government should take a serious look at opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples and simply change the name to something like “state marriage”. In that way, those who want marriage so that they can be called married, get their way and those who want to maintain traditional marriage for its true intended purpose can keep it. In that way, those who do not want a traditional option of marriage can have marriage under a civil partnership, or state marriage, where they currently cannot and those who believe the Churches should decide on who they want to marry can allow them to do so. Let the Churches decide, not the state, and let them do so without fearing reprisals.
In the meantime, I will not support this Bill, and I urge any of my colleagues who are undecided or wavering to do the same.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a huge privilege to be called to speak in this historic debate.
When I was a first-time candidate in the mid-1990s, I confess that I was concerned about plans at that time for lesbians and gay couples to be able to adopt. That was not because I believed that their parenting would be in any way inferior to that of straight couples—I did not, and do not, believe that. It was because I feared that the social climate at that time might have meant that many of the children would be subjected to serious bullying. Happily, today we live in a very different world. Some eight years have passed since the introduction of civil partnerships, and about two years have passed since the bar on religious ceremonies was removed. I believe it is time that we in this House have the courage to vote for equal marriage.
Let me explain my main reason for wanting to speak in this debate. As a straight woman of the Christian faith, I cannot believe it is right that I could be married in a church—and also that people of no faith whatever could be married in a church—yet believers who are lesbian and gay are shunned by the civil laws of the land on this issue, and even denominations that freely wish to marry them are barred from performing one of the most fundamental sacramental and pastoral duties. Do Members honestly believe that we should say to a Quaker couple whose meeting house wishes to perform a religious ceremony that they should be unable to have that, or that we should say the same to reformed or liberal Jews or to Unitarians? What about the United Reformed Church, which brought in religious ceremonies for civil partnerships last year? That Church was created from non-conformist traditions whose adherents were once barred from standing for office in this place and barred from our universities, and whose burial rites were not permitted in our parish churchyards. Do Members seriously believe that, in the 21st century, we should be denying religious freedom to those faith groups again?
There has been talk in the debate today of civil marriage and state marriage, and of how they should somehow be different from religious marriage. With the greatest respect, we are not talking about the ownership of the railways here. This is about something that many religious denominations wish to opt into. That is why the Bill specifically offers an opt-in. As we have heard, Catholic Spain has had equal marriage since 2005 without any challenges from the European Court of Human Rights. There have been more than 22,000 civil marriages in Spain—a country in which General Franco ruled supreme 50 years ago.
Churches the length and breadth of our land have not been challenged for re-marrying divorcees, for allowing members from outside their own fellowships to wed, or for placing any restrictions on who may receive the sacraments of communion or baptism. And let us not forget the case of Nadia Eweida, whose right to wear a cross at work was so shamefully denied by British Airways. She was supported by the ECHR in a judgment that quite rightly declared that manifesting religion was a fundamental right. I believe that this legislation is fundamentally about human equality and religious liberty. For heaven’s sake, let us support it today.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The level of interest in this subject, and the respect that has been shown by Members on both sides of the debate, are strong arguments for more free votes to take place in the House. I am delighted to see the manner in which the debate is being conducted today.
We have heard that this matter is not the highest priority facing the country at the moment, and I agree with that. We have also heard that the Government have no mandate for the legislation in their manifesto; that is also true. Although it is clear from many opinion polls that public opinion seems to support the measure, there is no settled public view on the matter. This is a new debate; it has not been conducted for long, either in the House or outside it. I believe that more time is needed for people to consider the ramifications of the proposal.
Too often, the argument on this issue outside the House has been polarised. Those in favour of same-sex marriage have sought to suggest that all those who oppose it are dinosaurs, while those who oppose it have said that its supporters would bring about the end of civilisation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I do not think that either of those propositions is true. There has been a great deal of common ground in the contributions from both sides of the debate today, but the core question with which most Members are tussling is the balance between the rights of those who wish to enter a same-sex marriage and the threat to religious freedoms for others.
In June 1998, I voted in the House in favour of an equal age of consent. Only 13 other Conservative Members did so at the time. In 2003, I supported the introduction of civil partnerships, although I wanted the proposals to be wider and to include other cohabiting couples. Both those changes righted an injustice. This measure does not. It will not save anyone from prosecution for being what they are, and it will not prevent any unfair inheritance taxes from being applied.
I will vote against the measure tonight, not because I think that the world will end if it is passed but because I have serious misgivings about it. In spite of the Minister’s commendable efforts—which, as has been mentioned, have been recognised by the Church of England—it will be impossible to guarantee that religious freedom will not be compromised. Many Members have already raised instances in which people’s employment or their right of free expression could be compromised if the European Court were to rule in a certain way, or indeed if our own domestic laws were to be employed against them.
At the beginning of the debate, the question that was put to my right hon. Friend the Minister by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was met by no guarantee. She could not give him a guarantee that people’s religious freedom would be protected, because it is impossible to guarantee that. The matter could be taken to the European Court. Indeed, if we pass this measure, it will be taken to the Court.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I want to set out misgivings about the Bill. I am not going to vote against it, because I do not object to its being scrutinised in Committee, but I expect to vote against it on Third Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has spoken of the Church of England marriage service in some of his interventions on this topic. He has been right to do so, not on the basis that if the Church of England says something it must be true, but on the basis that the Church of England was the custodian of marriage in Britain for hundreds of years. For many people, it still is.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
May I point out that the Church of England has never been the custodian of marriage in Scotland?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The 1662 version of the Church of England service, which has been in use for the past 350 years, sets out three reasons for marriage. The first is that it was
“ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord”.
The central problem with the Bill is that it introduces a definition of marriage that includes the second and third reasons but drops that first one. The result is something that is a good deal weaker than the original.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend was at my wedding. I was not young when I got married, and unless I had been blessed like Elizabeth, it was highly unlikely that I was going to be able to procreate after all that time. Is he telling me that my marriage is less valid than anybody else’s?
Stephen Timms
No, I am certainly not. I was delighted to attend my hon. Friend’s wedding. The reason that I have just cited was applicable 351 years ago as well, but the Church of England service still applies.
Children are at the heart of marriage but they are barely mentioned in the Bill. It aims to open up the benefits of marriage to people who are excluded from it at the moment, but it does so at the price of taking away a significant part of the meaning of marriage. Children are the reason that marriage has always been so important. If it was purely about a loving relationship between two people, as the Minister suggested earlier, it would have been much less important than it has actually been. Does that matter? Yes, it does, because it is right for society to recognise—as marriage does—the value to all of us of the contribution of those who bring children into the world and bring them up. That is the ideal that the current definition of marriage reflects, and it would be a mistake to lose the value that that definition places on the creation and bringing up of children. In the end, it will be children who will lose out if we do that.
Mrs Moon
I am following my right hon. Friend’s argument about the importance of marriage for children. Is he suggesting that children should be adopted only by couples who are married, or that children with same-sex parents have a lesser right to have loving parents who are married?
Stephen Timms
I am not saying either of those things; I am simply making the point that it remains the ideal for the two parents who together created a child to bring up that child.
Legal equality was delivered, quite rightly, by the introduction of civil partnerships, and if there are weaknesses in those arrangements, they should be put right. In particular, I see no problem with same-sex unions being celebrated in places of worship where congregations want to do so. A same-sex couple can have the same wish to affirm and to have affirmed a lifelong exclusive commitment as a man and a woman getting married, and we should value that and be willing to recognise and celebrate it. This Bill, however, affirms not that same-sex unions are equal with marriages, but rather that they are the same as marriages, when in reality they are not: they are different. I think we will be poorer if we adopt a watered-down definition of marriage based on two aims from the Church of England’s list instead of all three.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is quite obvious from the tenor of this debate that this proposed legislation presents many problems for people both in this Chamber and beyond. Constituents and colleagues who are neither prejudiced nor homophobic genuinely believe that it is impossible to change the meaning of a marriage, which is what this Bill seeks to do.
People with deep religious beliefs see this attempt to change the law as an undermining of a fundamental institution. Now, by its very introduction, this Bill has undermined the perception of civil partnerships, which were so widely celebrated only a few years ago. I understand many younger people are not bothered by this Bill, but many older people do not understand this Government’s imperative to change the law in this area.
There may be a case for examining any legal disadvantages to same-sex couples and for strengthening any weaknesses in the civil partnerships legislation. This legislation, however, was not in our manifesto; it was not in the coalition agreement; and it was not in the Queen’s Speech. It should not have been introduced before a much fuller discussion had taken place—particularly, I believe, within my own party.
Mrs Gillan
There have been many conflicting messages coming out of the Government, and my hon. Friend has just alluded to one of them.
At a meeting I attended in the House of Lords only a few weeks ago with the then putative Archbishop of Canterbury, one bishop told us that the Church had not been fully consulted. I believe that the Church should have been fully involved in all discussions on this matter. If the Government had sought to redefine civil partnerships or if they could really have ensured that the religious freedoms that they are promising would stick, more people would have been persuaded to support the legislation.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us may find ourselves having to abstain, even though that is not exactly ideal, because that is the only way of making the point that although what we are debating has merit, a conclusive case has not been made? I would like to make it clear that, although I am not implacably opposed to change, I need to be convinced that it is necessary and has been properly thought through. When I hear of Government lawyers who are not even able to deal with the basic detail of the change to marriage under new laws, I really despair.
Mrs Gillan
I am glad I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene, because I think she has spoken for many people on both sides of this House.
The Secretary of State is doing the impossible in this Bill in trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. As no Government are able to protect our religious freedoms, I am going to have a problem supporting this Bill tonight. The archbishop put it very simply in a television interview, when he said “There are issues”. I believe that the issues with this legislation cannot be resolved, so it is with great sadness that I shall vote against this Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Having listened carefully to the representations I have received from constituents on both sides of the debate, I will vote for equal marriage today. I will do so because I am a Christian, not in spite of it. I believe marriage is important, and I believe it should be taken seriously—certainly more seriously than how it is presented in modern celebrity culture. I also think there are things that undermine marriage and strong relationships—the lack of family-friendly working hours and prohibitive child care costs are among them—but I genuinely cannot see how my support for equal marriage undermines my own marriage, the marriage of anyone else, or marriage as an institution. If anything, I believe it strengthens it.
I acknowledge that this is a difficult debate for some people. I understand that some Members have a different view from me, but I do not believe a case has been made to explain why the honour and privileges of marriage should not be extended to all. Some of the e-mails I have received have asked, “What protection will be offered to people who disagree?”, but this is a permissive law. It gives the right to conduct same-sex marriages only to organisations that wish to do so. I am genuinely not aware of anything from which people will need to be protected.
Another of my concerns relates to the role of teachers in Catholic schools in the event of this redefinition. I believe that the Education Secretary has provided adequate reassurance in that regard, but I hope we can all agree that what schools should be doing is working to tackle homophobia, and that that should be the starting point for the discussion of these issues in schools.
Some people have raised the prospect of “polymarriage” between three or more people if this change goes through. I find that objection quite offensive. Comments of that kind degrade the loving relationships of many of my constituents, and I feel that they make a poor contribution to the debate.
One of the things I find saddening is that in many of the objections I have received is an assumption that gay and lesbian people and Christians are two separate groups. When a petition was read out in my church on a Sunday several months ago, I could see how distressed gay members of the congregation felt. It is a matter of huge regret that some people—only some—have not acted more sensitively when addressing this matter.
While the overwhelming majority of the letters and e-mails that I have received have been extremely cordial, a number of them—not least some from people professing to want to uphold Christian values—have displayed a vitriol which I find extremely worrying. For instance, I have been told that my wife and I—my wife is chair of the governors at our local faith school—should not have married in a church if I am unwilling to vote against this measure. My response to that is extremely robust. If those people want to purge the various Churches of anyone who believes that faith is compatible with equal rights, they can do so, but they will kill the Churches if they do. There is no future in such a narrow, unwelcoming world view. We have reconciled many literal interpretations of scripture with modern life, and we can do so again on this occasion.
One of the more philosophical arguments that has been presented to me is that marriage belongs to the Church and not to the state. I do not believe that that is true either. We have revised and changed marriage through statute repeatedly over the last 100 years, and I believe that many of those changes strengthened marriage, notwithstanding the claims to the contrary that were made at the time. They include the introduction of register office weddings and weddings outside religious venues, and changes in the law on sexual violence within marriage. Many of those changes opened up the honour of marriage to a wider circle of people, and they should be commended for doing so.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does not the way in which the Bill is drafted protect the Church’s view of marriage, and, indeed, protect those in the Church who hold that view strongly, enabling them to continue to hold it without fear of retribution?
Jonathan Reynolds
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have neighbouring constituents, and the representations that he has received are probably very similar to those that I have received. I think that we can reassure people, but also celebrate a change that is welcome.
I feel strongly that the majority of my constituents favour this change, but ultimately it is only on principle that any Member of Parliament can vote on the matter. It is my firm view that the change is right, that it promotes the cause of equality, that it will strengthen marriage, and that it deserves our respect and support today.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Last Saturday I went to the opening of an exhibition at M Shed, a museum in Bristol, entitled OutStories. It tells the stories of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in Bristol over the last half century, and it begins with the story of Oliver, a 55-year-old partner in a firm of solicitors, who in 1963 was found guilty of gross indecency and sentenced to three months in prison or a fine of £40. It reveals all the trials and tribulations of that half-century, the ups and downs, and the way in which the experiences of gay people in Bristol have changed during that period.
Like all exhibitions, OutStories is not interested only in the abstract; it makes one think about one’s own place in history. For me that was rather easy, because I am mentioned in the exhibition as the first openly gay Member of Parliament to serve my city, and indeed the first on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was born in 1966, when homosexuality was still without the law and a criminal offence. During my life we have seen much progress, but it has come in fits and starts and has not always been easy. Throughout my teenage years and my years at university, being openly gay was virtually impossible, because occasionally it could be a terrifying identity for an individual to have. I am thinking of the abuse that I received myself, and the far worse that I saw meted out to other people at school and university. What I say to colleagues on both sides of the House who oppose what we are trying to achieve today is please have some empathy with what your fellow citizens have been through. Equality is not something that can be delivered partially—equality is absolute.
Since 1994, when the age of consent was lowered to 18, we have had rapid change, and equal marriage is the last remaining significant building block in order for us to have genuine parity of esteem between same-sex couples and opposite-sex relationships.
Dame Angela Watkinson
Does my hon. Friend agree with the gay people who have approached me, who feel that the vows of commitment they are allowed to exchange in the civil partnership ceremony are not regarded with the same value as those in a marriage, and that is why they want this?
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The introduction of civil partnerships was an important step and I would like them to be retained. I have plenty of opposite-sex friends who are not in a full marriage and would welcome civil partnerships being extended to opposite-sex couples. I hope that an amendment will be introduced in Committee or on Report to bring that about.
Today, we are legislating to allow same-sex couples to show their love and commitment before their friends and family, and to have it recognised by the state as a marriage and, possibly, celebrated within their religious faith. This Bill is permissive: it allows faiths to opt in to having same-sex weddings. I welcome the fact that the three Quaker meeting houses in my constituency, the Bristol progressive liberal synagogue in my constituency and our Unitarian chapel may be among the first in the country to take advantage of this change, and I hope they will be joined by others.
I wish that this debate was mainly about civil rights, but of course it has been characterised by discussion of the differences between religion and the state. Marriage is not the sole property of any faith or denomination; it has always been regulated by civic society, whether during the Reformation, with the various Acts of Uniformity concerning the liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer, or in respect of the rights of women in the 19th century. Indeed, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, which allowed women to divorce their husbands, was rather more radical at the time it was debated than what we are contemplating today. It was opposed by Gladstone, which shows that the wrestling with consciences that some leading figures in my party are doing today is nothing new.
Finally, I wish to touch on the politics of what we are doing. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), whose position as a Home Office Minister did so much to bring this legislation to light. I also wish to thank hon. Members from all parties who are doing their bit today to do the right thing. Much of what we do in this Chamber ends up being the ephemera of history, but what we are doing today will be much more profound and will be remembered for a long time. It will bring genuine change in our country. What we do will be looked upon kindly by history.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who spoke powerfully from his own experience. I am going to vote for the Bill to be given its Second Reading tonight because I believe it is right to give all committed, loving partnerships the same legal status. However, the Bill bears all the hallmarks of a rushed job. The Government’s confusion about a marriage and a wedding is made clear in the explanatory notes, which state
“Marriage law in England and Wales is based on where the marriage ceremony takes place.”
Surely that is a complete misunderstanding of what marriage is all about.
I have two concerns that I hope will be addressed in Committee before the Government bring the Bill back for its Third Reading. I do not want us, inadvertently, to back the Church of England into disestablishment. The reason why the Church of England, unlike the other faiths, needs special mention is not to introduce a new hurdle, but to reflects its position as the established Church. Anyone and everyone who resides in a parish has the right to marry and be married in their parish church. Canon law, which embodies the teaching of the Church, is also part of the law of England. However regrettable some hon. Members feel this to be, the Church of England is not, in the foreseeable future, going to change its teaching on marriage, so this statute needs to reflect that position if the Church of England is not going to be subject to successful legal challenges. To put it another way, we need to balance people’s rights under articles 12 and 14 in the European convention of human rights to marry and be free from discrimination against the equally important right under article 9 to freedom of religion. Consequently, it is vital that that part of the Bill is not weakened in Committee.
In another respect, I feel that the Bill does not go far enough. The Government say that they want to treat all marriages in the same way, but part 3 of schedule 4 exempts same-sex marriages from rules on consummation and adultery. In practice, I guess that consummation might not be a big problem. As for adultery, however, surely if sexual fidelity is central to heterosexual marriages it should be central to any and all marriages. Why is the Bill fixating on biological heterosexual intercourse? A similar issue arises in how the Bill sets out the rights of children born to lesbian mothers. Surely children born to lesbian mothers should have the same right to two parents as other children and the presumption should be that a married lesbian couple are both parents of the child if one of them has a baby. I hope that those Members who are on the Committee will consider that, as well as the rights of children adopted by gay married men.
Finally, the trans community is often overlooked. I welcome the provision that will not require those people to annul their marriages in order to have their gender reassigned.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I thought long and hard about seeking to speak in the debate. I feared the tone of it and how colleagues would seek to oppose the Bill. When they talk about gay marriage making them physically sick, or suggest that it is a step towards legalising polygamy or incest—
Mike Freer
No, I will not.
Such colleagues need to remember that this involves peoples’ lives and we should remember that the words spoken in this Chamber hurt people far beyond it.
When I was elected to the House in May 2010 it could have been the proudest day of my life. I should point out, in fact, that it was the second proudest, because the proudest day was when I entered into my civil partnership, which I did six years ago, with my partner of 21 years. Our civil partnership was a huge step for us, and yet many argue that we should be content with that—after all, it affords us all the same legal protections as marriage. I ask my married colleagues: did they get married for the legal protections it afforded them? Did they go down on one knee and say, “Darling, please give me the protections marriage affords us”? Of course they did not. My civil partnership was our way of saying to my friends and my family that this is who I love, this is who I am and this is who I want to spend the rest of my life with. I am not asking for special treatment; I am simply asking for equal treatment.
People have talked about dissent, division and the heat of the debate, but sometimes leadership is about doing what is right, not what is popular. I congratulate the Prime Minister on leading on this subject. The issue has caused anxiety among colleagues and constituents. Some argue that this is not the right time, yet no one has been able to explain to me what the right time looks like. If not today, when? Monday? Next week? Next year? For me, this is the right time and we should simply get on with it.
Much of our time in this House is spent on technical legislation. Today, we have an opportunity to do what is right and to do some good. I am a Member of this Parliament and I say to my colleagues that I sit alongside them in Committee, in the bars and in the Tea Room, and I queue alongside them in the Division Lobby, but when it comes to marriage, they are asking me to stand apart and to join a separate queue. I ask my colleagues, if I am equal in this House, to give me every opportunity to be equal. Today, we have a chance to set that right and I hope that colleagues will join me in voting yes this evening.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
I well remember the days when same-sex couples were denied basic rights: next of kin and relationships were not recognised, pension rights were not available to surviving partners, and discrimination in property and inheritance issues was widespread. Civil partnerships recognised same-sex relationships in law for the first time, and I am extremely proud that it was a Labour Government, with all-party support, who passed that legislation in the House of Commons.
Legislation is not built on sentiment; it is built on fact, and I have to say to Members across the whole House that while that legislation unequivocally broke the back of unlawful discrimination, this proposal does not end any discrimination whatsoever, and has the potential to open up a can of worms of Olympian magnitude. I have to confess that I am bitterly disappointed at the manner in which people’s genuine concerns in this matter have been dismissed by Ministers. Logic has been responded to with platitudes, and there has been no greater offender than the Minister for Women and Equalities. I shall come on to that in more detail in a moment.
I want to ensure that my views are recorded, because I do not agree with the comments from people who are clearly steeped in bigotry and hatred. My concerns are based on three considerations. First, the Bill, should it become law, will give no new rights to same-sex couples in England and Wales, and it is a complete fabrication to suggest that it is about equality. Indeed, the briefing from Stonewall—an organisation I greatly admire—makes no mention whatsoever of new rights.
Secondly, I believe very strongly that the state should have no role in marriage whatsoever. Any couple, same-sex or not, should have access to civil partnerships or unions. If this is truly about changing definitions and setting them in law, for goodness’ sake, let us do it properly and allow the state properly to recognise relationships, treat all people equally and allow equal access to all the mechanisms of the state. By doing so, we would eliminate the controversy that arises when we start to use the same terminology as the Churches.
That brings me to the third reason for opposing the Bill. On 11 December, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:
“I know that many hon. Members are worried that European courts will force religious organisations to conduct same-sex marriages. The law is complex, but that complexity is absolutely no excuse for misunderstanding the facts. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and rights set out in the European convention on human rights, put protection of religious belief in this matter beyond doubt.
The Government’s legal position has confirmed that, with appropriate legislative drafting, the chance of a successful legal challenge through domestic or European courts is negligible.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 156.]
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman know of any case in any EU country where same-sex marriage is allowed in which someone has been prosecuted for holding the view that same-sex marriage should not be allowed?
Mr McCann
I am grateful for that intervention, because I am going to deal with that point right now.
The much-vaunted quadruple lock is underpinned by case law. Everyone in the House knows that what makes case law is cases. I am damn sure—as sure as the sun rises in the morning—that a same-sex couple will go to a church or synagogue and demand to be married, their demand will be refused and they will go to court; and we in turn will have to wait to see what new case law is created. By that time, it is possible that none of us will be serving in the House—we may have left politics altogether or indeed left this mortal coil—but in that set of circumstances people will look back and ask, “How did we get into this mess?” They will look back in Hansard and say, “It’s because we made a bad law in 2013, and some politician said at the time that there was a quadruple lock, underpinned by case law.”
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
If we project forward into the future, is it not also the case that some Churches may change their mind, just as they have over the blessing of civil partnerships? Parts of the Church of England, and certainly parts of the Church in Wales, have already expressed a desire to go further than the Bill will allow. Society will evolve, but so too will the views of the Churches.
Mr McCann
That may very well be the case, but my proposition, which separates a recognition of unions and partnerships by the state and partnerships recognised by Churches, would make sure that there was no confusion between state and Church; there would be a clear distinction in law. That is why I am upset about what is being proposed today. Because the quadruple lock proposed by the Minister is to be supported by case law, the inevitable conclusion is that if case law changes, the Minister’s argument falls.
When I came into Parliament I made a personal vow that I would never knowingly vote for a poor Bill or for a poor piece of legislation. I may unintentionally do that in my time in this place, but I will not do it when I know that what is in front of me is a poorly constructed Bill, which in turn could become a poorly constructed law. That is why this evening I will vote against Second Reading. That is my position, which I wanted to place on the record.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). His very last point was that we should never vote for something that we know is a bad Bill. What a statement for Parliament and parliamentarians!
Today is a sad day for me. I think it is my saddest day as a Member of the House when my party brings in a Bill to which I am fundamentally opposed. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am sad that my party has introduced the Bill without any democratic mandate. I am not going to address the issue whether gay marriage is right or wrong, as Members on both sides of the House are making those arguments very well. I shall deal specifically with the democratic deficit. That is what Parliament should be concerned about tonight.
I have listened to many of the short speeches that have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) started to make some interesting points, but the time limit stopped her developing her argument. The first democratic deficit which I draw to the attention of the House is the fact that we have only one day for this Second Reading debate, so that Members are reduced to speaking for four minutes, and many will not get in. It would have been much better if we had had the debate over two days. I hope that towards the end of the debate, the Leader of the House will rise and suggest that the debate be adjourned, and that we have another day so that all Members can contribute on such an important matter.
Mr Chope
Would my hon. Friend sum up the conundrum by saying that it is the tyranny of the usual channels which has destroyed our opportunity of having a two-day debate? The Front Bench teams both support the Bill, which leaves the Back Benchers who are against it out on their own.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a breach of precedent? A Bill dealing with an issue of conscience brought to the House on Second Reading, such as the Hunting Bill or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, would be debated on the Floor of the House, giving an opportunity to showcase Parliament and have a mature debate about crucial issues.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I hope, if I have time, to deal with that important point.
Let me roll back the clock to the last general election. I have the three manifestos: the best one, “Invitation to join the Government of Britain”, which is the Conservative one; the Liberal Democrat manifesto, “Change that works for you”; and the Labour one, “A future fair for all”. I also have the coalition programme for government. I have read all these again and they make interesting reading, but they do not deal anywhere with the question of gay marriage or same-sex marriage. It is not even hinted at. I thought that I had better check the number of pages in those documents. The coalition agreement has 35 pages, “Invitation to join the Government of Britain” has 119, “A future fair for all” has 77, and the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto has 109—a total of 340 pages of promises and nothing at all about gay marriage.
That is where there is a huge democratic deficit. When voters went to the polls, they did not vote for candidates on the basis that this issue was under consideration or the subject of a pledge by their party—there was no suggestion of that whatsoever. That is slightly misleading, though, because I vaguely remember —we were all working hard at the time—that the weekend or so before the general election there was a slight hoo-hah in the press to the effect that the Conservatives were going to bring in gay marriage. I thought, “Goodness gracious me—that can’t be right.” My leader, now the Prime Minister, had an interview with, I think, Adam Boulton on Sky television, and thankfully, when he was asked if the Conservatives were planning to bring in gay marriage, he said, “I’m not planning that.” So it was not in our manifesto or in anyone else’s and the leader of my party said that it absolutely was not going to be brought in—and two years later we find there is to be primary legislation about it.
Why should all 646 of us, with our individual consciences, determine this matter? Why is my view or that of the leader of my party any more important than the view of the person in the Dog and Duck in Wellingborough? They have not had a chance to express their view.
Mr Bone
No, I am sorry—I want other Members to have a chance to speak.
I have a simple solution to the problem. I hate to bring the EU into the debate, but the Prime Minister has gone for a referendum on that very important issue. Tonight, everyone on the Government Benches and everyone on the Opposition Benches could be united if the Minister, having listened to the debate, said, “I recognise that this is a matter of conscience and I want to put it to the British people.” We are going to have an in-out referendum on the EU in 2017, so why do we not put this matter off until 2017, and then the whole nation can decide on it, not just us 600 people here tonight?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I apologise for missing part of the debate. I have been in a Public Bill Committee.
I want to vote for the Bill on Second Reading because having thought long and hard about this and listened to a lot of people in my constituency, I think that the principle is right. It cannot be fair in this day and age that some of us enjoy a right and a privilege that we deny to others. I assume that the vast majority of the House will support the Bill on that basis. The Minister will not convince people who are totally opposed to it—I do not think that is possible—but I hope that she will concentrate on three matters.
First, the Minister should think again about confining the Bill to civil marriage. It is not in our interests to make any judgments about the Church—any Church—or other faiths. It would be much better to let them define spiritual marriage as they see fit and offer it as they see fit. That would be very reassuring to a lot of people.
Secondly, as this is an equalities measure it might be worth thinking about what there is to lose by extending civil partnerships to everyone. That would be a reasonable tidying-up exercise. I heard the Minister assure the House that no one who is opposed to same-sex marriage will be forced to promote it, and I believe she is sincere, but I hope that she will do a bit more in Committee to give those guarantees some absolute certainty. Lots of people who are not in any sense bigots are expressing genuine and legitimate concerns, and when making a social change, we are obliged to recognise those concerns.
Finally, section 28 represented one of those dark periods in our recent history when we were being asked to accept a singular reality that denied the feelings and reality of other people. Today gives us a great opportunity to step away from that and to show that we have learned and moved on.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I was a primary teacher when section 28 came into force. The class I taught in Peckham had children whose parents were gay, and I was debarred by my head teacher and the law from talking about their families as families. Passing the Bill will bring that era to an end. We should be proud of ourselves if we pass this Bill.
Steve McCabe
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a chance to extend the rights that we enjoy to other people. As long as we do that by genuinely setting out to protect and understand the feelings of those who cannot support the measure, the House will have done a decent and reasonable thing.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I first put on record my appreciation of the Coalition for Marriage, which has done a fantastic job in informing not only Members of this House, but the wider public about the issue.
I oppose the Bill for five key reasons. First, I believe it is simply wrong in principle. To overturn centuries of established custom requires a proper explanation beyond mouthing the equality mantra. What shaft of wisdom has suddenly alighted on my right hon. Friends that was denied their distinguished forebears? How come they think that they know better than the established Church? For the Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary today to pray in aid the argument that marriage “has evolved over time” is simply disingenuous. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) has pointed out, nothing like this has been proposed in Parliament ever before—this is a massive change.
This Bill deeply affects the core fabric of our society through the challenge it poses to the whole institution of marriage. Reference has been made to Spain, which introduced similar legislation in 2005 and where the overall marriage rate has fallen by 20%. Since all research shows that children raised in married households with a mother and father tend to fare better than those who are not, the Government threaten to damage the life chances of the nation’s children.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and others have pointed out, neither the Prime Minister nor any other party leader has a mandate, because this was not in any party’s manifesto, let alone in the coalition agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has insisted on sticking to the 0.7% target for overseas aid on the grounds that he gave a commitment in 2009, and I respect him for that. He has stuck to that commitment, but not to the commitment to introduce tax breaks for married couples, and he has now invented a policy that he specifically ruled out at the last general election.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Absolutely. This goes to the heart of the point that, as Conservatives, we are traditionally cautious about constitutional change, but that is not true of this Administration—sweeping Lords reform, a major change in the law of succession, and now this Bill are all to be rushed through on a timetable motion, subject to a three-line Whip. This is no way to treat Parliament or colleagues who have strong convictions either way on what is a very sensitive and important issue to all of us and our constituents.
Thirdly, if there is no mandate, where is the demand for this change? A poll in yesterday’s Daily Mail—okay, it was the Daily Mail, but still—found that only one in 14, or 7%, of those questioned thought that this should be a priority. Another poll found that more than 60% of the black and minority ethnic communities—the very people that the Conservative party is apparently out to woo—are hostile to it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The majority of the population do not seem to care very much about what we are talking about today, but the number of those in my constituency of Beckenham who do care and who have written to me in huge numbers saying, “Please oppose the Bill,” is far greater than the number of people who will rejoice if it is passed. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
Sir Gerald Howarth
Yes, I do agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Overwhelmingly, the letters and e-mails that I have received from my constituents have asked me to oppose the Bill. The fact is that the public do not understand the full ramifications of the Bill and what will flow from it if it is passed.
Fourthly, there is already provision for civil partnerships, which provides most of the benefits of marriage to those in the gay community. Those of us who had reservations when the legislation on civil partnerships was introduced were reassured that it should not be seen as the forerunner of today’s Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord Filkin said in another place in 2004:
“I want to put our position very clearly. This is a new legal status that gives rights and responsibilities to people in same-sex committed relationships… We do not see it as analogous to marriage. We do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. GC179.]
Clearly, those behind today’s proposal feel no sense of obligation arising from the clear assurances that were given 10 years ago. How can we be sure that this will be the end of the process and that there will not be more?
Fifthly—this point was alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) —what about the consequences? On education, the Department for Education states grandly:
“No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs.”
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is doing a gallant job in difficult circumstances, said on the “Today” programme on 25 January that there would be “no requirement” on teachers to promote same-sex marriage. However, she added ominously that
“obviously we wouldn’t expect teachers to be offensive or discriminate in any way about anything.”
What guidance does that give to teachers in our country who have a profound objection to promoting anything other than traditional marriage? John Bowers QC, who defeated the Government over prisoner rights, has pointed out that there is no protection.
I am not a Tory moderniser, for I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I shall not surrender my principles. I believe that this Bill is wrong and that the consultation process was a complete sham. The Bill is opposed by the established Church and has caused deep and needless divisions within the Conservative party. There is no mandate for it and it has huge potential consequences, not least the prospect of endless legal challenge. The nation faces much more serious challenges that the Government need to address. I therefore hope and pray that this measure will be rejected, if not in this place, then in the other place.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I hope that one day, we will live in a truly equal society in which there is little or no discrimination. I do not believe that that is a utopian dream. I believe that it is a possibility, but we have a very long way to go. The introduction of equal marriage and the Bill before us are an indispensable step in the journey towards that equal society.
It is disturbing to reflect—as many hon. Members have in this debate—on how the law used to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality. Until 46 years ago, it was a crime for a man to have sex with another man. Until 12 years ago, it was illegal for lesbian and gay people to serve in the military. The time when homophobia was incredibly and worryingly widespread is within the living memory of each and every right hon. and hon. Member of this House.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point and one that we should hear more of. Does she agree that it would be good practice to extend the debate until 10 o’clock tonight? Is she aware of any mechanism by which that could be done? This matter is too important to be rushed through.
Emma Reynolds
I would love to have more time and my hon. Friend has given me a little extra.
It is also incredible to reflect on how the legal terms of marriage used to discriminate against women. Until the end of the 19th century, married women could not own property. Until 1991, it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. The law is neither perfect, nor sacrosanct. The law still prevents same-sex couples from entering into marriage.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech. Let me take her back to the point about homophobia and how recently the things she described used to happen. I would like to reflect again on the case of Alan Turing. I recently attended the dedication of a room at the BBC in Salford to Alan Turing. Today of all days, we should reflect in this debate on the terrible thing that happened to him and celebrate how far we have moved on. I am sure that in her speech, as in mine, we will support this Bill as a step forward.
Emma Reynolds
Today is indeed an opportunity to celebrate the progress that we have made, but as I said at the start of my speech, I fear that we still have a long way to go.
As law-makers, it is our responsibility to ensure that the law does not discriminate against groups of people on the basis of religion, ethnic origin, sexuality or anything else. We should be proud that it was hon. and right hon. Members, past and present, who tackled the injustices that I have set out. I am particularly proud that it was a Labour Government who did so much in this area—equalising the age of consent, abolishing section 28 and introducing civil partnerships. Some of the same arguments that we have heard in opposition to the Bill today are the arguments that we heard back then, but since then those changes have been accepted.
There seem to be two key arguments against equal marriage, which I want to tackle head-on. The first is that it will somehow weaken the institution of marriage. That argument is simply illogical. On the contrary, I think that allowing more couples to enter into marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it. There are many countries in Europe and around the world, as well as many states in the United States, that have introduced gay marriage and it has not weakened or undermined marriage in those countries—quite the contrary.
The second argument is that equal marriage would threaten freedom of religion. Again, I refute that argument. I wholeheartedly support the freedom of religion, but the Bill contains guarantees that neither a religious institution or organisation nor a minister of religion will be forced by the law to marry same-sex couples.
Emma Reynolds
No, I will not—I will not get any more time, so it is not in my interests.
Many European countries that are members of the Council of Europe have already introduced same-sex marriage, some—in the case of the Netherlands—as early as 2001. It has also been introduced more recently in Denmark, Sweden and elsewhere. Those countries have managed to introduce same-sex marriage while at the same time protecting religious freedom. As has been stated, no successful case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister underlined, the freedom of religion goes both ways. It is also right to protect and promote the freedom of those religious organisations that want to conduct wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. The Quakers, liberal Jews and Unitarians have all expressed a desire to do so. I do not think the state and the law should stand in the way of that. I know there is a live debate in the Church of England and that the Bill exempts the Church of England, but I am concerned about this. Only this morning I had a discussion with Canon Dr Giles Fraser. He passionately believes in the introduction of same-sex marriage and would like to marry same sex-couples in his church. My understanding is that the Bill as currently drafted would not allow that.
The love that two men or two women feel for each other is equal to that felt by a heterosexual couple. Their love is no less significant and no less important. I passionately believe that it is time the law recognised this fact. It is time that the state stopped standing in the way of same-sex marriage and we celebrated the enrichment of marriage that this Bill will bring.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I shall be voting against this Bill because I am a Conservative, and also because an overwhelming number of my constituents are against it. I have had, I think, three letters in support of the Bill. That reflects opinion in the Christchurch constituency.
The proponents of this Bill are under one fundamental misconception—that because a man and a woman are equal before the law, therefore they are the same. They are not the same; men and women are different. Same-sex couples may be equal before the law, but we cannot force them into marriage, which at the moment is set up on the basis that it is between a man and a woman. Sir Mark Potter, president of the family division, spoke of the common-law definition of marriage:
“The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”
We ignore that fact at our peril.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises a good point about the constituency postbag that many of us have received. I am curious to know, however, whether he has looked at the age profile of the people who write to him. Surely, as it is for most of us, those who are older—60 plus—tend to be the most outraged by this Bill. I have five children, and if any of them thought I was going to oppose this Bill, they would think I was bonkers. The vast majority of people under 40 support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions on the grounds that everybody wants to contribute. It is important that we hear everybody’s voice.
Mr Chope
I cannot answer for my hon. Friend’s constituents but I know that my constituency has the highest proportion of elderly constituents in the country and I put that on the record.
These proposals were not in our manifesto, they are not in the coalition agreement, and the Prime Minister expressly ruled them out three days before the general election. In 2004 I was a member of the Civil Partnership Bill Committee and I led 89 Divisions in that Committee. I argued then, as I argue now, that we should give a status to civil partnerships that is the same for men and women.
During the debate, a number of hon. Members from across the House have said that civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I raised that with the Prime Minister at a meeting the best part of two years ago and he told me that he is against—he put it like this—“all marriage-lite arrangements”. If that remains his view, it is not reflected in the Bill before the House. The logic of that view is that we should exclude civil partnerships, and that the Bill should be amended to delete them in the future, while obviously allowing existing civil partnerships to continue. The alternative is to allow civil partnerships for relationships between men and women. If we allow civil partnerships for everybody, the Bill is not so likely to be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. If civil partnerships are available only to same-sex couples, yet at the same time those couples are given access to marriage, we will not be able to argue a case in the European Court of Human Rights against that proposition.
We should be discussing the Bill in detail in Committee and submitting it to pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why I shall vote against the timetable motion and the carry-over motion. It is an obscenity that the Government persuaded the House to introduce carry-over motions as a standard form of the Standing Orders on the basis that we would be able to carry over Bills that had been first introduced in draft form, subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and then brought forward as a proper Bill. Having made no mention of this Bill in their manifesto, and without a draft Bill or even pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government are trying to push this Bill through quickly because they see it as embarrassing.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Does my hon. Friend also think it is outrageous that the Committee stage is not being taken on the Floor of the House? Any measure of this controversy and sensitivity should be discussed on the Floor of the House.
Mr Chope
Absolutely, and we should have had two days for the Second Reading debate. I am at odds with the Prime Minister on this issue, but there is no reason why we should be at odds on issues of procedure and process. If the Prime Minister is interested in the primacy of this Chamber and does not want all our legislation to go in piecemeal form to the other place, why will he not agree to a longer discussion on this Bill?
The Bill could be introduced as a fresh Bill at the beginning of the next Session, and the time between now and then could be spent on proper scrutiny. For example, we have not heard from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which gave important advice to those who debated the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, or from other Select Committees, because the Bill is being rushed through. I hope the consequence is that the other place gives the Bill a pretty bloody nose.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on the principle of equality for civil partnerships. It would be remiss of us and a dereliction of this Parliament not, in the context of the Bill, to afford equality on civil partnerships. I regret the terms in which the Minister talked down civil partnerships in her opening speech, just as the Prime Minister has done.
Many gay people will, for their own reasons, continue to opt for civil partnerships rather than civil marriage. They will opt for civil partnerships to maintain their relationship with their faith, and perhaps their relationship with a partner to whom they were previously married. If civil partnerships are to remain a valid and respected choice for gay people according to their lights and consciences, they should equally be available as an option for mixed-sex couples. They, too, might want to maintain a relationship with their church, their family or a partner from a previous marriage. All equality should be equal—that is why I will support the Second Reading of this Bill—but that should stand for civil partnerships as well as for civil marriage.
The Bill was first trailed as a civil marriage equality Bill, on which basis I committed to supporting it. I will support the Bill on Second Reading on that basis, although its terms have widened, which has added to many people’s misgivings and to the sense that it is the thin end of the wedge, a slippery slope and so on. I understand, share and sympathise with some of those misgivings, but I will reflect that by opposing the programme motion. If hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill on Second Reading but who have also said there are issues they would like to be addressed in Committee want to be honest and honourable, they should not in good conscience accept the Whip to vote for the programme motion; they should vote against it.
I support the Bill on Second Reading because I care for the legislative principle. However, as a legislator, I must also observe the principle of legislative care. The time we have been given to discuss the Bill on Second Reading means we have to soundbite our way through the debate—we have four minutes each to speak, which is ridiculous. I do not know how we can discharge our responsibility to legislative care in that way.
Many hon. Members have said that the restrictions on the right to marriage have changed. People should emphasise that. They should say not that marriage has changed and therefore we should keep changing it, but that the restrictions on the right to marriage have changed. Importantly, restrictions on rights within marriage have also changed. Legislatures led the way on that when Churches were somewhat fearful of doing so.
I am a person of faith. I am proud of my marriage and that it was ritually founded, but I do not believe that that is the only form of marriage to which people should be entitled. My sense of the strength of my marriage and its qualities will not be diminished if marriage is available to anybody else, whether they have a civil or Church marriage. We can look forward to achieving equality and legislating for it with the Bill, but we need to address serious issues. Churches appear to be treated differently. Some Churches can be named in the Bill, but others are told, “You have to be content with reading the implications and relying on interpretations of the Bill.” That is not good enough.
I will vote for equality tonight. I was one of only 38 hon. Members who voted for equality last week in relation to an amendment to the Succession to the Crown Bill. I will be joined by hon. Members in voting for equality tonight, but where were they last week when they voted to retain discrimination at the heart of the constitution?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am very disappointed to have to rise to oppose the Bill. I never imagined that I would be put in a position where I have, by virtue of standing up for marriage, been characterised variously as a “homophobic bigot”, a “religious nutter”, a product of the dark ages, or, as I see in this weekend’s press, on the brink of making “a tragic mistake” that I will have many years to regret. This was not in our main manifesto. To cite that it was on page 14 of the equalities contract, a sub-manifesto that had little or no public scrutiny, is disingenuous at best.
My concern this afternoon is to uphold marriage. I speak not just from personal religious interest; although sadly I feel it necessary to have to state it, I do not speak either from any sentiments of a homophobic nature. I hope that my friends who are gay would stand to that comment.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is most regrettable.
The assumption of the Bill is that marriage is just about love and commitment. Of course marriage is about love and commitment, but it is also about the complementarity, both biologically and as a mother and father, of a man and a woman who have an inherent probability of procreation and of raising children within that institution.
As an otherwise ardent supporter of the Prime Minister and his leadership in difficult times, I have tried hard to reconcile myself to his view on this matter. However, I cannot see how any Government can automatically confer marriage on somebody by passing a law without changing the nature of what marriage means. It will lead to legislative anomalies and undermine the recognised obligations and norms that sustain and underpin marriage as an institution. The Government themselves have recognised, in the text of the Bill, that there inevitably will be important distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. The Bill is clear that adultery and consummation will apply only to opposite-sex marriages.
In the Stonewall briefing, those concepts are seen as “archaic requirements” and that “unreasonable behaviour” will provide sufficient grounds for divorce, thereby opening a whole new area of debate, confusion and differences within the same new proposed definition of marriage. For married heterosexual couples, the concepts of consummation and adultery will remain, yet they will not apply for same-sex couples who take up the proposed provision. This ludicrous situation underscores why, nearly a decade ago, the wise provision of civil partnerships was made—to ensure that same-sex couples could make an equally valid commitment in law, receiving all the legal rights and privileges conferred by marriage, but remaining different in name.
By a factor of at least 30:1, my constituents have expressed their opposition. Those who are indifferent or in favour of the change are unlikely to change their vote over this issue, but the level of disappointment of a much larger minority, as witnessed by the 635,000 who signed the Coalition for Marriage petition, is keenly felt and will be a highly motivated electoral minority in future elections.
I have stood up against homophobic bullying and prejudice all my political life, and I have to say that the language used by some Christians is, unfortunately, appalling. I want to put on record my abhorrence at some of the representations I have received. Homophobia can never be condoned, but redefining marriage is the wrong way to tackle prejudice. Huge numbers of Conservative supporters feel grave disappointment and alienation at the decision to pursue this legislation. The Government will say that they are strengthening marriage by widening it, but in doing so they are redefining it and in redefining it they are undermining it. If the Government want to strengthen marriage, I respectfully submit that they should leave it alone.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I want to say to the Minister for Women and Equalities that I was the Minister who took through the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and although there will be much noise and fire, she will look back on this moment in her career with great pride, as I do on the equivalent moment in mine.
The measure of a civilised democracy is how we treat minorities, so it is important that we remember those who served on the Wolfenden report, now more than half a century ago; Leo Abse, who campaigned for many years in the House for the decriminalisation of gay sex; and those, including in my own local authority of Haringey, who in the 1980s wanted to fund gay groups and see our children understand these complex issues, but who faced section 28. Had we not passed that clause, we might have come to this moment a little sooner. It is to them whom we pay tribute as we move forward.
Emma Reynolds
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of section 28 set back the debate, and that had it not been introduced we might have come to this point much earlier?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. It was a moment—a great stain on the House—when we turned on an important minority.
I have received many letters from people for whom this is all coming too soon. They say that the speed of change for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights is happening too abruptly for them to comprehend and that the country they live in, the traditions they live by and the people they live next to are transforming in ways that make them feel uncomfortable, upset and undermined. They are not homophobic or racist, they claim, but they say, “Not now, later”.
To some extent, I sympathise. As much as I would want Britain always to be the beating heart of radical and progressive change, it is not. At root, it has always had a small c conservative spine running through it—an instinct that change should always be organic, a need for change to be owned by the people, not imposed from up high. That instinct must be respected, and I will be respecting it when I vote for the Bill, because it commands the support of the country, because it respects religious freedom and tradition by permitting, rather than mandating, religious organisations to conduct the ceremonies, and because it is the end of an organic journey from criminalisation to equality for the gay community that began over half a century a go. This change is right and necessary and the time is now.
There are still those who say it is unnecessary. “Why do we need gay marriage”, they say, “when we already have civil partnerships?” They are, they claim, “Separate but equal.” Let me speak frankly: separate but equal is a fraud. It is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. It is the motif that determined that black and white people could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets. They are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers—schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty. It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and racists. It is the same statement, idea and delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote, but only if they were married and only when they were over 30. It is the same naivety that led to my dad being granted citizenship when he arrived here in 1956, but being refused by landlords who proclaimed, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.
The phrase entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become. It is not separate but equal, but separate and discriminated against, separate and oppressed, separate and browbeaten, separate and subjugated. Separate is not equal, so let us be rid of it. As long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers of acceptance to go unchallenged. As long as our statute book suggests that love between two men or two women is unworthy of recognition through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester and we entrench a society where 20,000 homophobic crimes take place each year and where 800,000 people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work in the past five years.
I am a Christian. I go to mass. I recognise how important this is.
Stephen Pound
It is a privilege to be listening to my right hon. Friend’s extraordinary and impassioned peroration. Does he agree, however, that there are Christians who look for love in every aspect of their lives and the lives of those around them who still feel profound misgivings and concerns about this piece of legislation?
Mr Lammy
I totally accept the manner in which my hon. Friend has put his remarks, and it saddens me that I have received many letters in my postbag condemning this legislation from people who share the same values and Christian ideals as I do, and who worship on a Sunday morning. I know them to be caring, loving and understanding people, and I know they resent the fact that those on the extremes of our faith have poisoned what is an important debate with references to polygamy and bestiality.
Therefore, let us use today to return to a discussion of what marriage ought to be about. When I married my wife, I understood our marriage to have two important dimensions: the expression of love, fidelity and mutuality over the course of our life together; and a commitment to raise children. Gay men and women can now raise children—this House made that decision—so let us not hear any further discussion about having a family as if gay men and women cannot have that.
The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name, and in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for those of religious conviction to vote for this Bill.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My views on marriage stem from my Christian faith, and I want to thank Members for the respect I have always felt I have had in this place for my faith-based views. I also thank the many constituents of faith and of no faith who have written to me urging me to vote against this Bill—some 95% of those who wrote to me have done so. In doing as they wish today, I am confident that my conscience and, in the absence of any other mandate, my role as representative of my constituents’ views will coincide.
I believe that marriage is a life commitment between a man and a woman for their benefit and the benefit of the children they may have, and for the stability of wider society, and that no Government should redefine it. Indeed, no Government can do so in a workable way, as this Bill illustrates. Let me explain.
The Government say no church minister will be forced to hold a same-sex marriage, but will the legal rights of the many lay people of sincere faith who do not wish to support marriage other than between a man and a woman be affected? What of the Christian couple who own a heritage hotel registered for civil weddings and who wish to continue holding opposite-sex weddings but do not wish to conduct same-sex weddings? I understand that they will have no legal defence whatever against being sued in the courts under the Equality Act for discrimination in the provision of goods and services, and many other businesses will be similarly affected. It is therefore simply incorrect to say that the Bill will have no detrimental effect on religious or other freedoms.
Ian Paisley
On religious freedoms, is the hon. Lady aware that after Denmark changed its laws, churches there were forced to conduct same-sex marriages shortly after guarantees were given that they would not be forced to do so?
Fiona Bruce
I note that with interest, and hope to comment on it later.
What of the church youth leader or parachurch organisation, or the faith-based charity that puts on marriage preparation classes? Will they be required to accept same-sex couples, or will they have to close their class or their organisation? If they do not, will litigation ensue, with all its attendant stress and costs, whatever the outcome? Will they face the loss of their charitable status or the withdrawal of any local authority grant or facilities because they do not have an acceptable equality and diversity policy? Can anyone guarantee that that will not happen as a result of this Bill? Or will such organisations and people decide to stay silent, and therefore have the precious right of free speech compromised as a result of this Bill?
What of the legal distinction between the public-servant role of the employed registrar, such as Lillian Ladele, in a local registry office and the public function carried out by voluntary registrars appointed by local churches as part of their membership across the country? If those voluntary registrars—those lay people—refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, will they really be able to defend themselves successfully in discrimination actions in the courts, especially if the case goes to Europe? Without the principle of reasonable accommodation being part of our legislation—as it is in other countries with respect to matters of faith, and as it is in this country with respect to matters of disability—will not the Lillian Ladele precedent return when such cases are sent to Europe? She was unable to pray in aid the ECHR articles on freedom of thought, conscience or religion when she lost her case and her job. Why should people of good conscience risk ending up in the same position?
Chris Bryant
I am sure the hon. Lady will know that the Book of Common Prayer says that one of the three reasons in Christian conscience for marriage to be ordained is
“for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”
Why, in Christian conscience, should the state ban Christians—or, for that matter, people in ordinary society—who want to be able to share that from doing so, just because of their gender?
Fiona Bruce
It is ironic that, although the Government say that they want to promote commitment and equality, the Bill will not create equal marriage. It will create different types of marriage.
Most young people aspire to be married, precisely because of the security that the commitment of marriage provides, but adultery with a married person of the same sex will not be a concept that is applicable to same-sex marriages. What message does it send out to young people about marriage, if faithfulness and commitment are no longer at the heart of it? Far from strengthening marriage and commitment in our society, the Bill risks seriously weakening them. The Government have had to put many locks into the Bill to protect people, precisely because they are concerned that they will fail, one after another.
Before each daily sitting of Parliament, prayers are sincerely said in the Chamber by many of us. Our prayers ask that we should
“never lead the nation wrongly”.
I will vote against this Bill because I believe that we would surely be doing that if it were passed.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I hope that I shall be able to prove to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) that one does not have to be young to be radical. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has left his place, because, as I am one of the Ministers who took the civil partnership legislation through Parliament in the 2003-04 Session, alongside Jacqui Smith in the then Department of Trade and Industry—surprisingly, the lead Department on that Bill—and I remember every one of the 89 Divisions that he provoked. I want to pay a special tribute to the right hon. Member for Melton. What is his name? Alan Duncan—[Interruption.] Rutland and Melton. I am never quite sure if that is a cheese or a wine—[Interruption] —and in his case, it might be both.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think he is a right hon. Member.
Mrs McGuire
I want to pay a special tribute to the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) because, while in opposition, he led his troops towards what became a consensual approach to civil partnerships. Let us be under no illusion, however. Those of us who were around at the time will remember that, in its own way, the civil partnership legislation was no less controversial than the Bill before us. Many of the arguments that have been made today are the same as those we heard then. In fact, I remember being accused by the then right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, Miss Ann Widdecombe, of undermining marriage. As of next week, I will have invested 41 years of my life in my marriage, and I do not think that I have been undermining it.
The Minister needs seriously to consider the concerns that people have on this issue. I agree that the Bill throws up certain questions. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in saying that she needs to nail down exactly what the protections will be for Churches other than the established Churches. I do not want to face any vicar, priest or rabbi and have to say, “I’m sorry, I got this wrong.” I want it to be right and the Minister needs to give us the right indication.
We need to revisit the issue of civil partnership. In its time, it was seen as a step forward. We went forward in unity with the gay community which at that time wanted legal rights to be established for gay people. However, the difficulty that arises when piecemeal legislation tries to deal with a strategic issue is that we get piecemeal anomalies, and I think we will be going down that road unless the Government—if not in tandem with this Bill, certainly as part of a later conversation—think more about what to do with civil partnerships.
There is a debate to be had about the separation of the secular and the religious. We can look at continental countries for which the only agency for marriage is the state, but where all the religious elements—I went through them myself in my own marriage—can be added on to that initial contract.
I will vote for the Bill. I have received representations—some rude, some very polite—and had polite conversations, asking me to do various things. As a legislator, I have to make a balanced judgment, and I would emphasise that tonight’s vote is not a proxy for Europe, for leadership contests or anything else. I ask Members to vote with their conscience, do what is right and walk through the right Lobby.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I will be generous and give the Government credit for the title of the Bill. It is about marriage and not about homosexuality. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), but I am concerned that this Bill has advocates—indeed, I have heard them in the House today—who of all people are liberal Conservatives who want to use it as a vehicle to redefine people’s views of homosexuality, rather than to redefine marriage, which is what this Bill is about.
I have stood alongside my right hon. Friend in support of specific legislation to tackle homophobic hatred. Indeed, I have been alongside the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in my school, speaking out against homophobic bullying. This time, however, I will be in a different Lobby from them as I will be seeking to defend the social institution of marriage. We should not conflate two things. An underlying message coming across from some hon. Members, in eloquent terms, is that if someone is against this Bill, they are acceding to bigotry and homophobia. That is unacceptable. We stand positively for the institution of marriage—let no one mistake that.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the sincere way in which he is putting, and has put, his arguments. Does he share my view that the reason the Government have had to put quadruple locks into the Bill to make sure that no Church will be forced into performing single-sex marriages is that they are worried that the locks will be broken, that cases will be taken to the Strasbourg Court and that Churches will then be forced to perform single-sex marriages against their will?
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let us be clear about this, because different things have been said about the Church of England’s response to this Second Reading. It has said that
“we doubt the ability of the government to make legislation watertight against challenge in the European courts or against a ‘chilling’ effect in public discourse”—
I shall come to that shortly.
“We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable. Too much emphasis, we believe, is being placed on the personal assurances of Ministers.”
When we face serious issues concerning the protection of Churches, can we rely on and take risks regarding the worthy and well-intentioned assurance of Ministers tonight? I believe not.
Mr Burrowes
I will not.
The position was well summed up by Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall. Soon after the last election, he told me that the proposal for same-sex marriage would “not advance gay rights” but would rather
“put us in our trenches”.
Sadly, that has been the case.
Tonight’s vote is on a position of principle. It is not a practical measure about gaining equal access to marriage ceremonies. The vote is about the principle of redefining the purpose and meaning of marriage. The common law, as has been said, has always defined marriage as the voluntary union of one man and woman to the exclusion of all others.
The state has become involved in refining aspects of marriage, but the essential definition of marriage, and therefore its meaning and purpose—its very foundation—have remained unchanged until now. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and others, this is indeed an historic change. The big hole in the Bill, however, is the absence of any clause clarifying that what the Government now want us to accept is the new meaning of marriage.
The defining characteristic of marriage is exclusivity, a commitment to sexual fidelity, but the Government have taken sexual fidelity out of the definition of marriage by not applying the definition of adultery to same-sex couples. We have also heard little about the issues of children and parenthood. The Bill implies that the state now applies another meaning to marriage, which primarily involves the rights and values of adulthood rather than the rights and values of parenthood. The Minister is singing a new tune, a one-sided single: “All you need is love”.
The Government must now spell out what this means for the institution of marriage. The redefinition downgrades marriage to a personal relationship, not bound by an obligation to society, community and family that has stood the test of time and is an increasingly popular institution.
It has been said by Members on both sides of the House that this issue is about our views on bigotry and attacking discrimination against homosexuals. I do not have any truck with bigotry, but comments that have been made in the House today emphasise my concern about the freedom that is threatened by the Bill. I myself have been subject to abuse and even death threats because of my position on the redefinition of marriage.
Mr Charles Walker
I am on a different side of the argument from my hon. Friend, but I have known him for many years as a friend and a political colleague, and I am outraged by the threats that he has received. The people who are responsible for those threats should hang their heads in shame.
Mr Burrowes
I do not have a monopoly on victimhood. The homosexual community has been subject to abuse which, sadly, has characterised debates about sexuality. It is intolerable, however, that as soon as Members of Parliament put their heads above the parapet and speak to the media, they are called “a homophobe”, “a Nazi”—I have been called that—“a bigot”, and many other expletives that I would not dare to read out. I have been told to be ashamed of myself, and to die: I have received specific death threats relating to my travel plans. I have been told that I am a disgrace, and that I have no right to express my opinion on this subject. My children have been told that their dad is a bigot and a homophobe.
That is only the tip of the iceberg of rude and offensive comments that many Members have received via Twitter. I have broad shoulders, and I can continue to stand up and support marriage in Parliament. Today’s debate has not been characterised by hatred and vitriol—we have shown ourselves in a good light—but I fear for the liberty of the conscience of my constituents who may not have such broad shoulders: public sector workers, teachers and others in the workplace who see no protection in the Bill.
I am not angry, but I am very sad that my Government have so hastily introduced legislation to redefine marriage. I am resolved to join other Members in proudly standing up for marriage—standing up for the equal value of people, whatever their sexuality, but also standing up for a commitment to the value of marriage as a distinctive institution for a man and a woman.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I rise to oppose the legislation presented by Her Majesty’s Government involving the redefinition of marriage. I know that many people inside and outside the House have desired a slanging match across and around the Chamber, but I feel that the issue we are discussing merits an honourable and considered debate. There are long-lasting implications for the nation, which will be felt when many Members of the House of Commons are no longer here.
I trust that the Bill’s supporters appreciate that those who oppose it do so because of genuinely held beliefs and convictions, many of which were taught to them at their mother’s knee. Most people, even to this day, regard the United Kingdom as a Christian country. To some that is an embarrassment, while others thank God that our nation still has some gospel light and enjoys freedom of thought and speech. Each day, hon. Members gather in this Chamber to hear the Scriptures read and prayer offered to God, humbly asking for God’s blessing upon our Queen, her Government and our deliberations. We as leaders among our people still acknowledge God’s sovereign throne, the authority of His revered word and our need for wisdom far greater than our own. Sadly, after doing so today, we are turning from the teachings of that same book, and placing our wisdom and knowledge above divine wisdom.
It is true to say that to mention Scriptures in debate in this Chamber often brings scorn, laughter, mockery, isolation and intolerance, but Scripture reminds us that God said it was not good that man should be alone, so he brought Eve unto Adam. For thousands of years, in almost all cultures, marriage has been defined to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution given by God for the good of all mankind in every age and has been the bedrock institution of family and society, but today our Government intend to sweep away a definition that has served our nation well for centuries and to impose new standards and values on the whole of society, irrespective of religious beliefs or personal convictions. Surely religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not to be cast aside on a whim, simply because political parties perceive that by doing so they will get some electoral advantage?
Recently we have witnessed people throughout the United Kingdom experiencing persecution for freely expressing support for traditional marriage. We had a debate in this House last week in which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) mentioned Adrian Smith and Lillian Ladele, and we should not forget Arthur McGeorge, Dr Angela McCaskill, Dr Bill Beales, and Peter and Hazel Bull. Many of those people faced or endured suspension from their job, dramatic loss of earnings, demotion, disciplinary action and court hearings simply because they dared to express their belief in traditional marriage. Redefining marriage will have serious consequences, far beyond those intended by the Bill.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of teachers across this country could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in so far as the legislation requires them to teach the nature of marriage? If the nature of marriage is changed in this Bill, those who refuse to teach that new nature could find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Dr McCrea
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. In recent times, I have witnessed intolerance against Christianity. While people do not dare to speak against other religious figures, the precious name of the Lord Jesus is often tramped into the gutter. Many regularly look at our nation and wonder what is happening to it. I say to a Member who spoke earlier that the Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love and worship, was not an illegitimate child, but was and is the son of the living God.
When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to introduce her Bill, she was asked about the rights of teachers who fail to endorse same-sex marriages in the classroom; she was asked whether they could be dismissed. Do parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from lessons that endorse the Government’s new-found definition of marriage across the curriculum? What is the position for charities that promote traditional marriage values? What protection can they expect?
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the minister of Holy Trinity church, Brompton approached the Government equalities office to ask whether marriage courses run by churches for the community could be affected by this legislation and was advised that they will be? Therefore, the Bill does impinge on the work of Churches and their beliefs on marriage.
Dr McCrea
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will deal with that point in a moment.
What will be the position of youth organisations that depend on assistance from public finances to exist? Will they have their finances withdrawn? What are the implications for religion, liberty and freedom of speech? Is the Bill not the thin end of the wedge that will take us down a pathway that will lead to ministers of the gospel being dragged before the courts to prove themselves innocent, and perhaps even facing imprisonment? We are sending troops across the world to fight for freedom, yet we are on the verge of losing ours. The God-given covenant of marriage, as God defined it, is not ours to undermine; it is ours to protect.
Although the Minister for Women and Equalities sought to allay some of the fears expressed, we know that she was not able to reassure Members on both sides of the Chamber. As I have stated, I expect unintended consequences. We are taking a journey—that must be emphasised, because it means that we are not at the end of the road. We will take further steps. Ministers might not be imprisoned or persecuted, but that day could come. I have no doubt that charities will face increased pressure to comply with demands and to drop their policies and firmly held beliefs. They will have to close their doors. The day of persecution is not here in this country, thank God, but, sad to say, it could come.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Let me preface my comments by saying that although I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I was personally offended by his comments, which exemplified the tone of the debate. The suggestion that opposition to the Bill is akin to being a white supremacist in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 is absolute nonsense. Rosa Parks is a secular saint; she did not refuse to give up her seat on that bus for me to go to the back of the bus as a traditional Christian conservative who believes in marriage.
The fundamental question is what price equality and what price freedom? Nothing is as fundamental as that. I was disappointed by the frivolous comments made by the shadow Home Secretary, which showed no respect for the sanctity of marriage and no gravitas, as though this was a fun issue to debate, rather than 1,000 years of tradition that predates politics and Government. This is not a video from “You’ve Been Framed!”, but a matter of people’s sincere beliefs and theological convictions, which should have received more respect from a Front-Bench speaker.
We do not have to speculate about what might happen to Christians. One of the most peevish and mean-spirited acts of the last Parliament was the sexual orientation regulations of 2007, which forced out of business Catholic adoption agencies that made special efforts to help the most disabled, deserving and vulnerable children. Those agencies were put out of business, smashed on the altar of political correctness. Today, we are talking not about fairness and equality, but about a hierarchy of rights—“Your rights are more important than my rights.” Members who vote for the Bill should think carefully about that. They should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they want to be responsible for a Catholic teaching assistant being hounded from her office as a result of this Bill. That is not fantasy; it can happen. I believe that it will happen unless we do something about it, so I shall oppose the Bill tonight. That is the dark period that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned earlier. I make no apologies for section 28, but there have been dark periods on both sides, and the period following the introduction of those regulations was very poor.
Secondly, there is no mandate for the Bill. The Prime Minister specifically ruled it out and it was not in a manifesto or the coalition agreement. This is not about equality, because as we understand from the debate—no one has challenged this—same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages will not be equal as regards adultery and non-consummation.
Mr Jackson
No, because I do not have time.
This is a major issue of civil liberties and the orthodox Christian tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. That is the important issue that we must consider. Specifically, we must examine this carte blanche approach—the suggestion that we should trust the Minister that the European Court of Human Rights will not intervene. Let me direct Members to the Evangelical Alliance briefing, which states:
“Protections for religious organisations will only hold as long as the European Court does not itself accept a redefinition of marriage. Given likely accumulation of cases of precedence to recognise same-sex marriage in member states (and to see any deviations from ‘marriage equality’ as discriminatory) and the ongoing questions about the UK’s relationship to the EU, it is clear that any guarantees of legal protection are limited in scope and at best short-term.”
The Bill is a Pandora’s box of endless litigation, offering division in society and setting one group against another. For that reason and for community cohesion, we must resist it.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). I certainly agree with his sentiments. This is one of the most significant debates in this Parliament yet, by the same token, it is one of the most unneeded. The proposal was not included in the Conservative manifesto of 2010, as we have heard. The Conservative party, which leads the Government and which is the largest party in the House of Commons, did not receive any mandate at all from the people who voted for it to pursue this fundamental change to one of the great institutions of society.
The Conservative party is supposed to be the representative voice of the fundamental Tory philosophy of standing for the conservation of that which serves society well, and for slow, organic change over time. Radical social change that undermines the long-standing and commonly understood definition of marriage runs contrary to that which the Tory party came into being to defend. I fear that this is about trying to detoxify the brand. I have a lot of good friends in the Tory party, but I say this to the Prime Minister, who has astonished me by introducing this legislation: this may appease some people out there for a while, but it will undermine the grass roots of the Tory party. We saw evidence of that yesterday when Tory chairmen and presidents went to No 10 Downing street. There is a price to pay for all of this.
I am opposed to this idea, but that does not mean that I oppose someone who wants to live that lifestyle—that is entirely up to them, absolutely. My opposition is rooted in a positive affirmation of the validity of marriage as it is. I believe in equality. One of the foundational principles of the Democratic Unionist party is that people should be equal under the law, and equally subject to the law. The Minister tried to give us assurances that such and such is in the Bill, but may I put a question to her? When—not if, but when—schoolteachers, Churches, and preachers of the gospel are brought before the courts of this land or the European Courts and lose their case, will the Government pay their legal fees? If she is sure that protection is available, will the Government do so? I very much doubt it.
May I tell the House something to back up what our brother, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) said? This is not the jurisdiction of this House. This is not the jurisdiction of this Government, of any European Government or of any Government in the world. This is an ordained constitution of God. In the garden of Eden, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. There is no doubt that this has been a vigorous debate, and personally I respect the views of people on both sides of the argument. It is a pity that the extremes on both sides have used the language and terms that they have.
I approach the Bill wanting to support it, but I have concerns. Issues raised by constituents have made me think and ask questions, and made me seek answers and reassurances. For me, the points that have been raised reflect the many personal battles that I have faced and some of the most troubling and dark times in my life. Many people have spoken and written about deeply held religious beliefs. From an early age, I developed those beliefs, going to church without the support of my family. That faith grew over time, but in my adolescence, I began to realise that I was gay. Being gay in a small Welsh village really was like being the only gay in the village. It was the start of some very deep questioning about my faith and my sexuality that has taken me years to try to resolve, and I am still seeking answers.
When the Bill was announced it reignited that dilemma and raised many questions. I believe in personal freedom and equality, but I also hold dear the principle of religious freedom. Many of the letters that I have received raised exactly those points. But marriage changed from the moment civil marriage was enacted. The state created an act of union that was separate from religion and the Church, so as the state is involved in civil marriage, I cannot see how we can make it exclusive. I want to live in a society that does not discriminate. That is why I support the Bill. However, I want to secure that personal choice for marriage, as well as personal freedom. That is why I welcome the locks that the Government have put in place.
On reflection, I believe the Bill strengthens the meaning of religious freedom, which is a principle we should all uphold. Many religious groups that want to perform same-sex marriages are currently barred from doing so, which surely contradicts the true meaning of religious freedom. The measures in the Bill before us lay the decision whether to hold such marriages squarely at the doors of those organisations. It is not a decision of the state and allows each group to decide, bringing about true freedom.
Where the state is involved is in extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. In an equal and free society, this must surely be right. Equality measures introduced in the past have changed attitudes, as I have witnessed. This is another step forward. Marriage is a wonderful institution, but for too long we have seen a decline in the number of people making that commitment. Rather than see the Bill as a threat to that institution, we should see it as a great opportunity to show how much better our society is when people commit to one another. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said in his article, for him it was a day when he went from “he” to “we”. I want to extend that to everybody in our society. At present I am not allowed to do that. How can that be fair? I want that opportunity to be there for all.
Marriage is a sacred commitment. The Bill does not undermine marriage. Surely offering it to others can only strengthen it and ultimately build the better society that we all want.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis that it is the fundamental right of all people to have the opportunities and obligations of marriage, irrespective of whether it is between two people of the same sex or different sexes. Marriage bestows a host of benefits that should be equally available to people, whether they are gay or straight. There are practical benefits—for example, people consenting to their married partner having medical treatment abroad.
The Bill opens up the opportunities for civil marriage and enables Churches to go forward as well, if they so wish. A couple of the arguments used against this are red herrings, in particular the issue of the definition of marriage, adultery and consummation. Most divorces are due to unreasonable behaviour, and it is obvious that if a gay partner went off with somebody else or there was no sexual relationship between the partners, that could be construed as unreasonable behaviour, so in practice there is a homosexual version of adultery and consummation. The draftsmen or draftswomen should be able to work that out. The argument is entirely a red herring.
The issue of children has been raised in the Chamber and elsewhere. Clearly, the Bill is not about adoption. The stability of a gay couple and their ability to provide a loving and stable relationship for children is improved, not reduced, by the Bill. Surely it is better for an adopted child to be with a stable couple than with an unstable individual or in a care home.
On equal rights to marriage in one’s own Church, the issue of freedom of religion arises. Whose freedom is it? Is it the freedom of the Church, when the great majority of parishioners want to go forward and ordain women, for instance, or want to allow all couples to get married? Some of these issues are for the Church. When considering in detail the position of the Church in Wales and the Church of England, we should be under no illusion that those Churches are under an obligation to marry all comers. Therefore, when this Bill goes through they will, as an arm of the state, be open to legal challenge in Strasbourg. That involves genuine legal questions that need to be answered. Irrespective of that, the journey that we are taking to create more stable families and a better society will be enhanced by this Bill to bring about equality in marriage.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
There is a Bill before the other House to pardon Alan Turing. We probably would not be here debating in freedom today without his genius at Bletchley Park, yet this remarkable individual—the father of modern computing—was driven to suicide as a result of his shameful chemical castration enforced by the state as an alternative to prison. I hope that the Bill in the other place is successful.
If anybody feels, however, that this is some historical footnote, they should think again. They should consider the number of homophobic crimes that happen every year, and perhaps they should look at an MP’s postbag. I receive hateful correspondence, some of which suggests treatment for homosexuality. I can tell the people who write those things that homosexuality needs no treatment. Our sexuality is fundamental to who we are. We will all know people who have been forced to live a lie, bringing immeasurable unhappiness to themselves and those around them. Such marriages were not marriages—they were a sham enforced by society and the state.
I am very proud that we in this House will shortly sweep away one of the last statutory discriminations against people with mental illness. Words matter. The word “marriage” matters to me. My understanding of marriage as somebody with no faith is no less valid than that of Members who speak passionately from their religious perspective. I would say that when this measure has passed, as I hope that it does, we will look back in five years’ time and wonder what the fuss was about.
I well remember talking to a senior military figure at around the time we were about to introduce the ability for people to be openly gay within our armed forces. He spoke about the collapse of discipline and moral decay, but none of that happened; in fact, the forces became a much more open and pleasant place to work. In a few years’ time, will the marriage of any Member here feel any different—any less valuable—because we have extended that right to those who perhaps have different views from ourselves? This measure is long overdue.
I ask hon. Members to remember that when Alan Turing took his own life, it is thought that he laced an apple with cyanide, an apple being the symbol of forbidden love. Homosexuality is not forbidden love, and it is time that this House recognised that, and recognised that people cannot be a little bit equal. We have heard hon. Members and colleagues telling us that this matters to them. If it matters to one person in this House that we recognise the validity of their relationship, then it is time for us to move on. Tonight I shall be thinking of Alan Turing and all those people who have had to live a lie over the centuries, all those people around the world today for whom being homosexual is still a death sentence, and the message that we send around the world if we do not accept and celebrate people who are homosexual and vote for love and equality.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Whether Members care to admit it or not, there is a natural, a biological and indeed a scriptural order to life. Marriage begets children, by and large; children begat families, by and large; and families are the root of society: they form society. That is a simple observation of life—a time line —but it goes right to the heart of what we are debating in this House today.
This Parliament can tweak all it wants with laws and legislation, but it cannot pretend that marriage of same-sex couples is even close to being on a par with mixed-sex couples, because of nature itself. It is a fraud for those on the Government Front Bench and a deceit for this House to pretend that they can embark on something for the most pathetic of reasons—public relations reasons. There is a nonsensical notion—and it is just a notion—that this House is creating equality, but it cannot actually create that equality when it is nature itself that is not equal.
Governments do not make marriages. It is nonsense that this House can, and that this Bill will, make marriages. Admittedly, the House maps over them and extends rights and privileges to married couples. Indeed, it extends status to married couples, but Governments do not change nature. Marriage would and did exist without Governments so, ultimately, tweaking this Bill to redefine marriage is nonsense. Governments can damage marriage and they can, therefore, returning to my first point, damage society.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Is not love the fundamental concept of marriage?
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the hon. Lady making that point, because it echoes one made by those on the Government Front Bench. According to those on the Front Bench, the Bill is all about love, but marriage is not defined anywhere in law by love. It is exemplified by love—I love my wife passionately—but that is not what marriage is. That is an expression of a relationship. There are many arranged marriages and many marriages are loveless, but those people are still in law and by law married. Marriage is not defined by love itself. The vow that we take when we get married is there to sustain marriage, even after love wanes, if it wanes at all.
We should accept that the state cannot create a situation in which people are in love, and neither can it legislate for that. There is no passionometer with regard to legislation. In fact, for those on the Government Front Bench to pretend that this is about some dewy-eyed concept of love is wrong. The fact is that the Bill does not create love for homosexuals and gay people; they create love for themselves. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that we are involved in legislating for love—we are not.
Chris Bryant
I do not think that homosexuals are looking for the law to provide love for any of us. The hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental mistake by trying to say that love is of necessity about romantic love. It says in law and the Book of Common Prayer that it is about mutual society. Surely that can be enjoyed by two people of the same gender, just as it can be by anybody else.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman makes my exact point. Both the Government and the Opposition have claimed, as has the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who intervened on me earlier, that this is all about love. It is not. It is about a relationship, and love comes as part of that relationship. This is not about giving love to homosexuals, or about allowing or denying them love. They have that anyway—that is the point.
The Government do not have a mandate to introduce this legislative change. When many millions of married couples got married, they settled on a legal position, which is that marriage is a voluntary union of one man to one woman, to the exclusion of all others. That is the settled legal position that they swore to and agreed to. We now have a situation where that has to be set aside, because this House believes that it can change nature. I believe that this House is wrong.
Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is not in his place, but he made some comments that fall into what I can only describe as the not-so-new phenomenon—which will now develop—of Christophobia. Anyone who expresses a Christian view is now going to face the allegation that they are by nature homophobic. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said that those with Christian views are compared to white supremacists.
Any rational debate is being pushed to the side, slowly but surely, by this corrosive attempt to redefine the meaning of a word. That is a shame on this nation and we should guard against this change. That is why I will not support the Bill.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate.
To reflect on the last point that was made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), I think that it is fair to say that the contents of all our inboxes over the past few weeks are testimony to the fact that free speech is alive and well in this country. I am not aware that any Christians who disagree with my support for the Bill have felt in any way inhibited from expressing that view. That is great. I totally support their right to do so.
May I also respond to the point that has been made continually about marriage having been between a man and a woman throughout history? Given that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until the late ’60s, it is ridiculous to make the point that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Until that point, a homosexual relationship would not even have been legal. Had homosexuality been legalised 100 years ago, we probably would have had this debate many years back. People must bear that historical context in mind.
We must also remember that although we are talking about these changes, people face death, imprisonment and persecution for being gay in large parts of our world. The messages that we send out on these issues are therefore very important and resonate beyond these shores.
I am not a religious person. My starting point in this debate is that if we can extend to some people rights that will bring them great joy and happiness, without damaging the rights of other people or institutions, that is a good thing. I believe that that is what the Bill sets out to do.
As has been more than demonstrated by this debate, marriage is incredibly important to people of faith. However, marriage is not owned by people of faith alone. It has long belonged to civic society as well. I must speak up for that large group of people in this debate. It is easy to forget that many people still celebrate civil marriages. It is a good thing that they do because, given the declining church attendances over many decades, if they did not, marriage would be declining at a greater rate than it is. Many people enter into marriage sincerely and happily outside of religious statute. Let us not forget those people, because they need a voice in this debate.
The other people whose voice has been lacking from the national debate over the past few weeks are young people. I represent the youngest borough in the country, which has the highest proportion of 25 to 39-year-olds in England and Wales. Many of those people look at us and wonder about the debate that we are having. Some of them have sincere doubts about the Bill and have expressed them to me, but many of them think that this is a Bill whose time has come.
I have been surprised by the people who have written to me asking, “What will I tell my children if this Bill goes through?” The children of some of those people will be gay. That is a matter of statistical probability. I therefore hope that they tell their children, “If you’re gay, it’s okay and I’ll love you just the same. And guess what? I hope I can come to your wedding if you decide to get married.”
Before my time runs out, I would like to quote an e-mail from my constituent, Matt Turrell, who said that I could do so:
“I’m 38 and grew up through what felt like very homophobic years, which as a young person leaves you with a lasting sense of second-class citizenship.”
Matt is now a photographer who makes money by photographing, among other things, civil partnerships. That picks up on the point about the inadvertent growth strategy, because he will, I hope, be able to extend his business in the near future to same-sex weddings. He wrote:
“In every partnership I’ve worked at, there has been an overwhelming feeling of love between the couple and also love and support from their family and friends.”
The Bill is not just about the gay people who want to get married; it is about their family and friends who want to celebrate that special moment with them. I very much hope that we will support the Bill.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison).
Today’s debate is essentially about civil rights and equality—about whether we believe that inequality under the law can still be justified in our society or whether we believe that, as Martin Luther King once reminded us,
“the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
We have an opportunity today to join countries such as Argentina, Spain, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and South Africa—nations that have strengthened the institution of marriage by removing the inequality before the law that existed for loving, same-sex couples.
Although many parts of the Bill deal with areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where an equivalent Bill will be considered shortly, with similar cross-party support, important parts of this Bill deal with the civil rights of my constituents and those throughout Scotland, with provisions that pave the way for the mutual recognition of marriages, marriages of service personnel and consular staff, and marriages entered into overseas, along with important provisions for the transgender community. There is great support in Scotland for the idea that the institution of marriage should be open to loving couples of the same sex and that the injustices faced by transgender people should be ended too.
The breadth of those in favour in Scotland shows how much society there has moved on from the days in the 1980s of the hated section 2A and the social divisions over its abolition a decade ago. The most recent surveys of public opinion show that 64% of people believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry and that 68% believe that religious organisations that wish to conduct same-sex marriages should be able to do so. The support across Scotland includes 70% of women, 75% of under-55s and three quarters of households with children. It is the settled view of the Scottish people in wealthy Scotland and deprived Scotland, and in urban and rural Scotland. It was endorsed by a full 65% of those who made full responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the issue. That view is also supported by ordinary Catholics and worshippers in the Church of Scotland—by 54% and 50% respectively—according to the Scottish social attitudes survey. It is a view also backed by a huge coalition across civic society in Scotland.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is massive support for the legislation in Scotland among all sectors of the community, but none of the measures we are debating today affects the Scottish people. It does not affect his or my constituents. It does not affect anybody in Scotland; we have our own legislation in Scotland.
Mr Bain
I am grateful for that intervention, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to check clause 10, parts 2 and 3, and schedules 2, 5 and 6. He is sure to find that they apply to his constituents and mine in Scotland.
The Bill will achieve a great deal in equalising the marriage laws in their own right, but it will also have the effect of challenging and reducing the discrimination that same-sex couples and other LGBT people still face in our society. The Bill will strengthen marriage as a social union, but it will also strengthen our society as a whole, reflecting our values of diversity and freedom. This measure is about freedom. The right to marry is set out in article 12 of the European convention on human rights, drawn up by a Conservative Home Secretary and made part of our law in the United Kingdom by a Labour Government in the 1990s.
Sometimes equality is delivered in huge leaps, on other occasions in small steps. Our society has made huge leaps to end the intolerance and, often, the persecution it inflicted on the LGBT community in our chequered past. Today is a small step, but a hugely significant one. By extending the civil right to marry to millions of people across the country, we send a powerful signal to the world about who we are and what we stand for. Let us join a dozen progressive countries that have already done just that and stand tonight united as a House on the right side of history.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
This afternoon hundreds of Members of Parliament have come into the Chamber to discuss marriage. I wish that happened much more often, because the really big issue —the one we debate very rarely in this House, although it is an unfolding tragedy across our nation—is the collapse of family life.
I have to take issue with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that family life had not fallen apart. In this country the marriage rate has almost halved since 1972, and the number of single parents has more or less doubled between 1980 and today. Four million children live apart from one or other parent, and every year 300,000 couples split up. We do not discuss that enough in this House, or what we can do to help reverse that situation and give couples the skills and support they need to make a success of their marriage and relationship. I hope this is not the last time that hundreds of Members of Parliament come together to discuss the important issues of family life. It is a huge issue that Parliament must not miss.
In his landmark speech in December 2011 at Christ Church, Oxford, the Prime Minister said that the United Kingdom was a “Christian country”. Those were his words and I was pleased to hear him say them. What we are doing this afternoon should give us pause for thought, because we will be realigning the laws of this country in a way that is different from what Christian doctrine teaches. We should take note of what the newly installed Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said yesterday, and of what the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, and many others, are saying.
Let me quote two verses from the New Testament from when Jesus was talking about marriage. He said that
“at the beginning the Creator made them male and female…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
That was Jesus’s definition of marriage in Matthew chapter 19.
I absolutely recognise that homosexual people want to celebrate their relationships, and that is what civil partnerships are for. All the rights and privileges of marriage are vested in civil partnerships. If civil partnerships are not sufficient, we should create a new term—call it a civil union, a lifelong union. Churches are now able to bless civil partnerships if they are willing to do so, and we have the opportunity to provide the celebration that homosexual people are looking for without changing a foundational institution of our country.
We have heard reassurances about protections, but looking at what has happened in other countries, I understand that in Denmark the protections that were promised to Churches are not being honoured and that they are being forced to perform same-sex marriages. I am worried about the legal position in the European Union, and others have mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and articles 12 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. It is possible that the situation could change. What of further redefinitions? Will this be the last redefinition of marriage? I understand that in the Netherlands and Brazil, three-way relationships are being legally recognised.
We have heard arguments from all sides, and legal opinions have been quoted this way and that. Remember, however, the case of Adrian Smith who lost his job and was dragged through the courts and had huge costs—
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
We have heard many claims that the Government are introducing this Bill to make marriage fairer, more equitable, and available to everyone in society. In December, the Minister for Women and Equalities stated:
“Marriage is not static; it has evolved and Parliament has chosen to act over the centuries to make it fairer and more equal.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 155.]
That may have been the case, but marriage as the union of one man and one woman has never changed in thousands of years. Issues such as property rights or where ceremonies can take place have changed, but the essential nature of marriage has not.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Dr Offord
No, I will not because I would like to get through my speech.
This Bill would create “ungendered” marriage with two types of marriage available: same-sex marriage, or opposite-sex marriage. That will inevitably have implications on society’s view of marriage, but fairness will not be one of them. I will give way now.
Mr Harris
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the unchanging nature of marriage over thousands of years. I do not know whether he is a Christian—he has not yet got to that part—but will he have a good look at the Old Testament? King David, a man described as:
“A man after God’s own heart”,
had not one wife or two wives but many, many wives and concubines. He had children by them all and was never once criticised by the priests or the writers of the Bible. Of course marriage has changed over many thousands of years—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman but interventions must be brief.
Dr Offord
I am grateful for that intervention, particularly as it gives me an extra minute, but I will come to that point later.
One reason I oppose the Bill is that it will be an open-ended process, the consequences of which the Government and the hon. Gentleman do not appear to have considered. In an attempt to appeal, the Government have produced a policy on the principle of eradicating difference. The bitter irony is that it will lead only to greater inequality.
First, civil partners already have all the legal rights of marriage, which is denied to many others who cohabit. Two sisters who live together for many years cannot enter a civil partnership, but if one dies leaving the property to the other, the sister who remains is liable for full inheritance tax on the property. That would not apply to female same-sex partners. That is hardly fair, is it? As a result of the Bill, same-sex couples have a choice of seeking to get married or seeking a civil registration. A heterosexual couple would be denied the opportunity to seek a civil registration and have only one choice: marriage. That, too, is hardly fair.
However, what concerns me most is where this Bill will lead. The Government are unable to give assurances that certain scenarios will not develop. I suspect that many problems will evolve through the legal process because the judiciary will construct judgments that are contrary to the reassurances we hear in the Chamber.
Many hon. Members supported the legislation introduced by the previous Government that created civil partnerships because the consultation document—“Civil Partnership: A Framework for the Legal Recognition of Same Sex Couples”—stated:
“The Government has no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. The proposals”
for civil registration
“are for an entirely new legal status of civil partnership”.
Just a decade later, we are in the House to discuss the matter again. When the Government say they have no plans to change the criteria for determining who can form a marriage, including a marriage between two people, their assurances are worthless. When I asked the Minister what consideration she had given to extending other forms of marriage, her response was that the law is pretty clear that marriage is between two people. Is that the same law that says that marriage is between one man and one woman? If so, another Government can simply change the definition to include as many partners as they want.
Three Members of the House have said they find it disgusting that people compare polygamy to same-sex marriage. I would challenge all three, if they had remained in the Chamber, to justify that. The assertion was particularly galling because my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) refused to take my intervention. I could have explained to him that no one has ever made that justification. For the record, I have never made that comparison, but the evidence from around the world is that, once marriage is redefined and has a flexible definition, pressure grows for further redefinition. That should come as no surprise. Several advocates of same-sex marriage openly support changing the law to permit polygamy.
In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Three-way relationships have since been given legal recognition through cohabitation agreements. There have been attempts in Canada to legalise polygamy through the courts using same-sex marriage. In 2007, an appeal court in Ontario ruled that a child can legally have three parents.
Polygamy already exists in this country. The Government recognised in 2007 that there were more than 1,000 bigamous or polygamous marriages in England and Wales. That was identified by Members and peers in the House of Lords. The unintended consequence of the Bill will be allowing the introduction of polygamous marriages, as advocated last night on television by Peter Tatchell. Therefore, I will vote against the Bill on behalf of almost 1,000 of my constituents who have made clear their opposition.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), I am angry that I have defended people who are homosexual, including many who have left the Chamber, who then deride me as a bigot, and send me text messages saying that I am wrong just because I do not support them. I bitterly resent that.
Equality does not mean that we should treat everything the same. We certainly do not have the right to redefine marriage over the heads of our constituents.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The primary commandment is to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. I have been reminded by one ordained constituent that that should be used as a way of defining the second great commandment, which is to treat my neighbour as myself. Essentially, we are asking whether we can remove the barriers that stop same-sex couples enjoying the commitment—the “at one” meaning—of marriage. That is what the Bill comes down to. It does not redefine marriage; it just takes away barriers.
I was taught by three people who were homosexual. I only knew one was homosexual at the time. He got married aged 60 to a woman, one got murdered by a rent boy and one spent 30 years in the Community of the Resurrection. In his book, “Someday I’ll Find You”, Harry Williams, who also wrote “The True Resurrection” and “The True Wilderness”, explained the difficulty of coming to terms with his homosexuality. He should not have had to do that. He should have had the chance of a happy life, whether or not he chose to partner with somebody else.
People have said that there is huge psychological effect on a child of being brought up by two people of the same sex. That is not my experience of those I know. Incidentally, the children who turn out best are not those of a husband and wife married to each other throughout the child’s upbringing, but those of widows, because widows feel a sense of responsibility and have the support of society.
Leaving children aside, we ought to have the same kind of understanding that Margaret Thatcher showed when, in 1967, she voted for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. That was the year Chief Justice Warren of the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a unanimous judgment in a case called Loving v. Virginia, where a couple, one called “Black” and one called “White”, wanted to be married in the state of Virginia. Read the judgment and understand that that case got to the Supreme Court because people were putting arguments against people of different colour being able to live together. Those arguments are absurd now, and it is absurd that we are having this debate.
The difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that in a civil partnership the registrar speaks and in a civil marriage the couple are able to say “I do” and “I declare”, in the same way that in church they say “I will”—but in the civil sense, that is the only difference. I wish that those who have spoken against the Government’s proposals—incidentally, they were foreshadowed in “A Contract for Equalities”, which was launched by the current Home Secretary before the general election—
Sir Peter Bottomley
Three days before, as my hon. Friend says. Those who say that there was not a codicil, at least, in the manifesto are factually wrong. Most people did not know about it, but that is not the important point. We have had two and half years of notice and warning, but we ought to recognise that we in fact have had about 50 years.
If we go back, it is 177 years since civil marriage was brought in, and it is 187 years since the third English university was created where people could go without being an Anglican. We have to remember that we are taking away some of the barriers that we ought to have got rid of a long time ago.
A man called Tribe, in a book from 1935 called “The Christian Social Tradition”, stated:
“The problem of society is the finding of unity in diversity, and to reconcile freedom with order.”
I think that is loving my neighbour as myself, and that what I have experienced, good or bad, others should have a chance of choosing or avoiding. I have not experienced discrimination. I have watched others who have. I hope that when this matter is concluded those who have spent their time writing messages saying that we are all wrong will realise, as people did with the creation of civil partnerships, that maybe they can see life differently in the future.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I will try, in this shortened time, to vary my comments. I have a deep respect for so many hon. Members who have put their heart and conscience on show in this debate. I approach this subject from idiosyncratic principles.
I was thinking only the other day that at the moment, along with other hon. Members, I am actively supporting the Plymouth Brethren’s right to equal charitable status with other groups. I will continue to do that, even though I am not a member of the Plymouth Brethren and even though the Plymouth Brethren live a life that is, shall we say, somewhat different from that of the majority of people or even from my lifestyle. I have always supported Jewish and Muslim communities in their attempts to maintain their faith—right through to halal, schechita and so on. I will continue to do that because I believe—I cannot remember which hon. Member said it—that the test of a civilised society is its protection of minorities. That is the kind of place I come from. Added to which, I am a Roman Catholic—a bad one I must admit, in all kinds of ways.
I made a promise to my constituents that I would not support anything that brought any problems to Churches or faith groups—whether they be Plymouth Brethren, Muslims or Roman Catholics—if there was any challenge to their right to keep to their definition of marriage. I shall come back to theology, which has been mentioned by a number of people who are far more expert than me.
I am satisfied with the lock. The Danish example has been mentioned, but apparently in Denmark the Parliament did not include the protections that the Minister has provided for in the lock.
I equate this debate with what happened to divorce law in the previous century. Interestingly, in all this talk about marriage always being the same and its continued popularity, no one seems to have mentioned the loosening of the divorce laws. As I said, I am a Roman Catholic, and in that faith divorce is treated differently, but nobody, to my knowledge, has ever challenged the right of a Roman Catholic priest or, indeed, an Anglican to refuse to marry a divorced couple. It has never actually happened, and that is how I see this issue. I approach it with principles based on the reciprocity that exists in any democratic society between minorities and our protection of their rights. I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
Other Members mentioned civil partnerships. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) went slightly over the top and historically I think he was incorrect. It was not Rosa Parks to begin with. The principle of separate but equal was defined as wrong by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Topeka Education Board in 1959—if my history teaching is still there. Nevertheless, he was right about it being different. All we are asking for in the Bill, principally, is civil marriage. The majority of existing civil marriages are between divorcees, so the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise them anyway, and that is fine; it is permitted—and it will be permitted to keep its particular beliefs in this case as well.
Some faiths—this is where the theology gets complicated—and Christian groups actually want to carry out these marriages. I thought that was what I came here to do—to protect those freedoms and retain that balance. As I said, that is the principle I work on: a reciprocity between minorities in respect of their beliefs and right to carry on with their lifestyle as they wish, provided it does not interfere with that of others. I do not see how the Bill creates any problems with that or will prevent me in future from defending the Plymouth Brethren, the Jewish faith, my own Church’s faith or the Muslim faith.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Some people say that the Bill is just about semantics, but semantics matter and words express the values of our society. The Bill is part of an astonishing and wonderful change that has taken place over the past 50 years and which has taken millions of us from criminalisation to legal equality and the enjoyment of self-worth and validation.
Those sentiments were certainly not apparent to me as a young man. I thought there was something wrong with me that had to be mastered, and for three decades I managed that struggle. The relief and happiness that comes from not having to do so any longer is due to the courage of others who fought for all the measures to advance equality over the past five decades that are the precursors to today’s Bill. My comments need therefore to be understood in the context of my enthusiasm and appreciation for those who have been prepared to lead on this issue, particularly the Prime Minister.
The final line of the Stonewall briefing for the debate reads:
“Stonewall therefore urges you to support this modest final legislative measure of equality for homosexual men and women in England and Wales”.
As presented, however, the Bill is not the final measure. While civil partnerships remain open only to same-sex couples, we will have retained an inequality that we will have to revisit. However much I have tried to explain to my constituents that we propose to legislate to deliver equality in the eyes of the state, protecting the beliefs of the religious, I do not believe that my constituents of faith understand the distinction between marriage in the eyes of the state and marriage in the eyes of their God.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I am a Catholic and religious freedoms are very important to me, as is my religion, but so too are equality and tolerance. I think that the Bill protects both those things. I came here to abstain, but I have listened to the debate like I have listened to no other, and it is now my intention not to abstain, but to support the Bill .
Mr Blunt
I am delighted to hear that intervention from my hon. Friend. I advocate that Members support the Bill and make those distinctions even clearer as the Bill passes through the House.
Much as the Bill will be another step forward; even unamended it gives us the vehicle properly to differentiate marriage in the eyes of the state from religious marriage. Simply put, we should be legislating for equal civil marriage and enabling religious organisations to carry out same-sex marriages if they wish to do so, and protecting them if they do not.
Mr Newmark
In supporting that point, I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of the book “Animal Farm”, in which all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, and is it not now time, in 21st-century Britain, that men should be allowed to marry men, women should be allowed to marry women, and men should be allowed to marry women in a civil marriage, not a religious marriage?
Mr Blunt
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to distinguish between civil marriage in the eyes of the state, which we are absolutely entitled to legislate for—indeed, there is a requirement on us to do so—and marriage in the eyes of people’s gods and religious beliefs, which is different.
I therefore advocate a situation such as in France, where one ceremony is required in the eyes of the state as well as another religious service, or, preferably, for religious organisations to be able to deliver marriage in the eyes of the state. Either of those positions would be better than continuing inequality, and I predict that if we do not change this Bill, Parliament will have to revisit the issue.
If this more fundamental change meets both the profound concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and a number of others and the test of permanent equality in the eyes of the state, it has much to recommend it. This Bill starts us down the right road, and I welcome it, but I urge the House to do a thorough job in Committee and on Report so as not to leave avoidable unfinished business.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Like most hon. Members, I have thought long and hard about this issue. I am a keen proponent of equal opportunity, and I recently celebrated my 25th wedding anniversary so I greatly value the institution of marriage. Also like many hon. Members, I have received a large number of letters and e-mails on this subject. I therefore undertook my own research into the issues raised, and in July I published a paper setting out my response. At the time, I concluded that no compelling case had yet been made against the change. I stand by that paper’s conclusion; I wish us to move towards being a society more at ease with itself.
Since the Bill was published, e-mails have continued to be sent to me, and I have great respect for the deeply held views that have been expressed. I am particularly grateful to those who have entered into genuine debate with me and those who have put their own case with generosity of spirit. This is a matter of conscience and we must all respond with integrity, as we have done in this debate. The outcome at the ballot box must not be allowed to drive this important debate, and I resent the implication that it should.
In my paper, I pointed out that Spain served as a good example. It allowed gay civil marriage in 2005. There have been no changes since. The new conservative Government of the Partido Popular have not moved to change it, and life has gone on as normal. That is unsurprising, as fewer than 2% of marriages have been same-sex marriages.
Through discussion, I have come to realise that there is a lack of depth and a lack of clarity in some of the responses, and although support for this Bill today will serve to send it on to Committee for scrutiny, I am concerned that some of the issues may be too fundamental to be resolved by that process. I therefore ask Ministers how open they are likely to be in Committee to undertaking fundamental reform, including reviewing civil partnerships.
I, too, have been troubled by the issues before us. Deep down, I remain of the view that, in the end, it is right to make it legal for two people of the same gender to marry. I cannot comprehend that a gay marriage would undermine a heterosexual marriage, but I have come to question whether this Bill might have been prepared in haste, and whether it would be possible to address its deficiencies in Committee.
I am also sure that much of the public disquiet that is felt is due to the speed with which this proposal has come forward. I agree that it was in the equalities contract produced just before the general election, but it was not in our main manifesto, the coalition agreement or the Queen’s Speech. While none of that is essential for introducing legislation, a change of this type touches deep emotions and we need to allow time for proper reflection on the genuine concerns raised by so many people. We also need to allow for discussion and understanding; so far, there has only been time for argument and counter-argument.
Given my thoughts on this issue, I cannot in all conscience vote against the Bill, but I ask the Minister for reassurance that the Committee will play a fundamental role in looking at the issues involved and that we can begin the education process that has been missing over the past few months as one side has simply stood and shouted at the other.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
Many Members have already spoken powerfully and I have nothing to add to that expression of feeling. I want to speak about the reason for the Marriage Act 1836 coming into being, which is related to the matters that we are discussing today.
The Act was introduced to protect people who dissented from the common view at the time. Before 1836, people had to get married in a Church of England church, which was anathema to the many Roman Catholics, non-conformists and Quakers and the very small number of atheists. The then Government under Viscount Melbourne introduced the legislation to protect the liberties of those people. A case cited in the House at the time involved a Roman Catholic lady who had married a fellow Roman Catholic in a clandestine marriage. The husband then ran off and she was left destitute because they did not have a proper marriage contract in law.
The 1836 Act, in seeking to protect a number of minorities, was a very forward-looking piece of legislation. The arguments marshalled against it were not dissimilar to those that we are hearing today. It was argued that marriage was somehow exclusively the preserve of religion, and that extending it into the secular sphere in any way would devalue it. At that time, the number of people, such as atheists, who were married in secular ceremonies was minuscule, but the figure has now risen to 60% of marriages and we do not regard such marriages as being of any less worth or involving any less love than those that are conducted in a church. I believe that, 177 years later, we should now seek to protect the love, the freedoms and the liberties of another minority that has been oppressed and forgotten for so long.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
In some ways, this is the most difficult issue that I have faced in my two and a half years as an MP. The majority of my constituents support the proposal, but many do not and some of those people feel very strongly about it. Also, I find myself on a different side of the argument from some of my colleagues and close friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).
In other ways, however, the issue is clear cut. I have constituents who are in same-sex relationships and who want to get married. I have faith groups in my constituency that want to conduct same-sex marriages. We have heard a lot today about religious freedom. It would be totally wrong for any Church or mosque to be forced to conduct any wedding against its wishes, but it is equally wrong that faith groups in this country that want to conduct same-sex marriage services are prevented from doing so by the present law. There is clear public support for the proposal.
As a Conservative, I am a passionate believer in marriage as a force for good, and I lament its decline in our society. We have people who want to get married, yet some of us are not sure whether we should allow that to happen.
We have heard two main reasons for opposing the legislation. We have been asked to guarantee that it will not be successfully challenged in the courts. In fact, no Member can guarantee that the present law will not be successfully challenged. The question should be whether there is a credible risk of such a challenge, and the answer to that is no. Countries that already have this law have not been challenged. For years in this country, we have allowed divorced people to remarry in church, yet the Catholic Church’s policy of not remarrying divorcees has not been challenged. The most eminent lawyers in the country tell us that the risk is inconceivable, and the Church of England’s own briefing states that the Church does not believe it to be realistic or likely.
The other argument against the Bill is that it would undermine marriage. Mrs Barwell suffers enough as a result of my job, and if I thought it likely that I would go home tonight only to be accused of undermining my marriage by voting for the Bill, I would not vote for it. However, no one has yet come up with a credible explanation of how it would undermine marriage. Yes, it is controversial, but decriminalising homosexuality was controversial, as was our equalising the age of consent. It was also controversial when the Labour Government rightly legislated for civil partnerships. Once those things were done and the world did not end, public opinion changed, and that is what will happen when this legislation is passed.
I am by nature a small “c” conservative. I do not like change. There is a part of me that would like to take the world back to 1990 when my father was healthy, when I did not have the pressures of a demanding job and England were in the semi-finals of the World cup. There is another part of me, however, that recognises the failure of that approach. For conservatism to work, we have to accept that the world changes. If we do not, we become an anachronism. What we have to do as Conservatives is shape that change and try to preserve the best of what we inherited. That is what this Bill does. If it becomes law, it will not undermine marriage; it will not lead to Churches or mosques that do not wish to do so being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. What it will do is allow people of the same sex who love each other to exchange the same vows that Karen and I exchanged and to be part of the same institution.
I will conclude by quoting a comment that was posted on my website:
“I grew up under Thatcher, the gay son of a one parent family in Croydon, and got used to the endless moral scapegoating that the Conservatives subjected me to—ironic, given that I was otherwise a nice middle class child and classic Tory voting material—and the result of my experience was a real hatred towards the Tories. To have a group of Conservatives now fighting for me to be treated as an equal is refreshing and something I never thought I would see.”
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who was sitting in front of me, I am a Conservative moderniser. To people watching this debate today, I say this: I believe in marriage, I believe in religious freedom and I believe that the law of this country must treat people equally. That is why I will walk through the Lobby and vote for this Bill with pride. When I cease to be an MP and look in the mirror, I will still be proud of that.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I support the Bill, and I would like to compliment Members on the tone of the debate and on some of the exceptional speeches I have heard from both sides of the argument.
On the morning of 2 May 1997, I was watching TV amid the immense excitement of new Labour’s landslide. Of course, as a Conservative I was watching the news that my party had just been humiliated in one of its biggest defeats in electoral history. How had we gone from being a party with four electoral successes to become a party on the edge of political extinction? The reality is that some people were tired of us, and many hated us. There were also issues such as sleaze. My observation was that, despite the many great things we had done in government, society had moved on and we had not.
Thirteen years later, on the steps of No. 10, the Prime Minister recognised and generously acknowledged that in Labour’s time, the country had become a more open one. He was right to recognise that. The journey my party has gone on since 1997 involved rethinking some of the issues we faced—for example, the rhetoric of race and engaging with the black and ethnic minority community, single parenthood, disability, a commitment to higher education for all people and not just a minority, embracing the NHS, leadership on international development and, yes, a monumental confidence that we have shown in supporting the lesbian and gay community. All those testify to a modern Conservative party, now reflecting the values of modern Britain in ways that we could not have contemplated, let alone sympathised with, in 1997. I say that not because I am pursuing votes and constructing an argument around that, but because I want to see my party reflect the values of this country.
Mr Kevan Jones
If a majority of Conservative Members go through the No Lobby tonight or abstain, does that not show that what we have is a PR veneer rather than real change in the Conservative party?
Kris Hopkins
I do not agree with that. What it demonstrates is that a modern Conservative Prime Minister has put forward a really progressive idea, which we can support. Today we are on the road to equality—an idea promoted by a Conservative Prime Minister—fiercely debated by my party with significant challenge from within, and I would not expect anything different.
I have been contacted by about 120 people, the vast majority of whom asked me to oppose the Bill. I would like to thank most of them for giving me considered and thoughtful views on both sides of the argument. I have laid out my own case here today, but it is important to bear in mind that people of religious faith do not want Churches to be forced to marry people of the same sex. That point has arisen time and again in the debate, but I am confident that we have put the necessary safeguards in place. I want to make it clear to my constituents who have that fear that the Government have taken the issue seriously and are embarking on the right route.
We have debated this matter at great length, but all the polling evidence suggests that the vast majority of people out there in the real world support the principles behind the Bill—certainly the vast majority of people to whom I have spoken support them, as do the vast majority of young people. I am talking about people under 50.
Kris Hopkins
Sorry, Eric.
We need to respect those of religious faith, but I believe that this is right. It is right that we promote marriage to all, it is admirable, and it is the right thing to do.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a privilege to take part in the debate. Speeches of high quality have been made by Members on both sides of the argument who feel passionately about the issue, and in general the tone has been measured.
I shall be voting against the Bill because my perspective on what marriage is really about is different from that of some other Members. Of course marriage is about loving commitment to one another, but for me it is fundamentally still about family, the bedrock of society. Marriage involves special provisions, such as support for the family and the procreation of children. Of course that is not the case for all families, for various reasons, but I nevertheless think those provisions are too important to be tampered with in rushed legislation that has not been subject to adequate consultation.
We can request as many legal opinions as we like, but the Government do not plan to indemnify any institution against legal costs if the measure is challenged in courts in this country or in the European Court of Human Rights. They are also continuing to confine civil partnerships to people of the same sex, perpetuating what is effectively a two-tier institution, either by not repealing the law or by denying it to people of opposite sexes. I feel that there are too many inconsistencies, and there is no doubt that the intertwining of Church of England law with the law of England is very difficult to unpick.
I think Members recognise that those who oppose the Bill do not oppose it because they are homophobes, or solely for religious reasons. In fact, more Catholic Conservative Members will be voting for the Bill than will be voting against it. It is fair to say, however, that there is concern about the way in which the Bill is being introduced. Not enough attention has been paid to the valid concerns of people who are genuinely frightened about the possibility, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), that they will be prosecuted if they do not offer weddings of all kinds. Although the Minister did not say this, legal advice suggests that people who work for councils will not be able to discriminate. I understand why that might be, but it is simply not valid to say that people will not be affected by the Bill.
I am not suggesting that the love between people of the same sex is something evil. History shows that it was Henry VIII who, at the same time as setting up the Church of England, criminalised homosexuality. That law was repealed by Queen Mary, a Catholic monarch, and reinstated by Elizabeth I. I should like to think that it is the Church of England that has played the principal role in some of that horrific abuse.
The Bill will probably be given a Second Reading, but it is important that the Government listen to all sorts of voices in Committee, and that those who are not selected as members of the Committee attend, make their views heard and table amendments.
I know that many other Members wish to speak. I thank them for their patience.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The debate goes to the heart of our 21st-century dilemma. In Parliament we rightly advocate equality, freedom and the protection of minority rights, but too often the rights of one group conflict directly with the rights of another. That is not new. Back in the 1850s a political hero of mine, John Stuart Mill, tried in his essay “On Liberty” to define where one person’s liberty ended and another person’s liberty began. He said that we should be
“without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them”.
The issue of same-sex marriage tests human liberties to the limit. As a Christian, I have been struggling with trying to square the fact that the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, with my belief that God loves us all equally, whether we believe in him or not, whether we go to church or not, and whatever our sexuality.
So the first point I wish to make is that I wholeheartedly believe that same-sex couples have as valid a relationship with their partner as do heterosexuals. I also believe that in the eyes of the state we all deserve to be treated equally. But I want to go back to the issue of how one’s person’s liberty should not be allowed to encroach upon another’s, and that is where I am genuinely torn. I have deep sympathy with the hundreds of my constituents who fear that legislation for same-sex marriage will profoundly encroach—although this may be unintended —on their right to live according to their faith. For many, the conviction that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman means that they feel that their own marriage is undermined by what they see as a profound change to the biblical definition. Others fear that same-sex marriage will lead to those working as teachers, priests and chaplains, and those working in the caring professions, being unable to express their own profoundly held views in the workplace. I share their concerns and believe that they are right to fear discrimination against those of faith if this legislation is enacted.
Finally, I do not believe that we have any mandate for this Bill: there is no nationwide clamour for same-sex marriage; civil partnership does provide state recognition for the love of same-sex partners; and if we were truly seeking equality, surely we would also be legislating for heterosexuals to enter into civil partnership. This Bill causes great hurt and for many represents a radical reform without proper consideration having been given to the consequences. I deeply regret the way in which it has diminished the principles of democracy and liberty in this country. It is being rushed through to the shock of many people. Fundamental change such as this should be given time and space for consideration.
This is no sixth-form debate; it is legislation from one of the oldest Parliaments in the world and the message we give from this place matters deeply. So with great sadness, I shall be positively abstaining: I shall be walking through the Aye Lobby in solidarity with the minority of same-sex couples for whom marriage represents the ultimate expression of their love for one another and then I shall be walking through the No Lobby to support the liberty of those whose freedoms may well be under threat from this ill-considered legislation.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am grateful for having caught your eye, Mr Speaker. You know, Sir, that although it caused the Prime Minister a spot of bother, he was absolutely right to bring forward and raise the principle enshrined in this Bill. One need only look at the number of European countries adopting same-sex marriage and President Obama’s statement in the United States to understand that this issue had to be addressed, and not judged. The Bill contains a noble ambition. It is one that I share, but I shall not be joining my colleagues in the Aye Lobby this evening. In this House of sharply expressed opinions on both sides, perhaps I may take a moment to explain my position.
As many speakers have said, the issue for gay people in this country has changed dramatically over many years. In my lifetime it has gone from a situation where homosexuality was not recognised in the public square, through a childhood where the absence of understanding of that issue was as loud as any absence can be, through a recognition that when one came of age the very act of having sex could lead to the catching of a contagious illness, and through a period when there was a recognition that that illness could lead to loved ones and friends dying. It has also led in the political sphere to political opponents using one’s sexual orientation as a weapon to seek to achieve the accumulation of votes, notwithstanding what their party might say is its abiding principle. Out of that period—significantly, perhaps, from the period of the reaction to HIV and AIDS—came the power for the recognition of same-sex couples having unions. This country, the previous Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) should be enormously proud of their role in bringing civil partnerships into legislation. I am enormously proud of what that means, now that I can talk to a young man—who will, I am sure, very shortly be in this place—about how important it is for him to see that he can marry his partner.
All that has taught me that, although it is important that I speak in this debate, it is as important that I listen. When one receives so many observations from one’s constituents of deeply held views, it is important for all Members to have some humility before they vote based on their own opinions. Many of those expressions have been based on a religious belief. We should understand that faith matters and we ignore the subtlety of the sinews of faith that operate in our public square if we seek to push to one side people’s concerns and objections.
We might ultimately decide that we should pass the Bill, and I certainly hope that we can, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities will recognise that there are concerns about the anomalies and the possible ramifications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said, many of them come from a misunderstanding of what the Bill contains. I also ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the fact that President Obama made his position clear before he went into an election. That might not be possible in this instance, but if we want to achieve a long-standing and permanent change to the meaning of marriage, she must consider whether it might be necessary.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I was pleased and proud early on in the discussions, when the consultation document was launched, to state publicly that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I stand by that commitment. For saying that in public, I have been subjected to vilification, abuse, threats to my physical well-being and threats to my office. None has come from constituents, but from people outside my constituency. I have received five letters of support for a change to the sexual arrangements in marriage and 1,000 supporting my stance. The vast majority of my constituents share my view that there is no need for such a change. If I thought that same-sex couples did not have the same rights before the law in any shape or form, I would think again, but civil partnerships, introduced by Parliament well before I was elected, introduced those rights for same-sex couples.
There are differences between the relationships of same-sex couples and heterosexual couples and some have been mentioned. For example, a same-sex couple cannot consummate a marriage. It is a physical impossibility. They cannot produce children without a third party as either a sperm donor or a surrogate is required. Those two things start to change the facts of equality and unequal treatment.
As a party, we have no mandate to introduce any change to the law because we did not promise to do so. When we introduced the consultation document, it did not ask whether we should do this but how to do it. As a result, the petition from the Coalition for Marriage was completely ignored. We have heard legal opinions about challenges. I have sat through almost all the debate and we should remember that Parliament passes laws and Ministers propose laws to Parliament but the courts and lawyers interpret the laws that are passed. We can give no guarantees about people being prosecuted and forced through the courts for expressing their valid opinions.
I worry about what will happen in our schools. Disciplinary codes are the responsibility of head teachers and governing bodies, so will teachers be forced to teach things with which they fundamentally disagree because of their devout religious views? If they choose not to do so, will they be the subject of disciplinary action and sacked? It is all very well to say that the law will protect them, but one person has already lost his job. He won the court case, but he still lost his job. He has not got the court costs back, and is still way out of pocket. People fear that across the land.
When we talk about the matter of faith, a Church or any religious institution is not the building in which it sits—it is the body of the organisation; it is the congregation. Many evangelical Churches have to hire local authority premises, and they will be told that they can no longer hire those premises to practise their religion unless they allow same-sex marriages to be introduced.
Finally, on the key subject of the title of the Bill, the aim of the measure is allegedly to create equality. We will have same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages—two totally different things, so the object is defeated.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I pay tribute to everyone who has spoken, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who gave a gentle and humble speech. I hope to follow him along those lines, because it is important that we debate this sensibly and calmly.
I, like all Members in the Chamber, want to see loving couples and happy families. We all want that to be the case, but I think—and I shall vote against the Bill—that this is a step too far and a sad day for marriage as I and millions of people in this country understand it. I regret to say that there is an element of token politics in this, which I do not like. We are talking about redefining marriage. I do not understand “redefining marriage”. Where do we stop? What can we redefine next? Shall we redefine “husband”, “wife”, “parents”, “children”, “Mr and Mrs”? Let us keep on redefining until we change everything that I and many others hold dear.
I do not want the nation to be full of grey nothings, because that is what will happen if we go on reacting when people say that their sensibilities have been upset. I am concerned in particular about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which have been mentioned again and again, and for good reason. I paint a picture of a teacher in a school who does not agree with the Bill. Will she say to the headmaster or headmistress, “I don’t want to give this lesson”? What will happen to that teacher if she objects on grounds of conscience? Evidence shows that, regrettably, that teacher will be disadvantaged.
Richard Drax
I shall carry on, because other colleagues wish to speak.
I do not agree that this is about discrimination, persecution or prejudice—words that have been used this afternoon and, dare I say it, thrown around the Chamber a bit like confetti. This is about the Christian faith. I am not a great practising Christian—I am not here in my box—but this is about the Christian faith, and we are in effect undermining its core belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have heard the word, “want”—“We want this”—again and again and again. All of us want lots of things, but there are consequences. What I have not heard in the cry for rights is the word, “responsibilities”. One member of my constituency, a gay man, said to me, “Richard, I do not agree with this, because I respect the institution of marriage, and I do not want to undermine that in any way. There is no call for that, and I do not want the gay community to go there.”
Finally, it is a sad day when a Conservative Prime Minister uses, in effect, the Opposition and our colleagues on the Front Benches to push this through. It is a sad day for democracy, and a sad day for our party.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity and the privilege of taking part in this important debate. I often recall the day a few years ago when I finally plucked up the courage to tell my parents that I was gay. I began the conversation with the line, “Mum, you know I’m never going to be able to marry.” I used that form of words as a way of broaching an awkward conversation and I did not really think much about it at the time, but I often reflect on those words and it makes me very sad that for so long that was a factually correct statement.
I look at the marriage that my parents have—45 years and going strong—and I aspire to the same thing. I do not have someone at the minute, but if I do, I want to cherish that person, love them, support them. It is not just about a ceremony; it is about being with them for the rest of a life, in good times and bad, richer or poorer, sickness and health. That can apply as much to me as to a straight couple. I do not understand why some people feel threatened that allowing me to have that in any way diminishes what a heterosexual couple has. I want the same things.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was absolutely right when he said that we do not talk enough about helping relationships, strengthening them, rewarding people for doing the right thing. We should. But stopping gay people marrying is not part of that. It will not diminish that.
I very much welcome the Bill. There are many different interpretations of marriage. We have heard them discussed today. Some people do not wish divorcees to remarry. Others are perfectly comfortable with it. I am no theological expert, but the concept of marriage has evolved over time. It is perfectly possible to respect those who take a traditional view of marriage. I do not agree with it, but I utterly respect those who sincerely hold that view. It is surely possible both to respect that and to allow others to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Other countries have managed it perfectly well—Spain, Canada and many other countries. It is surely not beyond our wit and wisdom to devise that in law in this country. That is why I welcome the Bill and, in a little while, I will go through the Aye Lobby with pride.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
This is one of the finest debates that I have ever had the privilege of listening to, with outstanding contributions on both sides. This House, I suggest, is on a journey, and it is a journey that can be traced back many years. A hundred years ago there were the suffragettes and the opportunity for women to have the vote. In 1922 women were entitled to be MPs. Fifty years ago we had the civil rights movement and in 1967 homosexuality was made legal. Approximately 10 years ago civil partnerships were made legal. In that context, the House is on a journey and the country is on a journey too. We are all changing. The House must change with it, and so must the country. That is why I will support the Bill tonight.
To the many people who have come to see me or have written to me, whether from the Catholic Church, the Church of England or other faiths, I say that I respect entirely that this is a very large step for all of us to take and that it will have a significant impact on all of us, but it is right that we should support those who wish to go on this journey.
The Bill is not perfect. Anyone who has listened to the debate will know that even the most ardent supporters in the debate accept that the Bill requires improvement as it navigates its way through Committee. I for one strongly urge the House that the Bill should have proper Committee consideration and amendment as it goes forward.
For me, this is a matter of commitment. I have spent 20 years as a community activist, councillor, lawyer, and now MP seeing examples of the difficulties that occur when couples fail to commit and fail to bring up children in the right way. Yet when two people show a desire to commit in the most serious way possible, are we to deny them that opportunity merely because they are of the same sex? That cannot be right. We know that married couples are twice as likely to stay together as cohabiting couples. Yes, there are clear religious problems with the arguments made in favour of the Bill, but I cannot conceive of a God who creates, allows and permits homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.
The protections that have been put into the Bill are ample. The examples that we see in other countries all across the world show that this process can be navigated without recourse to the European Court of Human Rights or other legal jurisdictions. It cannot be right that we are failing to allow religious groups, including the Quakers and the Unitarians, who want to conduct such marriages to be able to move forward on that. With respect, that seems totally illogical. I am satisfied that the necessary religious freedoms are in place and that no institution or church leader, be they Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever, can be forced to conduct such marriages. Do not take my word for it, Mr Speaker. Rabbi Julia Neuberger has said:
“It is precisely because marriage is such a uniquely important institution that we should ensure that all couples who want to get married can do so, regardless of their sexuality.”
Some have insisted that same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. Does anyone here feel that they would be less married because we had gay constituents who could commit in that way? I am not married. I have yet to find the woman who would want to marry someone such as me—but she is out there, Mr Speaker, I promise you. When I do want to marry, the fact that gay friends and gay colleagues are also getting married would not stop me doing so.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I think you said at the beginning of the debate, Mr Speaker, that 71 Back Benchers were going to take part. If I am the 71st or thereabouts, my speech will be an action replay of many of the points that have previously been made.
I am going to oppose the Bill. On balance, I accept that evidence from the polls probably indicates that a majority in the country favour this change. However, the democratic process should protect those with deeply felt and sincerely held views that mean they cannot—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I know it has been a long debate, but the hon. Gentleman must be heard, and with courtesy, I hope.
Martin Vickers
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The democratic process should protect those with deeply felt and sincerely held views that mean they cannot go along with this change. In proposing it, we are alienating tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of our supporters, who feel threatened. Perhaps the tide of history is moving against them, but a major social change should not be pushed through with no electoral mandate. Previous speakers have referred to the contract for equalities that was published by the Conservative party three days before the election. It is disingenuous to say that that was a manifesto commitment: clearly, it was not. Very few people knew that it existed, and at that point many people had already voted by post.
I accept that the younger generation, and perhaps even the middle-aged, are more relaxed about this issue, but those in the 50 or 55-plus age group feel, to say the least, uncomfortable with the proposed changes. I suspect that few, if any, in the 50-plus age group are offering policy advice to Ministers. Had that been the case, we would probably not be in this position tonight.
The Minister said that religious organisations take different views on this, and indeed they do. It is easy to pluck out biblical references to support arguments, but politicians, even practising Christians such as myself, should be very wary about doing so. However, in one particular exchange with a constituent I was reminded of the biblical quotation,
“love is the fulfilment of the law”.
That, combined with an e-mail that I received from a young lady—a student constituent—who is in a same-sex relationship, did, indeed, make me reflect on the situation. As I have said, however, I have still come to the conclusion that I will oppose this change.
Governments must legislate to balance the different views of those over whom they rule. Put simply, by pushing ahead with this Bill without a mandate, the Government are trampling on the strongly held views of a great many people. Significant social change should be allowed to evolve. Attitudes move on and a Bill such as this may well be accepted in the not-too-distant future, but now is not the time. The very least the Government could do, as has already been suggested, is allow us more time—they should stop, pause, reflect and give more time.
It is unfortunate that the media have represented the Conservative party as split. I can assure them that, if they visited the streets of Cleethorpes, they would see that people from across the political spectrum are very wary and concerned about the proposals. I join those colleagues who have urged the House to vote against the Bill.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
We have heard many deeply felt speeches representing a very wide range of views. Given that we have heard, I think, 66 contributions, I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will forgive me if I do not comment on individual contributions; otherwise, we will be here all evening. What I will say is that every single one of those contributions will have been listened to with immense care and attention by lesbian, gay and transgender people around the country for whom, of course, this debate is of profound significance.
I am delighted that we have had this debate and congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill at this time. This represents a rare thing in this House—a chance for us to celebrate and debate a happy subject, and we should address it in that spirit.
Labour introduced civil partnerships legislation in 2004 and since then, in a very short period, they have become widely and readily accepted. It has quickly become time to finish what was started then and I am very pleased that we are making progress with this Bill today.
It is clear that there are concerns relating to detailed aspects of the Bill and it is, of course, right that they should be examined in Committee, but to those who say that we should be doing more important things in this Parliament I say that I cannot understand why we would not think it important to take time to recognise, encourage and enable more people to enter into marriage as an expression of their stable, loving and committed relationship.
I will pick up on one or two of the arguments that have been made. On the argument that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, I recognise that that is the teaching in many faiths but, as hon. Members throughout the House have pointed out, marriage is not just a religious matter—it is a social institution, too, and precisely because it is a social institution the meaning of marriage changes over time as society’s values change. Those changes prove that marriage is remarkably resilient. Indeed, its resilience derives in part from its ability to adapt to changing social mores. By recognising and extending the definition of marriage to reflect today’s greater openness towards and recognition of same-sex relationships, the Bill does not weaken the institution of marriage. On the contrary, it takes it forward, strengthens it and helps to perpetuate it.
Those who have argued that marriage can exist only between persons of opposite sex have also pointed to the procreation of children as a defining element of marriage. That is to see marriage very narrowly. The possibility of marriage has always existed for couples for whom children are not an option. I am glad to say, as a 52-year-old woman, that we have never forbidden women of over childbearing age from entering into marriage.
We have heard some important contributions about how the children of parents in same-sex marriages will fare. There is plenty of evidence that what children need above all in order to thrive is to live in families where there is stability and love. I understand the concerns about stigma, but that is something that we as a society can do something about and have a responsibility to do something about.
On the need for female and male role models for children, there are already many successful families who do not conform to the traditional two-parent nuclear pattern and whose children do very well. Wider family networks, schools and communities supply a range of role models, as they will for children who are brought up by those in same-sex marriages. We should all take a role in ensuring that that happens.
Importantly, for the young person who is trying to make sense of his or her sexuality, the public affirmation and celebration of same-sex marriage can offer a promise of acceptance and assurance.
Aspects of the Bill will be considered carefully in Committee, but we should celebrate the underlying purpose, because it is good. The public support it and three in five people of faith support it. Most tellingly, there is a changing tide, with the generation under 50 showing by far the most support. This Parliament should be proud to afford the right to marry to same-sex couples. In doing so, we will lay down a marker for equality, and our society as a whole will be stronger for it.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
By our calculations, there have been more than 70 speeches this afternoon. This has been a lively and impassioned debate, and one that has shown this House at its best. It has demonstrated how deeply Members from all parts of the House feel about this issue. I hope that we will continue to respect those differences as the Bill moves on to the Committee and Report stages.
This is a Bill with a straightforward proposition at its heart—whether extending marriage to same-sex couples strengthens marriage and increases equality, or whether it is a threat to religion and society. The Government believe that the former is the case. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said, that this is a Bill whose time has come.
In the limited time available to me, I will try to deal briefly with the main issues that have been raised. Time for interventions will be limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) asked whether the Government would be willing to look again at clause 11(5). We are happy to discuss that provision again with the Church of England. Doubtless it will also be discussed in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) asked whether we would look at matters with an open mind in Committee and on Report. We will, but any matters that are raised must be within the scope of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked about the position of the Church of England. In its briefing, the Church of England said that it is essential that the various locks in the Bill are preserved, as drafted. That point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan).
The right hon. Member for Exeter also asked about the position of a clergyman who wishes to marry a same-sex couple in another building. A Church of England clergyman could not marry a same-sex couple according to Church of England rites, because he would need the approval of the governing authority of his church and he and the premises would need to be licensed. It is unlikely that those three criteria would all be fulfilled.
One of the Members from Northern Ireland—I am sorry, I forget which one—asked whether marriage courses run by Churches would be affected by the Bill. The answer is no. There are existing protections in the Equality Act 2010, which ensures that non-commercial religious organisations can restrict their services on the basis of sexual orientation.
A number of Members asked about the legal position in Denmark. It is very simple: when same-sex marriage was introduced in Denmark, the legislation required the established Church to conduct such ceremonies. That is fundamentally different from the position in this country. That is not the approach we are taking with this legislation.
Finally, we were asked about polygamy. The case in Brazil that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) cited involved a legal marriage of three people in a civil union, so it does not apply.
In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, this has been a good and lively debate, during which all sides have had an opportunity to place their arguments on the record. We will continue to examine the Bill in detail in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, starting with detailed evidence sessions next week.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friend says that this has been a lively and passionate debate. Would the Government consider taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, so that some of those who have not been able to speak today, along with others, can have a chance to question the Minister on the detail of the Bill?
Hugh Robertson
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. There is a procedural issue, which is that many of the Churches and people who wish to give detailed evidence in the evidence sessions have asked us not to do what he suggests. If we took the Committee stage entirely on the Floor of the House, we would have to forgo the opportunity for them to appear before the Committee in detailed evidence sessions. It is precisely to protect the ability of the many religious groups that wish to give evidence in person that we have been unable to do as he suggests.
Hugh Robertson
No, I am afraid that I will not be able to take any more interventions.
At the heart of this Bill is a straightforward proposition. If a couple love each other, the state should not stop them getting married unless there is a good reason, and in this day and age being gay is not a good reason, if it ever was. I know that, for some religions and faiths, this goes beyond their beliefs. I respect that entirely; as a result, the Bill specifically protects the rights of those who do not agree and does not compel anyone to do anything. All religious organisations are free to choose whether to opt in or opt out. This Bill simply allows people to get married who are currently excluded from doing so purely because they are of the same sex. It is a clear and simple objective, delivered in a way that promotes and protects religious freedom. In short, I believe this is a sensible and timely step forward. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Floor of the House today, we heard many times that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The Minister was asked whether that was possible, and he gave his reasons why he believed not. For clarification, Mr Speaker, and before we vote on the programme motion, is it possible to have split Committee proceedings, with some upstairs, facilitating what the Minister would like to happen, and some on the Floor of the House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempted point of order. Her point might be interesting, but that does not render it a point of order on which I can rule. Her view, no doubt informed by a close reading of Standing Order No. 84A(2), will assuredly guide her and perhaps other right hon. and hon. Members on how to vote on the programme motion, which is about to be moved by or on behalf of the Minister.
MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 12 March 2013.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
5. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Business without Debate
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Outdoor Pursuits
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is not often that the indoor activity of parliamentary debate focuses on participation in outdoor pursuits, so I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting and granting this debate on this important subject. I am also grateful for the presence of the Minister of State because I know that today has been particularly heavy for him and his Department, and thank him for being willing to respond to the debate.
I also want to draw Members’ attention to the register of all-party groups and say for the record that I am co-chairman of the all-party group on mountaineering, vice-chairman of the all-party group on mountain rescue —it is good to see members of both those groups present—and secretary of the all-party group on national parks.
I am a passionate participant, when time and this job permit, in outdoor pursuits. I am also a great supporter of the Government’s efforts to increase participation in sports and sports-related activity. I believe that outdoor pursuits play a vital role, which is sometimes undervalued, in achieving that aim. The health and well-being benefits associated with participation in those pursuits are clear for all to see.
There are also economic benefits. Increasing the volume and value of tourism in the great outdoors, particularly activity and adventure tourism, is of fundamental importance to the Government’s wider strategy for jobs and growth, for the lasting Olympic legacy and for rebalancing the UK economy in favour of many rural communities.
It is right to put the spotlight on activity and adventure tourism in particular, because I believe that this sector has the greatest as yet unexploited potential for sustainable economic growth and jobs.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Buxton adventure festival was held in my constituency of High Peak only last year and that more than 800 people attended it? I tend to agree with him—we have neighbouring constituencies that have a lot in common—that the outdoor pursuits available in our constituencies, which are coterminous in many ways, are a fantastic thing for both tourism and local people.
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I see that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), is nodding her head. She represents Leek and these things are vital for our community. I have met the organiser of the Buxton festival in the past and it is a tremendous initiative showing what can be done to move things forward and help jobs and growth in our rural communities.
The experiences associated with outdoor pursuits, such as hill walking, rock climbing and mountaineering, are real and tangible. If we add mountain biking, kayaking, canoeing and even ghyll scrambling, we will see that there is huge potential that needs to be exploited.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue to the House. He mentioned the outdoor pursuits of hill walking, mountain climbing and so on but, on country sports and, indeed, shooting sports, does he agree that the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation could work with young people to give them opportunities in those adventure sports?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important contribution and I think that Members of all parties would agree that there is room for those activities as well. Debates about them are quite frequent—they have been in the past anyway—and today I want to put the spotlight on other outdoor pursuits, but there is definitely work to be done in that regard, too.
There is a lot to do. My contribution is less about having my head in the clouds and more about having—in the best traditions of mountaineering—a summit in mind and a determination to reach it.
According to VisitBritain’s most recent edition of Foresight—issue 111—the Olympic and Paralympic games have already massively improved the nation’s brand, with 99% of international communications experts saying that the games have helped tremendously to move our brand forward. We need to build on that extraordinary momentum, which the Minister himself was pivotal in making possible. He will know, no doubt, that, while we are ranked fourth in the world as a tourist destination—primarily for our culture and heritage—we are a very disappointing 18th with regard to the rich natural beauty of our outdoors, and that that is an improvement on where we were before the Olympics. A lot of work needs to be done.
Given that the North Downs way runs through the Minister’s constituency, he will appreciate that our national trails are a very important aspect of what we have to offer and they need to be cherished.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Ramblers Association plays a vital role, especially the north Cheshire branch? Is he aware of Helsby hill in my constituency and, indeed, the Sandstone trail, which are significant for weekend walkers?
David Rutley
I am well aware of them and have climbed on Helsby crag myself. Those are important trails. Ramblers play an important role, as do many other organisations, such as the British Mountaineering Council, which I will talk about in a minute.
There is more to be done. When VisitEngland speaks to visitors within the UK, it is clear that visitors do not know what the options are. Somebody said in one focus group:
“I was struggling to think of places I wanted to go to, because I don’t know the country, what’s all this in the middle?”
There is the Peak district and the Pennines for a start, as well as many other wonderful places. We need to get the word out and help people understand what is going on. We need to provide opportunities for the sun seekers to come and find winter excitement and enjoyment in the UK. People need to have access to information. The Minister’s Department has an important role to play in that.
We are making Britain a more welcoming place, but we need to find a way of making our outdoors more welcoming. The new “Walkers are Welcome” initiative is certainly doing that. It has created a number of welcoming destinations for walkers, which currently total 100. That will be important in putting the focus on that activity.
This debate is not just about tourism; it is about sports-related activity. Interestingly, hill walking and mountaineering is one of only four sports that are growing in participation. Indoor rock climbing is seeing explosive growth, particularly among younger people. It is incredible to see that. Climbing is one of five or six sports that have been shortlisted for inclusion as an Olympic sport. The International Olympic Committee will make a decision on 7 September. Perhaps the Minister will consider that bid, offer advice and support that aim.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I have the privilege of representing Aberconwy, which includes Coed y Brenin, part of the main Plas y Brenin mountaineering centre. There is a perception that these sports are for the middle classes. Through the outdoor partnership, the Plas y Brenin centre is trying to make young school children feel that this is something that people in their local area are involved in. Participation has grown significantly as a result.
David Rutley
Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate supporter of Plas y Brenin and other outdoor activities in his constituency. I am grateful for that, as are other people. As he says, it is vital that these activities are not only for middle-income groups and older people, but for people across the age ranges. These pursuits can be enjoyed throughout a person’s life, unlike other elite or competitive sports. It is vital to involve younger people.
The health and well-being aspects of outdoor pursuits are clear for everybody to see. It is important to note, as Change4Life has pointed out, that regular activity reduces the risk of early mortality by more than 30%, and yet only 6% of men and 4% of women aged 16 and over meet the Government’s recommendation. Outdoor pursuits can help to tackle that.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Given the benefits, which my hon. Friend has outlined so well, does he agree that this debate is as much about outdoor education as it is about outdoor entertainment? Would it not be good if the Department of Health and the Department for Education were represented on the Front Bench too, because they have as much at stake in this matter as the Minister’s Department?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I would love to see Ministers from both those Departments here. However, it has been a long day and I am grateful that we have the Minister with responsibility for sport and tourism in the Chamber.
Thank goodness we have organisations such as the Scouts and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme that engage young people, places such as Plas y Brenin and the Manchester climbing centre that engage people who are disadvantaged or who have disabilities, and charities such as the David Lewis Centre that get involved in these pursuits and allow people to expand their horizons.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I know that the hon. Gentleman and I share a love of the outdoors. I agree with the interesting points that he has been making. Does he agree that volunteers have a vital role to play in making the outdoors accessible, especially to young people? Barbara Green runs a Duke of Edinburgh’s award open group in Clifton in my constituency, which not only provides young people with fantastic experiences, but gives them skills and confidence that can help them to thrive in education, as well as a great love of the outdoors.
David Rutley
The hon. Lady—my friend—makes an important point. When we were on Snowdon back in September, we saw a group of Asian girls from London on the Duke of Edinburgh scheme making their first trip up. Those are the sorts of experiences we want to promote and encourage.
David Rutley
Forgive me, but I need to make some progress, because we also want to hear from the Minister.
Progress has been made. The Minister has met the British Mountaineering Council and he supported the first ever reception for the Great Britain climbing team here, with the great Dame Kelly Holmes. That was an outstanding event, for which I thank him. We have also had the launch of Britain on Foot, an important scheme that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), came and supported, so the participation is there. Britain on Foot in particular is a scheme that we need to get behind. It is an amalgamation of groups, including trusted campaigners such as the British Mountaineering Council, the Ramblers—which we have already heard about—the Camping and Caravanning Club and, of course, the National Trust, along with 200 businesses involved in the outdoor industry and related matters. Those groups are vital. The public launch is in May and there will be three major projects: “Get Britain walking” week, led by the Ramblers, the “Outdoor adventure” week and the National Trust’s “50 things to do” week, which will encourage younger people to get involved.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and also on being a Sport and Recreation Alliance’s sports parliamentarian of the year. I heartily agree with his comments about Britain on Foot and how people can get out and enjoy our countryside. Does he agree that one way people can get out is on their bikes and that we should encourage cycling as a way of enjoying outdoor pursuits?
David Rutley
As a former resident of Harrogate, I appreciate how important cycling is in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have often seen him out in the hills enjoying the great sights—when he has any time and is not campaigning, of course. He is absolutely right: these are important pursuits to support.
Britain on Foot is ahead of us, so momentum is building. We have heard about volunteers doing their work, creating the Bollington walking festival and walking festivals elsewhere across the country. Let us get behind those things. The Government are moving forward on the Olympic legacy with the “Adventure is Great Britain” campaign, which is now an important pillar of that legacy. I hope we will hear about that from the Minister.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend’s leadership of the all-party group on mountaineering, of which I am proud to be a member. The legacy is important, yet we are talking about things that are not necessarily seen as organised sport, but which are wonderful ways of getting involved, getting engaged and keeping fit, so we must ensure that they are included in all the plans. I am delighted to support the Britain on Foot campaign with him.
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend. It is encouraging to see support from all the different parties across the House. I think we are all united on this issue, which makes such a big difference to people throughout their lives. I recognise the work he does in various sports, including rugby league. The activities that we are talking about can make a difference across people’s lives.
I would like the Minister to focus on three things—if he is in agreement—as he looks at this great, hidden gem, in this Aladdin’s cave of opportunity for British tourism. First, we would like him to recognise the important role—which we all recognise—that opportunities for outdoor pursuits play in our rural communities for participation in sport and for health and well-being. Secondly, we also very much hope that he will be able to spend time meeting a group of people from the outdoor organisations we have talked about and the industry, to consider how to come up with pragmatic plans—which will hopefully fit with some of his that are already in place—to move the agenda forwards. Finally, we urge him to ensure that his Department and the related bodies, including VisitBritain, VisitEngland and, for that matter, English Heritage, give their full support to the Britain on Foot in the campaign over the months ahead. It is interesting to note that President Obama is supporting such initiatives in the States. The US has a “Great outdoors” month. I am not particularly competitive —not much—but I think we could do a lot more, a lot better than the US. The ideas we have discussed this evening would be great for that.
I want to end by recognising the huge contribution made by some of this country’s great adventurers, such as Bonington and Whillans—all these great climbers—but let us focus on Whymper, who was the first to climb the Matterhorn, in 1865. He said:
“There have been joys too great to be described in words, and there have been griefs upon which I have not dared to dwell, and with these in mind I say, climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are naught without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste, look well to each step, and from the beginning think what may be the end.”
Determined and inspired words, and hopefully from my remarks tonight the Minister will feel a similar resolve to reach new summits in sports and the other activities mentioned today. The view from the top? Enduring economic benefits and the improved health of our nation. It is surely a climb worth making.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
At the start of what I think is my seventh hour in the Chamber today, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for initiating this debate on the important role that participation in outdoor pursuits can play in supporting tourism, health, well-being and sports-related activity.
The Government recognise that tourism is a cornerstone of growth. We also recognise the role that tourism plays in rural economies, and within that the role that outdoor pursuits such as camping, hill walking, climbing and outdoor adventure play in underpinning key local tourism economies. The GREAT campaign, run from the Prime Minister’s office, celebrates the UK’s rich heritage and contemporary culture, our people and places to visit, as well as our great commercial strengths. Outdoor leisure is a key element of that campaign as it enables us to promote the United Kingdom as a fantastic destination for adventure and exploration.
Officials in my Department are exploring the possibility of linking the campaign with other areas of Government activity, such as the Department of Health’s Change4Life scheme. Across the piece, VisitBritain’s greatest ever global tourism campaign, supported by GREAT, is expected to bring in 4.6 million extra visitors, £2.3 billion additional spend, and create nearly 60,000 jobs over four years. Analysis has shown that investment in GREAT to date is projected to help generate around a quarter of a billion pounds for the British economy over the next two years. The rural economy is well placed to benefit from that investment.
Greg Mulholland
I was delighted to be at King’s Cross station to welcome the new Discover Leeds tourism campaign. It has received regional growth funding, which is marvellous. Will the Minister acknowledge the important role and opportunity provided by Britain on Foot to get people walking in urban and suburban areas? We have a great example in the Meanwood valley trail that goes from Leeds city centre through my constituency, nature reserves and parks, to connect with the countryside. The scheme applies to all areas.
Hugh Robertson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and—I say this every time—for the work he has done on the rugby league world cup. I am sorry that I was not able to join him this morning—the reason is obvious: the Bill—but I acknowledge his contribution. The scheme has been incredibly successful, and a key objective of much of the reconstitution work around the Olympic park was to create such walking trails. Indeed, I led quite a lot of work last year to ensure that the full commitments on the cycling area are upheld when the track is reconstituted after the games.
In tandem with the VisitBritain investment, VisitEngland has a £25 million campaign, including “Holidays at Home Are GREAT”, which is expected to create more than 12,000 jobs, with £500 million extra spent by tourists between 2011 and 2015.
The current economic climate is, of course, making life hard for many communities and businesses, so apart from GREAT, what are the Government doing to help? There is specific Government support. For example, VisitEngland includes the promotion of outdoor activity in its work with the support of the regional growth fund and investment from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will be pleased to hear that it is entirely supportive of the aims of the Britain on Foot campaign, as they align with increasing activity in the great outdoors and the subsequent economic benefit for tourism businesses. VisitEngland recognises the connection between increased outdoor activity-related tourism and increased sales of outdoor clothing and equipment. The agenda of the Outdoor Industries Association and Britain on Foot is very much aligned with VisitEngland’s strategic framework for tourism in England. Its focus on modernising the rural offering and getting younger people in particular interested in outdoor experiences will ultimately benefit the rural economy.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
My constituency has the Pennine way running through it, Brontë country, Top Withens and Ilkley moor—I will not sing the song. It is a great privilege to be part of that fantastic countryside, but its economy is important and the money that the Minister is speaking of is important in stimulating the economy. Does he recognise the importance of the rural service economy?
Hugh Robertson
It has been quite a day for me, moving from the same-sex marriage debate to Ilkley moor, but I enthusiastically endorse what my hon. Friend says.
Hon. Members will be pleased that mountaineering is receiving £3 million through Sport England’s whole sport plans from 2013 to 2017. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced a £2 million fund for the creation of new permanent access rights within a £25 million package to promote rural tourism and support rural tourism businesses, following the rural economy growth review in 2011. The paths for communities scheme funded by the rural development programme for England aims to develop and enhance the rights of way network to the benefit of the local economy by funding projects developed by local communities.
Lilian Greenwood
How should people get to those great outdoor places? Rural transport is important, particularly for young people and people on low incomes who might not have access to a motor car. Has the Minister discussed that with his colleagues in the Department for Transport?
Hugh Robertson
In all honesty, the answer is no, but that is an extremely good point and I will ensure we follow it up. If the hon. Lady is happy for me to write to her, I will do so. Part of the attraction of many places is that they are remote. It is important that we open them up, particularly to young people, while maintaining the correct balances.
In the past 12 months, the Government have announced that £107 million will be made available during this Parliament for cycling. That included last month’s announcement of a fund worth up to £12 million being made available to local authorities working in partnership with the national parks to improve conditions for cyclists.
What else has happened? Access, through rights of way and open access, is probably the best it has ever been in England. Access is incredibly important for the economy, and we can be very proud of our network of national trails, which can be important generators for local business. For example, university of Exeter research shows that the south-west coast path generates around £300 million a year for the economy of the region and supports around 7,500 jobs.
Natural England is committed to increasing the number and range of people who can experience and benefit from the natural environment, and it is leading on the Government’s ambition that everybody should have fair access to a good-quality natural environment. It is championing “Outdoors for All” and the natural environment on behalf of the Government and ensuring that the green-space volunteering and heritage sectors work side by side with partners to help to improve the quality of everybody’s experience of natural places.
I will touch on two of the issues my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned in a minute, but first let me say that the Olympic legacy has been making an impact on health and well-being since we won the bid back in 2005. If he had told me that might happen on that happy night in Singapore when we were celebrating the success of the bid, I would have replied that that wonderful ambition was unlikely to be realised, but since the bid to stage the games was won in 2005 we have managed to ensure that more than 1.5 million more people are playing sport regularly. That is a remarkable achievement and one that no other host nation has managed.
Sport England and the Department of Health are working together to align programmes to support those who are least active. We have recently had an opportunity for interested organisations to apply to the “Get Healthy, Get into Sport” fund. The fund is seeking to improve the evidence base on the role of sport to engage inactive people—many of whom, I suspect, would be attracted by precisely the activities my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield is advocating—and produce the right type of information that is of interest to those who commission public health programmes.
Let me touch on two issues my hon. Friend mentioned. I always get asked about International Olympic Committee votes. It is important to say that the only people who vote on which sports go into the mix—he is absolutely right, the vote is in the September IOC session in Buenos Aires—are the IOC members, and they are extremely resistant to pressure from Government to get sports in and out. A number of sports are trying to get in this time around, some of which would do us, as a country, quite a lot of good, so we would like to see them in. The advice to mountaineering—indeed, the advice I would give to any sport—is that it is important to take a strategic long-term view. Mountaineering may be lucky in 2020, but if it is not, the sport’s representatives need to keep plugging away, because the programme changes regularly. Even in London, we could sense that there were some sports that may not have a long-term future in the summer games. There is a case for mountaineering in either the winter or the summer games; as there is a place for it in both, it is well worth plugging away at the strategic level.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take confidence from what I have said. I absolutely acknowledge the opportunities for outdoor pursuits, and I would be delighted to meet the organisations he mentioned. If he does not mind, could he give me a month while we get this uncontroversial little piece of legislation through Parliament? I give him my assurance that I will ensure that the arm’s-length bodies give full support to the Britain on Foot initiative.
Mr Speaker, thank you for remaining with us for most of these seven hours—
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) raised the issue of using outdoor pursuits in education. Will the Minister give a commitment to work with the Department for Education to achieve that?
Hugh Robertson
I think at this stage of the evening I might just say, “Indeed, yes. Trust me, it will be done.”
In conclusion, and before I go off and make my final speech of the evening outside the Chamber, I will finish by confirming that through many of the initiatives in place, the Government recognise entirely the important role that informal outdoor activity and sport-related activity play in supporting tourism and the health and well-being agendas. There is a unique opportunity to market this country, and we have seen the effects already, with an increase in visitor numbers post-2012. The hon. Gentleman and others can be assured that outdoor pursuits will play a key part in that process.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Topical Questions
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern expressed in the recent Defence Committee report on cyber-security in defence. I know that cyber-security is a very sensitive matter, but what can the Minister do to assure the public that we are well and truly on top of it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report by March, and will take careful note of the issues that it raises. I should point out, however, that way back in 2010 the national security strategy established cyber-security as a tier 1 priority, and that within a very few months it established the national cyber-security programme, which involved expenditure of £650 million over 10 years. I was delighted to note—without being complacent—that the Economist Intelligence Unit recently ranked the UK at No. 1 in terms of preparedness for a cyber attack.
[Official Report, 14 January 2013, Vol. 556, c. 593.]
Letter of correction from Andrew Murrison:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).
The correct answer should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report by March, and will take careful note of the issues that it raises. I should point out, however, that way back in 2010 the national security strategy established cyber-security as a tier 1 priority, and that within a very few months it established the national cyber-security programme, which involved expenditure of £650 million over four years. I was delighted to note—without being complacent—that the Economist Intelligence Unit recently ranked the UK at No. 1 in terms of preparedness for a cyber attack.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
HM Revenue and Customs
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am grateful for hon. Members’ attendance this morning at this debate about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its capacity and resources. Over the past decade or so, tax debates in Westminster Hall have usually been attended by the usual public administration anoraks—a club that I am a member of—or failed accountants who have been elected to the House of Commons, which is even worse. Not any more, however: the recession means that we all take an interest in public expenditure and look at every element of public income. A tax justice campaign is being waged as a result of the recession, and I pay tribute to tax justice campaigners John Christensen and Richard Murphy for their work over the years, as well as to UK Uncut, whose direct action campaign brought the issue to the attention of the public. It is concerned about the scandal of unpaid and uncollected tax. The debate reveals that our system does not work effectively.
There is another scandal associated with our taxation system: not just how much taxation is avoided or evaded, but how badly our tax collection and administration is managed overall—and, to be frank, how it has been mismanaged by politicians over the past few decades. At times, there has been almost catastrophic short-sightedness and incompetence. The genesis of the debate was a lobby by the Public and Commercial Services Union that happened in the past six months, and meetings with members. I chair the PCS parliamentary group, and the union represents 55,000 staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. There have been many meetings with Members, and meetings in constituencies, to express the overwhelming sense of frustration, which has at times verged on anger that, as professionals, staff have been held back from fulfilling their role of ensuring that taxes are collected efficiently.
There is a particular sense of frustration because during the recession HMRC could, through tax collection, make a significant contribution to tackling the economic crisis and, indeed, the overall deficit. Staff feel that they are being held back professionally, and undermined by cuts: staffing cuts, office closures, deteriorating work conditions resulting in low morale, and the lack of appropriate professional and legislative tools to do the job. Time and again the view has been expressed that more and more policy changes load responsibilities on to them—more work for an overstretched and overburdened work force. The expression used by many of the staff is that they have been set up to fail—in some instances so that their jobs can be privatised. I want to explore the current situation in HMRC and consider the remedies that are needed. The Government need to stand back at this point, and consider staffing resources and the challenges that staff face.
What is the job? It dates back to the time of Chaucer, the earliest famous tax collector—a putative PCS shop steward. It is simply to collect taxes. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales circulated an excellent brief before the debate, and summed it up. HMRC simply makes the tax system work: that is what it is meant to do, but the reality is that it struggles to do so. We know that from the evidence that is available to us. If the main role of HMRC is to collect the taxes, it is clear from the recent evidence that it has not the resources and legislative tools to do so. That is clear from the evidence of the tax gap—we have debated the tax gap at length in this Chamber and I appreciate that there are disputes about using it as an overall assessment of performance, and about the overall level of the tax gap itself, but we know that the range is anything from the £70 billion to £120 billion estimated by Tax Research UK, under Richard Murphy, and the HMRC’s and the Minister’s estimate of between £30 billion and £40 billion a year. In other words, even on the Government’s own assessment, half the current deficit is not being collected in taxes, because of tax avoidance and evasion.
The scale of tax avoidance and evasion has caused anger throughout our communities. It is not only the tax justice campaigns and the media that have been railing against them—so have the Government. In December the Chancellor said that people are “right to be angry” about companies not paying their fair share of the tax, and I fully agree with him. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said in November that it was “completely unacceptable” that companies could get away with what he described as gaming the system, to avoid tax, and referred to “appalling stories of abuse” within the tax system.
Last week, the Public Accounts Committee, which has been consistently complimented on its excellent role, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), tore aside the veil that covered the operation, mainly in secret, of the major accountancy companies of devising, and ruthlessly implementing, large-scale—massive—avoidance schemes described by some as obscene. It is worth repeating the scale of what we have seen, in example after example: Starbucks paying only £8.5 million in corporation tax since it was launched here in 1998, despite £3 billion of sales; Google paying £6 million in tax last year on a turnover of £395 million; Apple paying £14.5 million in tax on £1 billion of sales. Numerous other examples have been highlighted by the PAC and others in the investigations of the past year.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has listed a range of selective statistics, but he is well aware that tax is paid on profits, not turnover. Part and parcel of sales is VAT, so taxes other than corporation tax are involved. Does he think that a big danger in the debate is the intermingling of the sense of tax evasion, which is absolutely illegal, with tax avoidance? Not only is tax avoidance legal, but it is bizarre for politicians in government to rail about it, as they have it within their power to change the law to remove loopholes.
John McDonnell
That is an excellent point, which goes to the heart of the debate, because I agree with the Prime Minister that much of what is happening is morally repugnant, but the onus is on us to ensure that the system works effectively in relation to tax evasion and avoidance, and other matters, so that we serve the community that elected us well and so that HMRC does its basic job of collecting taxes. That means giving it sufficient staff and the right resources, so that they can do the job.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that a simpler form of tax collection is needed, in relation to administration? I understand that the UK is second to India for paperwork. Does he also agree that HMRC needs to make a radical change to its approach to tax collection in Northern Ireland? We have a major problem with fuel smuggling. More than £200 million should be going to the Exchequer and is not.
John McDonnell
That excellent point about simplification of our taxation system, and focusing on priorities, is made time and again, and I fully agree. We shall return to it, and perhaps new measures that the Government are presenting this year will help. However, there is no use in our introducing measures or making policy demands without the staffing resources and professionals to implement them.
Last week’s PAC interrogation of the big four accountancy firms revealed the scale of the resources that they plough into advising their clients—the big corporations, and the wealthy—on how to avoid tax. Private sector accountancy firms, including many of the banks—it is not just the big four, but some banks and other financial advisers—have a long history of devising ingenious tax avoidance schemes on what I believe the Minister once described, with reference to a scheme that Barclays Bank once operated, as an industrial scale. Schemes to enable companies to avoid tax have been operated on such a scale. It has been going on for at least the past two decades.
Although the big accountancy firms, along with banks and financial advisers, have been investing in staff recruitment and training on a scale that has produced this massive base of tax avoidance opportunities for companies, there have been massive staff cuts in HMRC and the department feels, therefore, that it has one hand tied behind its back when trying to confront the issue.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The greater part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech is obviously about the collection service and HMRC’s resources, but as he has talked about some of the bigger companies and the accountancy firms, does he agree that it is right to consider whether each company should state on the front of its annual accounts its turnover, surplus, calculated profit, and tax paid other than on staff wages and national insurance? That would bring things out in the open, and directors might ask themselves, “Is this justifiable?” let alone lawful.
John McDonnell
That is an excellent proposal. The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head regarding transparency and openness. It is not only the directors; the shareholders have a responsibility as well. The veil of secrecy over tax avoidance, and the advice given on it, undermines the opportunity for shareholders to hold directors and companies to account. Many shareholders are institutional ones, and they have a commitment to their companies behaving morally as well as legally.
It is not just avoidance though. On January 7, I read —in The Daily Telegraph, so it must be true:
“Tax fraud has reached its highest level since the onset of the financial crisis, as VAT evasion has exploded, costing Britain more than £3bn a year…The size of the so-called ‘VAT gap’ due to fraud, the difference between the amount of tax HMRC expects to receive and what it actually collects, is reckoned to have reached £3.3bn, or enough to fund a 1p reduction in the tax of every UK taxpayer.”
So it is not just evasion and avoidance; it is VAT fraud as well. It is no wonder there are problems. I again quote from The Daily Telegraph—I am going to have to give up reading it:
“taxman embroiled in 20,000 tribunal cases”.
According to the article, HMRC estimates that because of the lack of staff the backlog of cases will take “38 years to clear.” That is how bad it has got.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants briefing states simply that, in the view of independent accountants, the system is not working. Why not? One reason is the scale of the cuts. HMRC has been charged with finding a 25% reduction in expenditure. I accept that that was under the previous Government, but I was critical then also. Under this Government, it is expected to find another 15%. What does that mean? The Minister and I were involved in a discussion about this in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. That scale of reduction would be startling for any organisation. In 2005, HMRC employed 97,000; by 2015 it is planned that the total staff numbers will be 55,000—almost half the staff cut. Since this Government were elected, 7,000 HMRC jobs have gone. The objective in all this is to save what? Some £1 billion. That makes no economic sense when there is a tax gap—tax that remains uncollected—of, according to Government figures, £40 billion or, according to other people, potentially £120 billion.
To be frank, HMRC is woefully under-resourced to tackle the tax gap, and fraud and evasion, and the view of professionals in the field is that the staff cuts seriously hinder the department’s effectiveness. The Government have claimed that they have recently overseen a rise in staff levels, and that is true. There have been some additional staff, and I congratulate the Minister on that. Overall, however, staff numbers have dropped by 7,000 since the Government were elected.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just about the numbers of staff but about their morale? Has he read the repeated surveys, over a number of years, that demonstrate that HMRC staff are the most demoralised anywhere in Government?
John McDonnell
I will come on to that in due course. The expression that has been used by non-HMRC staff—observers—is that staff morale is “at rock bottom.” That was demonstrated by a recent internal Government survey, which reported that fewer than one in five staff thought that HMRC was well managed. That is how bad it has got.
I want to get back to the important issue of staff numbers. The Minister claimed in a previous debate that there had been an increase in the numbers of tax inspectors, with 100 new ones having been or being recruited, but that fails to appreciate the role of other front-line staff in dealing with tax inquiries and chasing up payments. Those essential back-room staff, who are not respected in the role they play, seem to be the ones who are vulnerable to losing their jobs. The Government have partially recognised some of the staff resource issues, providing £900 million to secure an extra £7 billion in tax revenue, and announcing a further £77 million in December to expand HMRC’s anti-avoidance and evasion activities, which they predict will secure another £2 billion. That small investment over the coming years will secure a total of £22 billion of additional taxation, demonstrating that investing in the staff and the professionals will have an economic success in tackling the tax collection problems.
Although limited, the additional funding is welcome, but it fails to appreciate the impact of previous job cuts and the threat to staff of another 10,000 jobs going between now and 2015. It is not just PCS members who urge the Government to think again about the cuts; accountants, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants, have expressed their concern in public. One of them described the cuts as happening “wildly”, with little planning, resulting in the loss of highly skilled professional staff.
I urge Members to read the Commons Library briefing note, which cites a number of independent accountants who have gone public with their worries about the impact of staffing cuts on HMRC, including Ken Frost, the accountant blogger, and Mike Warburton. The running theme is that the cuts are causing difficulties and leading to lost experience, and that staff are overwhelmed at a time when more demands are being placed upon them. According to the briefing by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the recent child benefit changes are predicted to bring an extra 500,000 taxpayers into self-assessment, stretching the already overstretched system.
HMRC staff have expressed their concerns that under-resourcing is leading to mistakes. In an article in the Institute of Chartered Accountants journal, one staff member states:
“The pressure we’re under to hit targets and get post turned round leads to errors because we’re having to do it that fast…The emphasis is placed on getting rid of the stuff whether it’s right or wrong.”
It cannot be right that that is happening in our system. To deal with the work load with fewer staff, HMRC management has introduced a working system based on what have been described as manufacturing principles. The pacesetter system is a rigid, time-limited process with specific targets, which leaves little room for professional judgments, resulting in further errors and failures to resolve problems.
It is not just accountants and other professionals who are complaining about the impact of cuts on services; members of the public, individual taxpayers and small businesses are complaining about the often nightmare problems of accessing HMRC services. The closure of local offices has meant that virtually all contact for some taxpayers is now by telephone.
The National Audit Office reported in December that, in 2011-12, HMRC answered 74% of phone calls. The NAO acknowledges that, despite exceeding an interim target of 58%, the level of service is low. For example, 20 million calls, including calls where customers rang back because they did not get through the first time, were not answered. Customers who got through to HMRC in 2011-12 had to wait on average 282 seconds to speak to an adviser. Between April and September 2011, 6.5 million customers waited more than 10 minutes to have their call answered. Depending on the tariff they pay their phone company, customers are charged from when their call is connected, even if they are held in a queue. The NAO estimates that being in a queue cost customers £33 million in call charges; the estimated value of customers’ time while they were in a queue is £103 million, which cannot be right.
I am pleased that the Government have announced that, from the end of the summer, people who phone for advice will no longer use the costly 0845 number. They are also setting a new target from April for 80% of people to wait no longer than five minutes to speak to a real person, including recorded messages. I am grateful to the Government, because there have been improvements and HMRC has hired an extra 2,500 staff. Those staff, however, are employed only on temporary contracts, and the union and others feel that the Government need to allow HMRC to employ properly trained, permanent staff who will benefit the organisation, rather than the reactive, quick-fix recruitment policy that many people feel will not bring about sustained improvement in service delivery.
There is anxiety about over-reliance on phone services. The reason for high caller demand and over-reliance on caller services is because 200 local HMRC offices have closed over the past six years, and there are more to follow.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right that there are more closures to follow. In my constituency, Weardale house is due to close, and in the neighbouring constituency of Sunderland Central, the closure of Shackleton and Gilbridge houses is under consultation. That is three offices and a number of staff in just one city, and in Sunderland unemployment is 7.5%. Does he agree that that is not only bad for HMRC services but devastating for the local area?
John McDonnell
I will use the example of Sunderland, because my hon. Friend has hit on a wider issue than just the impact on staff. HMRC plans to close Gilbridge and Shackleton houses, which are in the centre of Sunderland, and Weardale house next to the Washington Galleries. Some 300 staff from Sunderland and 200 staff from Washington could be moved to Waterside house, which is on an enterprise park outside the centre of town.
PCS asked staff at Gilbridge and Shackleton houses to keep track of their city centre expenditure for two weeks as a sample. They spent more than £22,000 across more than 100 businesses in that particular area. I have details of a survey that I would like to hand to the Minister after the debate, because it demonstrates the financial impact on a town centre of removing that number of staff. To a previous question on the union’s assessment that £600,000 would be lost each year, the Minister’s response was that that will be made up for when the buildings are let. Well, those buildings are not being let; the offices are being closed and not being replaced by firms that recruit and employ the same number of staff with the same spending power in a town centre.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that closing offices is a false and unfair economy, because it limits the opportunity for face-to-face discussion in settling complex tax matters, which now have to be decided by either calling a call centre, going online or writing?
John McDonnell
That is both frustrating for the person who is trying to identify what they should properly pay and counter-productive given the lost revenue to the HMRC.
John Mann
Has my hon. Friend considered the disproportionate impact of tax office closures on traditional market towns such as Retford? Where a significant number of staff are moved out and the offices are not re-let, the consequence is that other small businesses, newsagents, cafés and so on get into difficulties because part of their core lunch-time business disappears.
John McDonnell
It flies in the face of all the statements by this Government and previous Governments about moving staff out of London into the regions to boost regional economies. We now have a hokey-cokey, with staff being brought in as other staff are taken out. The result is not only instability but, through overall cuts in staff numbers, a depressing effect on local economies, as evidenced across the country where there have been closures.
The offices set to close by 2014-15 are: City Gate house in Leicester, where there are 124 staff; Pentland house, Livingston, with 220 staff; Crownhill court, Plymouth, with 76 staff; Wingfield house, Portsmouth, with 510 staff; Merrywalks house, Stroud, with 53 staff; Gilbridge and Shackleton houses, Sunderland, with 213 and 103 staff respectively; Truro with 49 staff; Weardale house, Washington, with 181 staff; Valiant house, Wembley, with 40 staff; and Lingate house, Wigan, with 69 staff. Those are enormous figures within a particular local economy. HMRC has also confirmed plans to shut nine offices in 2013-14 that were threatened with closure in September 2011, including one in Wick in northern Scotland that won a reprieve after a previous union campaign. Those offices are: Norfolk house, Bristol, with 213 staff; Norwich with 72 staff; St John’s house, Poole, with 67 staff; Somerset house, London, with 265 staff; Slough with 101 staff; Stockport with 415 staff; Twickenham with 51 staff; Quorum contact centre, Newcastle, with 647 staff; and Government buildings, Wick, with 17 staff.
More than 100 staff in Stockport have recently been offered voluntary redundancy as the office prepares to close, which means the loss of many staff with many years’ experience of administering the system and delivering customer services. We are losing staff with years of knowledge and experience. That is local knowledge of local tax collection policies and of where the local tax gap may be addressed.
I will not delay the Chamber too long, but I have an example of the contradictory nature of the whole affair, which is the closure of the Wick office. All 15 staff based at the office work in local compliance, or local tax collection. The total cost of commercial rent and staff comes to £494,475—I will offer the Minister my detailed brief afterwards if he so wishes. The total tax yield for the same period is £14 million. Each member of staff is responsible for bringing in close to £1 million in one tax year. The office, which we think has a realistic target of £20 million a year, is to close. To save £500,000, therefore, we lose £20 million as a result of the staff cuts. The Wick staff are all experienced and have used that experience gained over the years to be successful in their work. The loss of 15 jobs in Wick is equivalent, per head of population, to the loss of 17,000 jobs in London. There is a significant impact on the local economy, and that is repeated in area after area. The problem is that local office closures will mean new demands on call centres.
The transition to universal credit will bring added problems. The Government expect 80% of universal credit claimants to use online services, but it is likely that many of those people will not have internet access. In the absence of local offices, the next port of call will be the telephone service, on which the cost burden will fall ever more greatly as people are called on to fill out more detailed information in order to access benefits such as tax credits and employment and support allowance. That demonstrates the digital divide in our country and the divide between those who can access a local office and those who cannot. That is worrying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned staff morale. Any manager would say that an organisation that deals with the general public, provides a public service and works in such a complex field needs committed, dedicated, well-trained and professional staff, which HMRC has built up over the years, and which both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise had before HMRC was formed from their merger. I still believe that HMRC staff want to work in an organisation that values them for that.
I warn the Minister and others here that staff morale in the organisation, as the media have described, is at rock bottom. Recent evidence in documents leaked from the department has confirmed that, and I have mentioned the recent survey in which only 18%—fewer than one in five—of staff felt that the organisation was well managed. Any manager in such an organisation will tell you that there are problems if staff morale is that low.
Industrial action has taken place in HMRC in recent years; in some areas, for the first time in the history of tax collection and administration arrangements in this country. Staff morale is low because of the continuing threat to jobs and terms and conditions, and of privatisation. It is wearing people down and undermining morale. Insecurity is ever present. Staff have suffered a pay freeze, pension cuts, job cuts and office closures, and now, as a result of Cabinet Office procedures, the department is reviewing all terms and conditions, including hours of work, leave, parental and special leave, child care, job sharing, flexitime and part-time working, all of which affect HMRC staff, many of whom are women with caring responsibilities whose arrangements are being destabilised as a result of the review.
The handling of the HMRC nursery closures was brutal and incompetent. HMRC announced on 23 August 2012 that it was to close eight workplace nurseries by November. The nurseries were in Blackburn, Cardiff, East Kilbride, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham, Salford and Wolverhampton. Parents were given just 12 weeks’ notice, and the decision was taken without any consultation with the trade unions. PCS led a campaign with the support of numerous Members, whom I thank, and one of my hon. Friends secured an Adjournment debate on the topic. HMRC agreed to keep the two biggest nurseries open until October 2015 and provide financial compensation for the carers and parents affected.
HMRC’s rationale for closing the nurseries was that it would be fairer to everyone to have the same level of child care provision, so it introduced a child care voucher scheme, taking no account of the financial or personal impact of the decision on staff. It raised serious concerns among staff about HMRC’s commitment to family-friendly policies. The organisation’s management have admitted that it was not their finest hour. It has certainly hit morale badly within the department.
The threat of privatisation is ongoing. All jobs are up for sale. What is most galling to HMRC staff and to us is that contracts are being handed out to corporations involved in large-scale tax avoidance. It is extraordinary. I raised the issue in the House some weeks ago, but I will run through the examples. Capgemini and Accenture, two IT companies with HMRC contracts, were both identified recently as having avoided paying tax. Capgemini, the lead contractor on the £8 billion Aspire contract, paid only £308,000—or less than 1%—in corporation tax last year on £38 million in profits. There is no justification for that happening in the first place, and certainly no justification for us feeding a tax avoider with Government contracts. Accenture, which has a £9.6 million contract with HMRC to supply technical support, managed to reduce its tax bill to 3.5%, paying only £2.8 million in tax on nearly £82 million in profits in Britain last year, yet we awarded it another contract.
To be fair, the last Government were to blame as well, and under them I raised the issue of the selling-off of the HMRC estate to Mapeley. HMRC now leases the buildings back. In 2010, NAO findings showed that if Mapeley, which is now part of the US offshore group Fortress Management Services, were based in Britain, the Treasury could expect to receive around £184 million in tax revenues. In fact, the company is expected to pay only £14 million on its lucrative HMRC contract. We have to learn some lessons. If nothing else, we must ensure that we do not provide tax avoiders with incentives by giving them Government contracts.
Many staff members and independent advisers have expressed the view that the general tax avoidance mechanisms that the Government are introducing will not give them the tools that they need to tackle tax avoidance. That needs a much wider debate than we have had so far in the House and elsewhere about the parameters, role and remit of the tax avoidance measures that the Government are introducing. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said, that also includes simplification of the system.
Cut after cut has been made. Staffing cuts are undermining professionalism, reducing the number of local offices and creating low morale among staff. It all points to a key department labouring under intense pressure without the resources to cope. HMRC has been on the edge of a crisis for some time. I believe that Ministers have begun to become aware of it in recent months, but there are public fears about tax justice, and the Ministers responsible for HMRC must recognise that the department needs to be re-resourced. Staffing levels must be brought back up. A new sense of purpose and a new direction must be injected into the department. Staff must be re-motivated, and the threats of privatisation must end, as well as the cutbacks to terms and conditions that are impeding staff in undertaking their professional work.
All staff want is the chance to make their contribution by collecting taxes, enforcing legislation and advising us how to create a system that is fair, efficient and effective. They are professionals, and they should be treated as such. I hope that as a result of this debate, the Government will open a wider dialogue, particularly through the trade unions, especially PCS, about how HMRC will go forward, working with the grain of its staff’s professionalism and with their good will to turn the department around so that it can implement a fair and effective tax collection system.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.40. In order to allow as many people to speak as possible, I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. If hon. Members stick to that, it is possible that all the people who have indicated that they want to speak will be able to.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this important debate.
In these difficult times, we are all more aware than ever of the need to pay our taxes, to pay our way, and to be able to collect taxes efficiently. The Government and the country rely heavily on HMRC to collect the taxes that the Government claim are necessary to reduce Britain’s deficit yet, at the same time, the Government are making cuts to HMRC and hitting hard its ability to do its job. They simply cannot run down the machine that they require to deliver for them in these difficult times.
Last year, HMRC estimated the total UK tax gap through aggressive avoidance and evasion by UK residents and businesses at about £32 billion, which is almost a quarter of the deficit. The staffing cuts at HMRC are particularly shocking, as is its shortage of resources. By 2015, its staffing numbers will have fallen by 44% from 2005 levels, which represents a huge reduction in staff over 10 years. Staffing levels in the tax collection department are set to reach an all-time low of just over 56,000 by 2015, which is down from 97,000 in 2005.
Job cuts among Revenue officials have meant that £1.1 billion less unpaid tax has been recouped than could have been. The influential Public Accounts Committee has praised an HMRC crackdown that brought in an extra £4.32 billion in five years, which was 11 times what it cost. However, the PAC said that the decision to axe 3,300 posts at the same time appeared to have undermined effectiveness and it urged caution over further reductions. The Committee said:
“We are not convinced that the decision to reduce staff numbers working in this area in the past represented value for money for the taxpayer.”
The general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union said recently:
“the effort to ensure people pay the taxes they owe will continue to be seriously undermined by job cuts.”
The case for investment in our public services could not be starker or more obvious than it is in the case of HMRC, yet the Government are planning to cut 10,000 more jobs from it in the coming years. Staff morale is at an all-time low, but if we look at the job losses and cuts, is that any wonder? The Government have also proposed a review of the terms and conditions of staff, leaving them suffering disproportionately from the Government’s austerity programme, and that comes on top of changes to pensions and part-time work issues.
Let us look at the staffing in HMRC. In benefits and credits, the staffing level was more than 7,000 in 2009, but only a little more than 5,000 in 2012. In business tax, the number was more than 4,000 in 2009, but only a little more than 3,000 in 2012. In enforcement and compliance, the figure was 34,700 in 2009, but 28,700 in 2012. In personal tax, the staffing level was again some 34,700 in 2009, but it was 29,000 in 2012, and in corporate services, the figure was more than 7,000 in 2009, but only a little more than 5,000 in 2012. Those are not my figures but the Government’s own. How can HMRC perform with the capacity that we would wish following such job cuts? How can it possibly act against the tax avoidance that we have seen when such numbers have been reduced from its staff?
At a time of a severe economic recession, tax avoidance is something that HMRC should be pursuing wholeheartedly, but its resources and capacity to do so are being cut. I can only wonder at the Government’s mismanagement—
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing the debate and his knowledge of, and campaigning on, the issue. I hope that he was not referring to me when he talked of “failed accountants”.
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, so I deal with such matters a lot, and something that strikes us is that, despite the need to cut the deficit, HMRC is not a normal cost centre. It is a cost centre that brings in 100 times what it actually costs. Even if we take HMRC’s own estimate of the tax gap of £40 billion, it is worth remembering that the entire cost of HMRC is only £4 billion—a tenth of the tax gap.
HMRC faces not only its existing challenges, but major new challenges: the European Union, globalisation, the internet, rising customer service expectations and, as we have heard, tax avoidance on an industrial scale. On the very day of one of the PAC’s hearings on tax last week, the headlines in The Times were about a charity that hon. Members would never had heard of, although it got more money in the past two years than the British Heart Foundation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Cancer Research UK put together. Why had we never heard of it? Because it was a gigantic tax scam that brought in £176 million and paid only £55,000 to charity. It was a gift aid rip-off, and that is yet another area in which HMRC staff are needed.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned customer service. HMRC officials told the PAC that they were proud that they were getting close to their target of answering 80% of calls in five minutes, but the industry standard is 20 seconds. We also need knowledgeable staff on the end of those calls, as is the case for banks such as First Direct, who can answer people’s queries and help them to do whatever they want done in one call. Face-to-face service seems to be disappearing, and knowledgeable face-to-face service certainly does not happen in my local tax office.
We need a new effort on globalisation and the EU. Last week, the big accountants said that they would like to see more people in HMRC’s transfer pricing department. The big four have nearly three times as many staff working on transfer pricing as HMRC. We also need a lot more people on investigation and enforcement to deal with the growing tax avoidance scandals.
There must be many opportunities for what I call “invest to collect” in HMRC. It has stated that whenever it looks at the business case for more staff, it typically gets returns of 17:1 or 11:1. Frankly, as a taxpayer, I would be happy with even 2:1, because investing £1 to get £2 sounds like a good deal. We need to invest to collect, and there are many ways of doing that.
It interesting that journalists and TV programmes seem to have no trouble getting right to the heart of tax avoidance. They do so on “Panorama” and in newspapers, so how come HMRC is not employing more investigators to go to the places such as the West Indies, where some people might have 12,000 directorships and there is a forest of brass plates on the door, to find out what is happening? If independent journalists can do that, it would not be difficult to have a much bigger unit in HMRC to do so. The gap is large, and we should invest in people to close it.
Finally, I have a special plea. Other Members have mentioned their areas, and I have been to the tax office at Thornaby, near Stockton. I am told that I am one of only two MPs to have visited a tax office over 12 months, so I urge all Members to get out and talk to the staff. People were disturbed that I wanted to talk to the staff as well as to the management, and it was interesting to find out what the staff were saying.
The Thornaby office is excellent but, as in all tax offices, morale has been damaged. My plea is to keep that office going. It is a good, low-cost place to be and, given the paucity of white-collar jobs on Teesside, it would be easy to get new people there to replace the 400 jobs that were lost in Middlesbrough when the tax office closed a few years ago. Middlesbrough has the second highest unemployment rate in the country, so the loss of those jobs was hugely damaging. We need more resource, and let us have some on Teesside.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on getting the debate, which is important. I do not intend to go over the same ground as other colleagues, but some points need to be re-emphasised. I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply, and if he gets time, I hope that he will answer a few of my questions, although I am happy to get a response in writing.
Other than the 40,000 jobs that will be lost by 2015—over the past eight and future two years—which is bad enough, what we have is an HMRC that has just employed three new non-executive board members. Volker Beckers, previously chief executive of RWE npower, is now the chair of the scrutiny committee and has a job worth £20,000 a year. That might not be an awful lot to Mr Beckers, but it would be to people who were about to lose their jobs. Why does that man have a job at £20,000 a year, which will not mean a lot to him? He also comes from the electricity companies, which have been ripping off customers left, right and centre, although the Minister might consider the case to be one of poacher turned gamekeeper. That might be right, but I would still like to know the reasons.
Norman Pickavance was previously director of human resources and communications at Morrisons. He left Morrisons just before it announced a third year of no profits. Will he be asked to bail out of HMRC if it is not successful? He is on a retainer of £15,000 a year, and I would like to know what he does for that £15,000 a year.
John Whiting, previously of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, perhaps has a job that is connected with HMRC, but he is working for it only part time, and he will receive £20,000 a year. How much time will he spend earning that money, and what will he be expected to do in return?
On 1 February, the Daily Mirror reported that a group called the Cup Trust had been banking millions of pounds and giving out millions of pounds in gifts to people, yet only 8% of its money seems to go to charity. Two days later, the same newspaper revealed that it had not given £80,000 to charity, although its books said that it had. That is not tax avoidance; it is ripping off charity people. On many occasions, I have asked what happens to the extra money that is put aside for proper charities, and we are told that the Treasury takes it back and will not give it to charities that do the right thing. The Daily Mirror stated:
“Charity tax avoiders: Scam bosses could trouser £7.7 MILLION while good causes received just £135,000”.
If the Daily Mirror can find that information, and we hear about it only through the paper, what have the Treasury and HMRC been doing?
The problem with HMRC is not the people at the bottom—the 40,000 people who will lose their jobs or have already lost them—who do a good job and work hard, but those who run it and are in charge of those people. That, Minister, is you.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Let us cut to the chase. Among the vast number of businesses and UK taxpayers, HMRC has a not entirely undeserved reputation as a byword for incompetence, opaqueness and arbitrary action, verging on shambolic. In his passionate opening speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) expressed some specific concerns, and I want to touch on some of the issues.
I am a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency that is an important part of the UK economy, and there is a real problem—we will, no doubt, discuss it at greater length in other debates—about tax and the increasing feeling of unfairness, which is dangerous for society. I have spoken about that in the House, and particularly against the backdrop of the protests at St Paul’s cathedral a little over a year ago. Many—dare I say this?—middle-class Conservative voters feel that somehow the rules of capitalism are skewed against them. The narrow politics of that is obviously dangerous, but it reflects a real feeling of concern about where we are going with tax.
I want to mention a few warning signs about some elements of the political game scoring that goes on. We need a far better pre-clearance system, certainly if we are to have a new anti-avoidance rule that is both equitable and, more importantly, effective. The Government have made it clear that they want to introduce such a rule in the Budget within six or seven weeks. Therefore, the pace of change of tax law must alter. I have served on many Finance Bill Committees, both as a Front Bencher in opposition and as a Back Bencher in government and opposition. Our system is horribly and terribly complex, and our code is much longer than the much-derided Indian system of the past. We should all aspire to a simpler tax system because complexity is the godfather to the complex avoidance schemes that we have heard about at great length during this debate.
Taxation of small businesses must be better understood. I was a small business man for seven years before I became a Member of Parliament in 2001, but thank goodness, I am not still in business. I speak to businesses of a similar size in my constituency—I had a dozen staff with a £2 million turnover—and they have appalling problems trying to get their tax right, not just with HMRC, but with all tax authorities.
There is a danger that, in the perennial chatter about the failings of the tax system and politicians’ understandable reluctance not to play to the gallery, tax regulation will become much more arbitrary. One of this nation’s greatest assets as a place to do business is our reputation as a predictable, reliable and certain jurisdiction that is underpinned by the rule of law. We undermine at our peril that timeless tradition of being an open place to trade and prosper.
If large international corporations are arranging their affairs to avoid playing their fair share of tax, Governments and Oppositions—at least, Front Benchers—should cease moralising about that and get back to legislating such loopholes out of existence. The sheer complexity and size of the UK’s tax code, which is now larger even than that in India, has created the highly remunerated guild of tax avoiders, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) may have been a member.
What should worry us most is that, when the tax authorities are empowered to make ethical judgments on the affairs of global corporations, before long they will turn their attention to ordinary taxpayers—the easy target—who may not have access to an army of professional advisers to allow them to make a long and protracted case. Ordinary taxpayers have every right to feel that once settled, their tax affairs should not be reopened on a whim.
My impassioned plea is to use our money wisely. I appreciate that, in the resources battle, it is not easy at this difficult time to justify employing vastly more people, but we need a much better relationship and more co-operation between tax advisers, companies and individuals, and HMRC, instead of its role being portrayed as a battle with a presumption that every taxpayer is trying to rip off the system. I hope that we will have better pre-clearance and that such debates will be consigned to history.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this important debate. I want to start by asking why it is necessary to deal with some of the problems. In an age of austerity, particularly, every pound matters and every pound not collected means front-line cuts in operating Departments, such as the Department for Education, the Home Office and so on. It is important to get all the money in. In this country, people respect taxpayers and the need to pay tax, but they demand that the system is fair and efficient.
The system is failing in two ways. I do not think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said, that it is a question of management. People from HMRC have appeared before the Treasury Committee, and they are largely hard-working and trying to do their best, but that is difficult because of cuts imposed on the department by the last Government and the present one. There is total disregard for the fact that, when money is cut, 10 times the revenue is cut. The problem is to face up to money.
On efficiency, the withdrawal of finance affects HMRC’s efficiency and ordinary people’s perception of how it treats them. The effect of staff cuts is self-evident and disastrous on a scale that is totally unacceptable. On paper, it may seem that office cuts involve just a bit of money and a bit of real estate, but that is not so. For many people—the elderly, those with complicated problems, or those who just have trouble filling in forms—in many towns and regions, offices provide their only chance to meet face to face, and that is the point. Because of those savings and staff cuts, the department is taking the decision for ordinary people that they either go online, telephone, or write, and they never get a face-to-face explanation of complicated tax matters. Call centres are fine, but people do not know who they are talking to. Once people think about what has been said and want to go back, they are starting the conversation afresh.
It is a criticism of the department and the chief executive that when she went to the Public Accounts Committee last week, she said that an HMRC review showed that customers believed a five-minute wait was acceptable. I do not know of any politician in this Chamber who would hang on a phone for five minutes to get an answer, especially when it is an automated answer that goes through information and costs money, and when people do get through, they are asked the same questions. That is about efficiency, and it is putting people off. Some money would put that right.
Many Members have referred to the unfairness in tax avoidance and tax evasion—and tax evasion by rich people and large multinational and British companies. In the minute I have left, I would like to put two questions to the Minister. The first is straightforward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put in £174 million for an army of investigators to deal with such companies. Is that fresh money, or is it part of the £900 million that was included in the spending review?
The second question relates to unfairness. Two and a half years ago, Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, gave the British Government the names and addresses of 2,000 people who had Swiss bank accounts. A number of them—I think 500—were being looked at for serious fraud. To date, two years later, only one has been charged. Is that the end of it? With the Swiss tax deal, is that issue now being dropped, as those people are being treated under the terms of the tax deal? If so, it would be totally unacceptable.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this important debate.
In 2010, the Public and Commercial Services Union commissioned one of the most comprehensive calculations of the UK tax gap ever undertaken. The report, by Tax Research UK, estimated that the tax gap could be as big as £120 billion a year. I accept that the report was criticised by tax professionals, Ministers, HMRC and many large companies, but we have learned since 2010 that that estimate is likely to be more accurate than HMRC’s estimate of £35 billion.
What is the tax gap? The tax gap includes tax lost to avoidance, which is people seeking to minimise their tax bill without deliberate deception, but contrary to the spirit of the law. A good example was seen when tax for those earning £150,000 a year went up to 50% and some payments were brought forward, so that people subject to the 50% tax rate did not pay tax on that amount of money. As we see now, payments such as bonuses are being paid late, so again, they miss the 50% tax rate. That is immoral, as I am sure that many in the Chamber would agree, but it is not illegal. There is also tax lost to evasion, which is the illegal non-payment and underpayment of taxes by making a false declaration. Interestingly, that includes not only fraud, but error and neglect, which I will briefly come on to later. The tax gap also includes late or non-payment of tax—tax not due or not paid on time.
Whether the tax gap is £35 billion, £120 billion, or somewhere in between—or, as some of the recent scandals with well known names show, possibly even higher—it is a heck of a lot money, and it could make a real difference at this time of austerity and devastation of public services. All Labour Members will argue that we need to grow our way out of a recession, and we can see the current consequences of trying to cut our way out of it, as the triple-dip looms. However, fundamental to that growth must be the effective collection of tax, and it seems the closure of local offices does not make financial sense.
When Starbucks, Amazon, Google, and the others were exposed for arranging their tax affairs so that they did not pay their taxes here, all of us could recognise that something was wrong. All who used their shops and services could say, “Hang on a minute. How could enormous companies like that be paying such little tax in this country?” They are household names. We could all question it.
Mark Field
It is important in the context of Starbucks and the other companies to point out that much as there was public outrage, they pay significant amounts of value added tax on the products that they produce, and they pay significant amounts of employers’ national insurance on the number of people that they employ. I accept that there was a lot of unrest, but to suggest that they pay no tax at all misrepresents the situation.
Julie Hilling
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is like saying, “I pay VAT when I buy things in shops, and I pay other taxes.” People who are employed by all of us pay national insurance, but there is that whole bit of tax that should be paid, and there are those who are not doing so. As we know, many individuals and companies manage to avoid paying it, and as has been said, the tax system is so complicated that it makes it easy and possible for people to avoid tax. It is wrong, and in my view, absolutely immoral that people, particularly at this time of austerity, do that.
If Fred Bloggs of Bolton or Freda Brown of Wigan do not declare all of their tax, how will the tax collector in another area have any idea of the scale or scope of their business when they are not household names? Local knowledge is invaluable and it is a real asset in ensuring that the right tax is paid. As other hon. Members have said, it is also an important service in the local area. It is about assistance so that people can try to get their tax right, so that they are not evading tax by error or neglect—unwittingly or unwillingly. They should have people to talk to on their doorstep. Again, as others have said, HMRC is an important local employer with an important role in the local economy.
It is a disgrace that 20 million calls were not answered in 2011-12, that the estimated cost of calls was £33 million, and that the value of customers’ time was £103 million. How can we support and run a system that costs businesses so much? We need to be working to build our economy. How can it be right that trying to talk to people about paying tax costs industry that amount of money? It is a service that earns money. It beggars belief that we are cutting it to the level that we are, and reducing staff by almost 50%.
I am running out of time, but I hope that the Minister will explain how he expects to collect all the tax that is due by nearly halving the number of tax inspectors, by closing local offices, and through the cuts that are taking place. Having served on the Finance Bill Committee and seen even more taxes introduced from the previous Budget, I hope that the Minister will explain what the Government will do to simplify tax as a whole, so that people do not either manage to avoid or unwittingly evade their tax.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this morning’s extremely timely and interesting debate. His interest in all matters related to HMRC is well known, particularly through his work as chair of the PCS parliamentary group. I am keen to take this opportunity to commend him for his tireless commitment to ensuring that those who work for HMRC and their concerns are properly represented in this place.
I described today’s debate as timely not least because, until very recently, I had anticipated being briefed this morning by HMRC’s chief executive in my capacity as shadow Exchequer Secretary. Sadly, that meeting was cancelled at short notice—or was it perhaps prevented from taking place? I could not comment. In any event, as luck would have it, my hon. Friend successfully secured this debate, and the Minister will be pleased to know that many of the issues that I wanted to raise with the chief executive I will now raise directly with him instead.
What is clear from the many excellent contributions this morning is the absolutely crucial function performed by HMRC and its staff. Of course, HMRC does not just act as the UK’s “credit control department”. It has a vital role to play in delivering key Government policies, such as the impending universal credit, to which I will return. HMRC interacts with most of the UK’s adult population of 45 million and, indirectly, with their children, as well as with about 5 million businesses, and its primary function in doing so is to make our taxation system work. Indeed, without the money that HMRC collects, there would be no funding to invest in public services. That is why the capacity and resources that it has to perform its role are so critical and an ever-more pressing issue in this period of austerity and growing Government debt—a point that was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie).
HMRC staff can provide a pretty impressive return on investment. We know that, last year, senior HMRC officials brought in £16.7 billion over and above that which was returned by businesses and individuals. Indeed, the Association of Revenue and Customs—ARC—estimates that a senior tax official, earning £50,000 a year, can expect to generate an additional yield of at least £1.5 million a year—a return of 30 times the cost of their salary. Many hon. Members have referred to the excellent analysis provided by the PCS of the yield provided by HMRC’s office in Wick alone. That office is scheduled for closure in this financial year, as hon. Members have also mentioned. Each member of the 15 staff working in the Wick office in northern Scotland is responsible for bringing in about £1 million in tax a year. The total is more than £14.3 million. That compares with the overall annual salary and rental bill for the office of £494,000. It is an impressive return.
Despite the impression that one may have gained from recent media reports, we are fortunate to live in a generally tax-compliant country, with 93% of all tax paid as it should be. However, that figure, which compares well with those for our trading partners, can be maintained and improved only if we have a properly resourced HMRC. The Government should be doing everything within their power to assist HMRC to close the remaining tax gap, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about in some detail. Many hon. Members have contributed today to give colour to the picture of just how difficult it will be to close that tax gap in the context in which HMRC currently operates.
As we are all too aware, HMRC faces budget cuts of £2 billion in the course of this Parliament. The Minister is likely to mention that the Government are “reinvesting” more than £900 million in HMRC, but the straight fact is that that is money that the Treasury had planned to take away from HMRC and is now returning. That still leaves HMRC with a £2 billion net reduction in resources. The Prime Minister may claim that HMRC’s staffing levels are increasing under his Government, but a quick fact check reveals that HMRC is losing 10,000 staff. It is little wonder, therefore, that there are serious concerns that HMRC staff and resources are being stretched to the absolute limit, and that situation is likely to get worse.
Indeed, the National Audit Office report on HMRC’s customer service performance, published in December, revealed truly worrying findings about the way in which HMRC handles its customers. A completely unacceptable 20 million telephone calls to HMRC went unanswered last year. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the NAO estimated that it cost customers £33 million in call charges while waiting to speak to a human being, on top of the estimated £103 million cost of wasted customer time. That is particularly concerning for those on low incomes, who literally cannot afford to keep hanging on the telephone, and for struggling small and medium-sized enterprises, which could be making far more productive use of their time. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made a very passionate plea for small businesses in his contribution to the debate, and I agreed with much of what he said.
It is therefore welcome that HMRC appears to be improving its performance in that area, but I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge the Public Accounts Committee’s conclusion that that is from a very low base, with targets far below industry standards. I urge him to ensure that the recently announced move away from 0845 numbers will benefit people on low incomes, who often use pay-as-you-go mobile phones rather than mobile contracts or landlines.
We also heard the truly staggering statement by HMRC’s chief executive at a Public Accounts Committee session just last month that the agency currently has about 100,000 unanswered letters, although admittedly the number has fallen from the incredible 1 million at one point last year.
It is not just the NAO and the PAC that believe that HMRC is creaking at the edges. A survey by the Chartered Institute of Taxation of its members in the summer of 2012 found significant concerns regarding customer service provided by HMRC, including: delays in post handling; telephone calls that are passed to a customer service centre, resulting in a four-to-six week further delay; increases in basic errors; and delays in getting through to PAYE telephone lines.
A similar survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales found that HMRC is often failing to meet its “basic responsibilities”, with phone calls and letters frequently going unanswered and staff often lacking the knowledge and training to handle complex inquiries. That is not just an inconvenience for taxpayers; mistakes by HMRC can be very costly and can make all the difference to a struggling SME or a struggling family. Every hour spent on hold to HMRC is holding back our economic growth, and that is at a time when the Government are relying on SMEs to dig us out of this economic stagnation.
Of course, the situation is not helped by a Government who simply do not seem to think through how their policies will be delivered on the ground. The debacle over the changes to child benefit, which came into force last month, has seen 475 staff drafted in to deal with that policy at a cost of £11.7 million and an additional 500,000 taxpayers being drawn into the complex self-assessment regime. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister confirmed from which areas of work those 475 staff have been taken in order to implement that ill-thought-through policy. What assessment has been made of the impact on what would be their usual work?
Will the Minister also give us some clarity this morning on progress in relation to the real time information system? He is well aware of the concerns of small businesses about the huge financial and administrative burden that that will place on them at what is already an extremely challenging time. It is extremely worrying, given that the functioning of universal credit will depend on that system functioning properly, that answers to recent written parliamentary questions suggest that the IT system matching employers with their bank records in the RTI pilot has a current failure rate of 25%. Will the Minister outline whether the success rate has improved in recent weeks? Can he provide us with some reassurance that he is confident that real time information will be delivered by HMRC as intended and on time?
Those are just two areas of significant change where HMRC is being expected to deliver ill-thought-through Government policy with significantly reduced staff and resources.
One area in which the Government have been making themselves look extremely busy of late is that of initiatives to tackle tax avoidance. The Chancellor’s announcement ahead of the autumn statement of £77 million of “new” funding for HMRC to expand anti-avoidance and evasion activity is welcome. However, the Minister must acknowledge that that does not come close to the £2 billion of swingeing cuts that HMRC faces. I have asked him this question before, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East asked it again this morning: can he clarify whether that is indeed new funding or whether it just represents funding being shifted from one area of HMRC to another? If it is the latter, what assessment has been made of the revenue that will be lost from elsewhere as a result of reduced resource and capacity?
Time is limited, so the final key concern about HMRC capacity and resources that I will raise this morning—the case has been made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington—is about the staff. Many concerns have been expressed about the number of highly skilled, experienced staff who have left HMRC. The Association of Revenue and Customs describes it as a “demographic time bomb”. I understand that more than half of HMRC’s work force are over the age of 45 and 18% are over 55. I have nothing against older employees, but there are genuine concerns about future work force planning and the ability of HMRC to deliver on some of the Government’s priorities.
HMRC is being asked to deliver ever-more complex taxation legislation, to deliver what have been described as “undeliverable” Treasury policies, to close the tax gap and to improve dramatically its customer service—all the while receiving £2 billion less in funding and operating with 10,000 fewer staff. Nobody disputes that efficiencies need to be made—every part of the public sector needs to make them and HMRC does not expect to be immune from that requirement—but it has already made hugely significant savings over recent years, including under the previous Government, so I urge the Minister to accept that there must be a limit to HMRC’s capacity to do more with less.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing it. He has taken a close interest in HMRC funding over a number of years. Although I did not agree with everything he said, I commend him for his consistency and the non-partisan way in which he has pursued this issue over many years with a willingness to criticise Governments of both descriptions.
Time may be short, but before addressing the points raised today, it will be helpful to set out some context by discussing the history of the resources available to HMRC over recent years and the results that it has managed to achieve with those resources.
As hon. Members will know, HMRC was formed a little under eight years ago by the merger of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. At that time, it was made up of around 100,000 staff. The previous Government sought efficiencies and, as a result, staff numbers fell by around 25,000 between 2005 and 2010. As part of that process, the number of staff engaged in compliance work also fell each year, and by 2010, about 10,000 staff had been lost in those important revenue-raising areas.
In 2010, as part of this Government’s first spending review, it was crucial that we recognised the dual role that HMRC would play in contributing to deficit reduction, through both cost reductions and, more significantly, collecting additional revenue by tackling tax avoidance and evasion—a point that several hon. Members raised this morning. Our priority was to ensure that HMRC delivered a service that would provide the best possible value for money to taxpayers. Consequently, we required HMRC to make 25% efficiencies to reduce its costs. We then agreed to reinvest a proportion of those efficiencies to tackle avoidance and evasion. The result was a net impact of overall savings over the spending review period of about 16% and a net reduction in overall staff numbers of about 10,000. I say “net” because in that figure is an actual increase of about 2,500 in the number of staff HMRC deployed on its compliance activities over the period.
John McDonnell
The Minister mentioned the impact. One of the points made by PCS, ARC and the ICAEW is that the impact assessments religiously fail properly to assess not only the implications for staff, but the cost to business and taxpayers overall. Will the Minister look at, and perhaps consult on, how such impact assessments are undertaken and how they can be improved?
Mr Gauke
I will indeed. I understand that the NAO will publish a report tomorrow on cost savings in HMRC and the way in which HMRC has proceeded. Time prevents me from running through in detail all the areas in which there have been savings, but it is worth pointing out that there have been significant savings of £74 million in the price paid for IT equipment and services, and savings in estate costs through vacating buildings. It is important that HMRC seeks savings, but it is also important that we raise the revenue. A number of hon. Members mentioned the tax gap.
Ian Swales
It is a very important point. The Minister said that HMRC was required to lose 25% of staff. Was an assessment made of the tax that would be lost as a result, or was taking 25% of people out deemed to be tax neutral?
Mr Gauke
We ought to be clear about this and look at outputs rather than inputs. As it happens, the number of staff working in compliance and enforcement is going up under this Government—a reversal of what happened under the previous Government. Although we think that it is right to seek savings and efficiencies—if we can spend less on IT and less on estates, that is surely sensible—we also want to do more to raise revenue.
The reinvestment of efficiencies involves £917 million over the spending review period, and, in return, HMRC has agreed to bring in an extra £7 billion of tax every year to 2015. That means that, cumulatively, over the spending review period, HMRC will bring in about £20 billion of additional revenues, and an additional £7 billion every year thereafter. Additional revenues will come from a range of initiatives, including: increasing the number of criminal prosecutions fivefold; cracking down further on offshore evasion; and extending HMRC’s coverage of businesses, focused on providing resources to tackle high-risk areas.
HMRC results have shown that it can deliver the additional yield. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) noted, in 2011-12, it delivered £16.6 billion against its targeted increased yield of £15 billion, and is on course to deliver an additional £17 billion this year. In the light of that record of success, it was decided that we would exempt HMRC from cuts imposed on other Departments in the 2012 autumn statement. Instead, we made the decision to invest in HMRC in two separate ways.
First, we made a further, new £77 million of investment in HMRC to increase its efforts to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, through improving HMRC’s computerised risking systems; further strengthening the risk assessment capability across the large business sector; increasing the attention given to offshore evasion and avoidance, and—probably of most interest to hon. Members here—increasing the staff employed to target avoidance and evasion by the wealthy.
Secondly, in the autumn statement, we invested a further amount, totalling £77 million, to accelerate HMRC’s debt collection activities and bring in about £1 billion in tax over the period; to reduce tax credit error and fraud and reduce losses by about £0.5 billion; and to expand HMRC’s digital service to its customers, which will include help to small businesses as part of our initiatives to introduce growth into the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is right when he says that we want to do everything we can to ensure that the burden on small businesses can be reduced and that it is easier to deal with HMRC.
Taken as a whole, the investment package will mean that HMRC will collect an additional £2 billion in 2014-15. That is over and above the £7 billion in additional revenue that HMRC will collect in that year as a result of the spending review settlement in 2010. On top of that, our investment in digital will allow HMRC to offer a modernised service to customers, while working more efficiently.
The Government have recognised the crucial role that HMRC has played, and will continue to play, in helping to manage the deficit we inherited. It is bringing in more additional revenues than ever before, and that is not the only area where HMRC is delivering well. The latest performance figures, from December 2012, show that post handling in local offices is the best it has been since HMRC was formed, with about 90% cleared within 15 days of receipt in recent months. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North highlighted press reports saying that 100,000 items of post have not been dealt with, but that must be put in the context of HMRC’s receiving 200,000 items of post every week. We are talking about post that has by and large arrived in the past two or three days.
HMRC’s self-assessment filing system is a clear success: 92.9% of self-assessment tax returns for 2011-12 were filed on time this year—the best result since HMRC was created—and 82.5% of those returns were filed online, which is a new record. We are all aware of the difficulties that HMRC faced a few years ago in handling the fallout from the new computer system, but such difficulties are now behind it and it is on track to bring PAYE up to date by March 2013. We are also taking steps to improve automation.
I would like to say more, but it is sadly not possible to do so today in the time available. I apologise to hon. Members for not being able to address every question that has been asked. We appreciate what the taxpayer wants from HMRC. We want to raise revenue and reduce the tax gap. We are giving HMRC the resources to do precisely that. I will continue to work with HMRC to ensure that it continues to provide the best possible value for money for the taxpaying public.
University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have secured this debate. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I represent a community in shock, reeling from the suddenly announced intention to transfer Furness general hospital’s beloved special care baby unit and consultant maternity services out of the county, from 9 o’clock this morning, to Lancaster. Pleas to rethink that emergency transfer have so far been rebuffed, leaving expectant mums distraught at the prospect of a 50-mile trip in the back of ambulance if they suffer complications in labour. I will set out our concerns in detail and stress the areas in which we hope the Minister, who is of course an expert in the field, will agree to intervene, but first I will discuss the wider issues the area faces, which prompted my application for this debate.
There is the forthcoming review of hospital services, triggered by the need for significant budget reductions across the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. All of us here are acutely aware of the long-term threat that that might pose to key provision, such as the need to sustain a consultant-led maternity service and accident and emergency provision across more than one site in the area.
There is also the campaign against the removal of A and E, maternity and intensive care units at Royal Lancaster infirmary, on which the Downing street petition in the name of Matthew Hood already has thousands of signatures. I think that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) wants to do exactly that—move Lancaster’s A and E department to the Westmorland general hospital. Let me simply say that any attempt to question Barrow’s need for an A and E department would be met with horror not only by every single resident of the Furness area, but by the prized and highly regulated industries on which the nation depends.
The broader question facing the Morecambe Bay trust is how best to locate services when the population is far more spread out than in most areas of Britain, and when centres of population are often connected by a single road that winds through Cumbria’s unique landscape. In other areas, a trust for hundreds of thousands of residents might naturally be based around one A and E department and one maternity unit, but that would put an unacceptable strain on residents of Morecambe bay. People in pockets of severe deprivation in Barrow and families who, for whatever reason, just do not travel would be forced to go to another county and be completely cut off from their families. In an emergency, it would result in journey times of more than an hour on routes that are prone to become blocked by breakdowns.
I want to ask the Minister four questions about the four tests in the Government’s forthcoming consultation. His first test is the evidence base. Will he ensure that the options and risks are properly weighed, so that the risks inherent in long-distance ambulance travel are set alongside what might otherwise be the optimal configuration of services? The second test is whether there is the support of GP commissioners. The past 24 hours have shown the damaging shambles that can occur when a trust attempts to press on against the will of local commissioners. The Government back the new system, so will the Minister ensure that local GPs have the teeth to insist on the services that communities need? The third test is choice for patients. Will the Minister ensure that problems of isolation and lack of access to services are an integral part of the assessment when it arrives on the Secretary of State’s desk? It is hard to imagine the test of choice being passed if, for example, an isolated peninsula’s only consultant-led maternity unit were downgraded. The fourth test is strengthened public engagement. The trust needs to do much better than the mess of the past few days, which has left women desperately worried and confused. I shall say more on that in a moment, but the underlying point is that engaging means listening and acting. Of course, health professionals have a duty to present the options and a proper assessment of safety in each case, but if the public weigh that up and say that they want to keep the services they need close to home, the Government should listen to them.
Another major issue is the need for Ministers to ensure that our local hospitals and the wider national health service adequately learn the lessons of the significant and prolonged failings in hospital management at the Morecambe Bay trust. There have been tragedies about which people are still demanding answers and which apparently did not trigger sufficient improvements, despite laying bare shortcomings in areas such as maternity provision several years ago.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
As usual, my hon. Friend is making an excellent case on behalf of his constituents. Many people in the south of my constituency use Furness general hospital, as well. Does he share the fear that some of them have expressed to me that the rapid removal of the special care baby unit heralds a stealth reconfiguration of services there?
John Woodcock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is indeed the great fear. It is up to the trust, and ultimately to Ministers and the Government, to demonstrate that that is not the case, but there are still questions to be answered.
The need for lessons to be learned has been shown by such problems as the basic lack of grip in key areas in recent years—for example, the failure of new computer systems designed to remind patients about repeat appointments, which has clearly put lives at risk. A police investigation into a number of deaths is ongoing. There is also a lack of openness at the trust.
I pay tribute to the hard work of the staff in the maternity unit and across Furness general hospital. They are dedicated people, who come to work wanting to help others and to save lives. There have been real improvements of late, and we should recognise the immense strain placed on staff by the ongoing spotlight on the hospital and the longer-term uncertainty over their future. None the less, families are still grieving because of past mistakes made in a poorly managed system. The Minister was good enough to write to me in response to a letter from my constituent James Titcombe, and again recently on the need for a genuinely independent inquiry into the lessons for the wider NHS of management failings at Furness general hospital.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and, as I know from having worked with him, on his concern for his constituents. Does he not think that we constantly go round the roundabout in relation to the Morecambe Bay trust? To the centre, Morecambe bay sounds as though it is a natural unit, but in fact it is a barrier. I suggest that we need to look at the fundamental geography, which might mean challenging the boundaries of the Morecambe Bay trust, if we are ever to get some balance between the demands of Furness, Kendal and Lancaster.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, for which I am grateful. I am sure that Ministers will want to consider that, but I think it must not come at the expense of local MPs’ taking our eye off the ball in the forthcoming consultation.
The Minister was good enough to write to me about James Titcombe and other grieving families. In the first letter, he said that he would keep the issue under review. I hope that, when he has time to look at the matter further, the Minister will agree that the trust’s commitment to an independently chaired but internally managed inquiry, although it is a welcome step forward, will not be sufficient to give confidence and ensure that lessons are learned, not only in this individual hospital, but in the entire NHS. Most of all, I hope that he will join me today in sending a message, loud and clear, that the need to be accountable for past mistakes must never be used by the trust as an excuse to remove services that our community clearly needs.
The final part of my speech relates to the crisis caused by the trust’s shock decision to transfer, apparently temporarily, the special care baby unit and consultant maternity services out of Furness general to Royal Lancaster infirmary due to increased sickness absence levels at the trust.
Let me deal first with the shambolic process that has left expectant women unsure about where they can give birth—even now, as we speak, two hours after the transfer was due to take place—because of genuine fears about a lack of ambulance cover. The decision was taken unilaterally by the trust, with no consultation or warning given to the public, the obstetric consultants who work at Furness general, or the GPs responsible for commissioning the services. The option of transferring staff from the Royal Lancaster infirmary was not put to the board. Although there can be no doubt that staffing levels are low at Furness general, there was no detailed risk assessment of the dangers of transferring mums in labour by ambulance. Most alarmingly, no attempt was made to engage the North West ambulance service—this was confirmed to me by the service last night—until last Wednesday evening, leaving that organisation unable to find the extra unit that it estimates will be necessary to cope with the increased demand on an already stretched operation. This is an appalling and potentially dangerous shambles that has greatly increased the anxiety of pregnant women in my constituency, on top of the worry they already felt at the news, during what is naturally one of the most worrying times in their life anyway.
Will the Minister intervene personally to impose order on the chaos? Will he confirm that the regional health authority’s gold command is meeting today to escalate the situation? Will he meet me to ensure that we have the best chance of getting the services we need back as soon as possible? Let me be clear: families in my constituency and beyond will be devastated if we lose consultant-led maternity services permanently. The Minister is a practising obstetrician and will know better than I that the removal of the clinician-led special care baby unit will result in women who expect complicated deliveries or who experience complications during birth facing a transfer to Lancaster, involving a journey time of about one hour along a road that, less than a fortnight ago, became almost impassable due to heavy snow—in fact, journeys between Barrow and Lancaster were taking up to 10 hours. Trying to transfer a mother who needs consultant care in such conditions is hard to imagine.
It has been suggested that air ambulances could be used to speed up transfer times in the event of Furness general hospital’s maternity unit being downgraded, but serious questions need to be answered about the practicality of that proposal. The Great North air ambulance service is a fantastic organisation that helps to save many lives each year, but it has just three helicopters to cover not only Cumbria, but the whole of north-east England and North Yorkshire. We cannot simply assume that the answer lies in the air.
I am immensely proud to be backing the “Thousand Voices” campaign in my constituency, which comprises mums who got together to make themselves heard when they saw the crisis coming. I know that I cannot use props, Mr Howarth, so I will not, but I urge all hon. Members to go to www.YouTube.com/saveFGHmaternity to hear the stories being shared. People are going out and using camera phones to get video clips from mums and dads, wherever they can find them. Let me read just one such story on the site, which reflects the views of hundreds. Mum of three, Christina Pickering, said:
“Due to extreme circumstances in my third pregnancy, I was sent to the Royal Preston hospital to deliver my daughter and that’s got to be one of the most terrifying experiences of my life, being in an unknown hospital, on my own, to deliver my baby. I don’t want this to happen to any mums—it doesn’t have to. Downgrading our maternity services at Furness general would not only be detrimental to mums and babies, but to the whole community. We’ve got to stop this happening.”
Let me end with the Minister’s own words from before he was promoted, which I wholeheartedly endorse. In a Westminster Hall debate in September 2010, he said that,
“generally speaking, if we consider the example of”
other hospitals,
“we see that the push has been to have a low-risk, midwifery-led unit alongside a higher-risk unit. We in obstetrics know that a greater number of women—rising to about 30%—are giving birth by Caesarean section, and that number is going up year on year. Many births that we initially think uncomplicated end up being much more complicated.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 230WH.]
The Minister summed it up perfectly. Families in Furness want the security of knowing that they can have their babies in Barrow with specialist help on hand. They pay for their health services with their taxes and they are speaking with one voice. They need the Government to listen.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I call David Morris, but for two minutes only, as the Minister needs time to respond to the debate.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr Howarth, as it is one that will be closely watched in my constituency. For some weeks, the local press has been awash with allegations about both maternity and accident and emergency services at our NHS trust. I am concerned not about services changing but about the scare stories surrounding the matter. I have a letter from the chief executive of the trust that confirms that it will not shut the A and E at Royal Lancaster infirmary. The Minister also has this letter, but I will quote from it:
“The A and E at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary serves the population of Lancaster and surrounding areas and treats in the region of 50,000 people each year. Whilst it would be wrong of me to second guess the future, I personally find it hard to imagine Lancaster not having emergency services. Let me be clear, we do not have any plans to shut the Accident and Emergency department in Lancaster. We are deeply concerned that these continual rumours are undermining confidence and frightening the public. We will continue to work with the public, staff and stakeholders to better understand the review of services to help allay these concerns.”
Jackie Daniel, the CEO of the trust, is saying there that not only does she have no plans to close the A and E, but she cannot even imagine a scenario in which anyone would close it, not least because it serves 50,000 people a year.
However, a concerted Labour campaign has been mounted by local party members who actually work in the NHS to make people believe that the A and E is likely to close. The campaign involves press briefings, an online petition, a Facebook group and even people walking round the centre of Morecambe with clipboards inviting people to join. I want the e-petition removed from Directgov and have written to the Cabinet Secretary to ask for him to intervene. We cannot have this dishonest campaign fought through the Directgov e-petition platform. If the A and E is not under threat, it must be concluded that Labour is frightening people for its own political advantage, which is morally wrong.
It is perhaps time to admit the truth: the trust is getting better under this Government. A new and better management was brought in by the previous Secretary of State for Health. A new minor injuries unit was opened in my constituency by the Minister only a few weeks ago. A new health centre in Heysham, costing £20 million, was opened last year. We have four new wards just opened. All of that was paid for by the 2.8% increase in funding for the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. It is not the first time, but nevertheless it is a pleasure.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and all those in Cumbria who are looked after by the local trust and to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), whose constituency I recently had the pleasure of visiting, for his advocacy on the behalf of his constituents. I have indeed received a copy of the letter sent to him by the chief executive of the NHS trust, which says:
“Whilst it would be wrong of me to second guess the future, I personally find it hard to imagine Lancaster not having emergency services.”
I hope that that is reassuring to him and his constituents.
On the main issues raised in the debate, I have already paid tribute to the strong advocacy on behalf of his constituents by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. He was very kind to brand me an expert in obstetrics. I would not go quite that far, but he is right to say that I have considerable understanding of the issues involved and of the importance of ensuring that we provide safe and comfortable environments in which women can give birth. He is also right to read out the case that I advocated in a debate here in Westminster Hall some time ago, and it is important that we recognise that uncomplicated deliveries can become more complicated. We know that for women in some parts of the country, particularly those in more deprived areas, there are often higher risk rates of prematurity. These are all issues that need to be taken fully into account whenever services for the safe delivery of babies, and for the safe care of women during pregnancy, delivery and the period afterwards, are examined.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to highlight that there are geographical considerations in Cumbria, as in many rural areas, including the fact that there is only one main road and the problems that presents in respect of allowing the local trust to transfer patients effectively and safely from one site to another. It potentially creates difficulties at certain times of day if the road is busy, as he is aware. However, it also requires the availability of ambulances, and he was right to point that out.
When decisions are made about changing services, whatever the reason may be for changing them, they cannot be taken in isolation. In this case––I will discuss this further later––I believe that the decision was made in good faith, although I share some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, given that we know that there have been a lot of problems at the trust with maternity services as well as the safety concerns he outlined. Those decisions cannot be taken in isolation. They need to be taken in collaboration and after discussion with local commissioners and indeed with the ambulance service, if they are to be made correctly and for the benefit of patients.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to outline the four tests for reconfiguration. In particular, he was right that reconfiguration must be clinically led, based upon evidence and always in the best interests of patients. Reconfiguration should never happen for cost reasons alone, and he was absolutely right to highlight that. Reconfiguration also needs to have the support of local GP commissioners. However, from what he has said today it appears that there are local concerns about the proposed changes, and that there has not been an integrated, joined-up approach in relation to this decision.
We have also discussed the concerns over the need to integrate ambulance transfers into any local decisions because of the travelling distance from Barrow to Lancaster. That is one of the issues that should have been take into account when these decisions about reconfiguration were being made, and I am very concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he does not believe that they were taken into account and that local commissioners also have concerns about this matter.
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman again in the very near future to discuss this; that would be very desirable. It is vital to ensure, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) said, that we do not see service reconfiguration by stealth or via the back door. We should have an integrated, joined-up approach to local decision making, particularly in view of what can only be described as the deficiencies of the past at the trust and the very sad cases that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I have corresponded about, as well as the police investigations that are going on. He is aware that it would be inappropriate for me to comment directly on those.
There is a need to ensure that in the future decisions are made in a holistic way and in the best interests of patient safety. Such decisions are not just for the trust to make alone but must be made in conjunction with the local commissioners and the ambulance service, if we want to ensure patient safety. The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss that further when we meet.
The hon. Gentleman raised another important issue: the ongoing investigations at the trust. He was right to do so. As we know, tomorrow the Mid Staffordshire report will be published, which makes these sorts of issues all the more poignant and important. The NHS has sometimes had a history of covering up bad things that have happened to patients, and that is completely unacceptable. The result of that is bad care for patients, and cultural problems in trusts and hospitals. Those sorts of things cannot go on. When there are investigations, they need to be carried out transparently and openly, so that people feel the issues have been fully aired. It is also vital that those investigations have a degree of independence, as he suggested.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister for giving way, and for the excellent and considered way that he is responding to my points. He referred to the Mid Staffordshire situation. Does he accept that that started as an internal inquiry, which was found to be insufficient to get to the bottom of the issues and required a greater degree of independence to be established? We are worried that the same thing may be apparent in Furness.
Dr Poulter
Absolutely. There will be a full response to the Mid Staffordshire inquiry tomorrow, so I will not pre-empt it or go into detailed discussion of that issue. However, it is absolutely right that we must encourage staff who have concerns about patient care to raise those concerns and air them in an open way. Moreover, when we know that there have been long-standing failings at a trust about the quality of care provided to patients and concerns raised about those failings—although Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, for example, has made some good progress in recent months, there are some long-standing issues there—it is important that, when an investigation is carried out, it is carried out in a transparent, open and independent way; there must be a great degree of independence involved.
If a trust sees fit to launch an investigation and a review of what has happened, it is important that the investigation and review pass the test of transparency. There may well be a role for local MPs and other interested parties in that process, and when the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I meet, that is an issue that I will be very keen to discuss further, to ensure that we can discuss with the local trust ways in which we can ensure that there is that transparency and independence in the process. That is very important to ensure that those patients, and their families who have had problems in the past—in some cases, there have been deaths at the trust—feel that the investigation addresses their allegations.
Obviously, this debate is not just about maternity services at the Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust; there have been other issues around the trust, and any investigation will need to take account of all those issues. I understand that that is what will happen.
Mr Jamie Reed
I am very grateful to the Minister for his considered and thoughtful response to the debate. I agree with him wholeheartedly on the importance of transparency and openness. However, where there are different clinical groups commissioning services from a single trust that operates a number of different hospitals, who actually holds the ring and decides which services are commissioned where?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman asks a very good and thoughtful question. It is the duty of the commissioning groups to work collaboratively for the best interests of patients. They obviously have responsibility for their own budgets and, as I say, they all ought to work collaboratively for the benefit of patients. However, if there are concerns about that, there is also a role in this process for the commissioning board, which will have some oversight over the process, to help to ease it through. In many parts of the country, there is already good evidence that the emerging local commissioning groups are working together collaboratively in just the way that I have described. I hope that that is reassuring for the hon. Gentleman.
We know that the Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust has had a very long and troubled history. We also know that it serves a very important purpose in looking after people throughout north Lancashire and Cumbria. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made clearly the good point that the configuration of the trust geographically is challenging. We, as a group, are going to meet together to talk through some of these issues and the troubled history of the trust, to ensure that we can do our best to work through these issues.
There have been problems in the past with the trust and local patients have not been treated properly, and they and their families have suffered. There have been long-standing concerns over local care quality issues. That may mean that we have to redesign the way that services are delivered; that may be an inevitable consequence of improving patient care in the long run. Nevertheless, the driver of this process must be delivering high-quality local health care within the envelope of providing improved patient care with better outcomes and safer care for patients. However, the only way that we will achieve that is if all the commissioners are working collaboratively with the trust in a more integrated approach to care. The failure to do that is where things have gone wrong in the past, and that is what needs to change in the future.
Animal Experiments
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Sheridan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
There are four main issues that I will raise in this debate on animal experimentation and Government policy: first, reducing the number of animals used in experiments; secondly, the testing of household products on animals; thirdly, section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and fourthly, the implementation of the new EU directive—2010/63—which, of course, took place on 1 January.
The coalition Government’s programme for government was very welcome as it included two specific pledges on the use of animals in experiments, stating:
“We will end the testing of household products on animals and work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.”
The European Commission has recently confirmed that the ban on importing and selling animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU will come into force, as planned, on 11 March. The UK was rightly one of the first countries to adopt this position, and the ban comes into force after more than 40 years of campaigning—principally led, I must say, by the British Union Against Vivisection, and others—and it is, of course, most welcome.
As we pass the mid-point of this Parliament, I hope through this debate to examine the Government’s progress and see how the very worthy commitments that they made in 2010 can be realised in a timely manner.
I turn to the first of the four main points that I will raise: reduction. In their recent mid-term review, the Government said:
“We worked to reduce the use of animals in scientific research through a science-led programme headed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. However, the Government continues to recognise that there remains a strong scientific case for the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research where no practicable alternatives exist.”
As the number of such experiments has risen further, to its highest level since records began, my concern is that the use of the past tense in that sentence could be interpreted to imply that the Government have given up their attempt to reduce numbers. If not—and I sincerely hope that the Government have not given up that attempt—what new steps will be taken and when do the Government expect a visible impact?
The number of animals currently being used in experiments in Great Britain—of course, Northern Ireland has a separate system—is the highest since 1986, when statistics were comprehensively collected for the first time following the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. According to Home Office statistics published in July 2012, in 2011 there were 3,710,621 animals used in 3,792,857 procedures in Great Britain. That represents an increase of 1.9% on the 2010 figures. Procedures were performed on particular species, including 1,459 primates, 11,844 rabbits, 11,514 guinea pigs, 2,865 dogs, and 161,733 birds. Of those experiments, only 13% were directly related to human health. Some of the non-medical experiments included: the use of 3,524 animals to test food additives; the use of 541 animals to test the effects of alcohol; the use of 13,676 animals in experiments examining the effects of pollution; and the use of 22,785 animals in experiments relating to agriculture. More than half the animal experiments in 2011 were carried out on animals that had been genetically altered, and many such animals are killed before they are even used because they do not show the correct characteristics.
The second issue that I will raise is the testing of household products on animals. The Government have recently announced their guide for licence holders on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which takes account of the changes introduced by the new European directive, under which no project licence will be granted for
“work using any animals for testing household products”.
However, the definition of “household products” is unclear. In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said:
“There is no authoritative definition of ‘household product’ in UK or European legislation. For the purposes of the current annual statistical collection, project licence holders are required to report the use of animals to test ‘substances used in the household’. Where there is uncertainty, decisions on whether procedures should be recorded under this heading are taken on a case by case basis. No procedures were reported for this purpose in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 151W.]
The statement that there were no tests of this nature in 2011 leads me to believe that the ban would cover only finished products, rather than also covering ingredients. I believe that would seriously undermine the ban, as the vast majority of testing for household products involves testing ingredients. Indeed, as much was admitted in response to another parliamentary question, which was answered on 28 March 2011 by the then Home Office Minister, who is now the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. She said:
“We plan to apply the definition of ‘substances used in the household’ used for reporting purposes in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals published annually. This includes all products that are primarily intended for use in the home, including detergents and other laundry products, household cleaners, air-fresheners, toilet blocks, polishes, paper products such as infant nappies, paints, glues (and removers), other furnishing and DIY products and household pesticides. The prohibition will apply to both finished household products and their ingredients, although in practice mainly the latter are tested.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 80W.]
However, recent Home Office reports have indicated that the actual definition may well be much narrower than that.
I move on to section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, under which it is a criminal offence to divulge any information that a researcher would have liked to be kept secret, regardless of whether there is any personal information involved. In May 2012, in response to the public consultation on transposing European directive 2010/63, the Government said that
“the new Directive focuses on greater transparency in relation to the use of animals in scientific research”.
It was the Government’s view that the requirement is incompatible with section 24 of the 1986 Act as it currently stands. The Government said that they would
“consider the options for reforming Section 24 and publish conclusions separately in due course.”
Indeed, in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach said:
“Our consultation revealed no clear consensus on whether the provisions of Section 24 should be repealed and replaced, and we need to give that further thought.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. GC399.]
I understand that currently there is no date set for any further conclusions or consultations to be published by the Government.
The fourth point that I will raise is the Government’s implementation of the requirements of European directive 2010/63 on 1 January. Most of the UK controls, which are of a higher standard than those in many other EU countries, will remain in place. However, as some features may be slightly different, it will be some time before it is clear how the changes will affect animals. Nevertheless, there are some ongoing concerns.
In transposing the new European directive into UK law, while existing UK standards are retained where they are higher than those set out in the directive, a key concern is how the legislation will be interpreted in practice. The draft guidance, which has now been released for consultation, needs to be unequivocal, to ensure that UK standards are retained.
The revised legislation includes a move to transfer more responsibility for its implementation from central to local control at individual establishment level. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes that the Home Office must have a robust programme in place to ensure good practice, to identify shortcomings within establishments and, where needed, to have proper sanctions. It will also be important for establishments to maintain a strong and effective local animal welfare and ethical review body, so that each establishment can ensure compliance with the law and with good practice. The new body replaces the local ethical review process, which progressed well over its 12 years and had widespread support. Indeed, the RSPCA has developed guidelines on best practice for the ethical review process, which should form the basis of the new body’s roles.
The Home Office has chosen to retain the personal licence system, but the content of the proposed new licence has been considerably reduced and now, I fear, contains inadequate detail. The proposed new licence removes much of the detail from the previous licence, and places greater emphasis on an individual’s training and competency record. Potential licensees will have to specify only the broad categories of animals and experimental techniques they want to use, whereas the previous licence required a detailed list of techniques, along with details of the species and the stage of development of the animals to be used. The information will now be held in a training and competency record within the establishment, which could lead to inconsistencies.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Is it not also important to ensure that staff are not asked to undertake duties that they are not competent in or trained to perform, because of the risk of unnecessary cruelty to animals?
Henry Smith
The hon. Lady anticipates something I was going to come on to. It would be particularly pertinent to ensure that that was the case when someone had to step in to undertake a procedure, perhaps because the individual who usually did it was off sick, or for another reason. I am concerned that the watering down of the licensing regime could lead to staff being asked to undertake procedures in such a way.
I contend that the personal licence should set formal, legal boundaries with respect to what people are, and are not, allowed to do. The fear is that the new licence will erode the previous protection. The processes that establishments put in place for ensuring that all persons are both trained and competent will need to be robustly enforced by the Home Office.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he think that there ought to be some provision that would protect staff from having to carry out procedures they did not wish to carry out, within the licensing system?
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just as the new licensing system should ensure that people carrying out procedures are properly qualified, people who have an objection to certain types of procedure should have such protection afforded to them. I am grateful for that helpful intervention.
The project licence has already been rewritten several times over previous years, with animal users being fully engaged and account taken of their views. There may be pressure from establishments for the amount of paperwork to be further reduced, but that could seriously affect the ability of the local ethical body and the Home Office to carry out a proper assessment of whether the three R’s of replacement, reduction and refinement had effectively been applied, and so consider the justification for using animals.
Despite the number of animal procedures increasing, recent years have seen reductions in the number of Home Office inspectors and the number of visits they make to research establishments. As the animals in science regulation unit is fully funded through fees paid by those holding licences to use animals, the inspectorate must be re-strengthened and given adequate resourcing to perform all its functions, including providing advice on welfare and promoting good and best practice.
The new Animals in Science Committee—ASC—has a wider remit than the Animal Procedures Committee—APC—had under previous legislation. Completely new tasks include advising ethical bodies on animal care and use, ensuring the sharing of best practice, and exchanging information with the national committees in other EU member nations. Despite the new functions, no extra funding or resource has been made available, and the remuneration for the chair has been withdrawn. The Home Office should demonstrate that it takes the role of the ASC seriously, by releasing the protocol for its operation and resourcing it properly.
There are several steps that would enable the number of experiments to be reduced significantly. One would be to ban the importing of primates for use in experiments. In 2011, 47% of primates used in the UK were sourced from outside the EU. A recent British Union Against Vivisection investigation found that a breeding centre in Mauritius was killing monkeys that were not of the correct size. Another important step would be rigorous implementation of the new regulations, especially those relating to ethical consideration of whether and how animals are used. A third important step would be better implementation of the three R’s—the replacement of animals with humane alternatives, a reduction in animal use, and refinement to reduce suffering and improve welfare. Fourthly, it is important to have an effective system that ensures that all persons involved are well trained in the legal, ethical, animal welfare and three R’s issues, and are fully competent with respect to practical skills.
A fifth step would be to introduce more transparency into the system by repealing section 24 of the 1986 Act, which enables information about animal experiments to remain secret. Other steps would be to set a detailed timetable for the ending of all research not for medical purposes, which could reduce the number of experiments by an estimated 87%, and to ban the most severe experiments allowed by the new European directive. In transposing the new directive, the Government have, unfortunately, yet to rule out those aspects, which means that animals could, for example, be subjected to repeated electric shock treatment to induce a state of learned helplessness or be forced to do exercise until they suffered from exhaustion. Although the transposition is now complete, the Government still have time to issue a policy statement making it clear that no project licences will be granted for such experiments. In particular, more must be done to end suffering that is graded as severe.
Only absolutely necessary animal experimentation should be allowed. To do otherwise is bad science, inefficient and ultimately cruel.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this debate, and on outlining in such depth and detail the case against not animal experimentation per se, but the huge number of unnecessary experiments. He says that we need to get to a situation in which only absolutely essential tests continue. I would very much like one day to see a world in which there was no animal testing, but I accept that, at the moment, we should be lobbying and campaigning for a gradual incremental approach, highlighting the fact that there is so much duplication of unnecessary animal tests and that there are areas in which it is completely unethical to test products on animals.
Cosmetic testing is the one such area in which I think most people would support that kind of lobbying work. Indeed, public opinion polls show that the vast majority are against cosmetic testing on animals, which is one of those things that, if asked, people are very much against, but they struggle as consumers to put that into practice. People like me might spend ages looking at all the labels on everything—the Leaping Bunny logo is useful if people are trying to find a product that has not been tested on animals anywhere through the supply chain—but many others are misled by products such as Herbal Essences. People think that because something has “herbal” or “natural” in its name, all the ingredients must be derived from the plant world with no chemicals. They also extrapolate that those products are humane and not tested on animals, whereas we know that in most cases they are, or at least they are produced by companies that do a lot of animal testing.
It has taken 20 years to get to the stage where the cosmetic testing ban is about to come into force. In 1991, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection set up the European coalition of leading animal protection organisations with the aim of ending the use of animal testing for cosmetics. We now have the ban on the import and sale of animal-tested cosmetic products and ingredients, which comes into force on 11 March.
I am interested to know how that ban will be enforced—I believe that that is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I recently asked a question of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and was told that her Department is working with trading standards to develop guidance for local authority trading standards services on implementing the ban. My concern is that trading standards has many other things on its plate, that it is not well resourced and that it is affected by cuts, as are many other public sector bodies. Will the Minister tell us whether the guidance has already been published? Will there be consultation? What is the timetable for disseminating that guidance to local authority trading standards, and what training will there be on implementing the guidance? What enforcement action are local authority trading standards likely to take?
There needs to be more proactive testing of cosmetics during the import process, rather than waiting to try to catch people in shops and market stalls who are selling products that are still being tested. We ought to be able to stop those products from coming into the UK in the first place. The BUAV suggests that that could involve an inspector checking documentation to ensure that batches are compliant. Not only would that act as a deterrent to companies that might want to chance their arm, but it would uncover anything before it reached the market. When we consider the way in which the recent horsemeat situation came to light, everyone would agree that we should not find out after the event that something such as horsemeat has entered the food chain; we want to stop it coming into the country in the first place. Will the Minister examine the BUAV’s proposal to ensure that the ban is properly implemented?
The pledge to end testing household products on animals was set out in the coalition agreement in 2010. I remember in the run-up to the 2010 general election there was an event in Parliament at which speakers from the three main political parties pledged their support. Obviously, there is political will to do something, and the Government have said that no project licences will be granted for testing household products on animals.
When I recently tabled a parliamentary question asking for the definition of “household product,” the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice answered:
“There is no authoritative definition of ‘household product’ in UK or European legislation.”
He said that new guidelines will apply to
“‘substances used in the household’”,
and that decisions will be made
“on a case by case basis.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 151W.]
Obviously, substances “used in the household” may cover a wide range of things, and I could imagine getting into a dispute about whether something will be covered by those rules.
As the hon. Member for Crawley said, there is no mention of any restriction on testing the ingredients of household products. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice confirmed, Government figures for 2011 show that the number of tests on finished household products was zero. So implementing a ban on the testing of finished products will not achieve anything; it is the ingredients that are important. When the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who was then a Minister in the Department, was asked about that in 2011, she said that when the ban is introduced, it will
“apply to both finished household products and their ingredients, although in practice mainly the latter are tested.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 80W.]
I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on that. Does the ban apply to ingredients, as well as to finished products? If the ban applies only to finished products, how effective will it be? Or is the ban simply an empty gesture?
A new version of some household products seems to hit the market every few months. One moment we are told that a washing powder is the best ever and that it gets everything 100% white—it is marvellous, wonderful and cutting edge, and nothing could be better. Then, three months later, there is suddenly a new, improved version. That constant drive to get market share, to sell a new product and to present it as something different in some ways buys into the need to test more things that go into the product. Perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned, but we have plenty of household products that are capable of washing our clothes and cleaning our floors and windows. We do not need to introduce any new products or ingredients. We certainly do not need to do so at the expense of animals that have to have ingredients tested on them.
I hosted an event in Parliament on 16 January, which the hon. Member for Crawley attended. At that event, the Dr Hadwen Trust announced that it is funding the first professorial post in animal replacement science at Queen Mary, university of London. The post is an academic position, and another researcher will also be funded as part of the unit. They will be working solely on replacements for, and the reduction of, testing on animals. That means that the UK will be at the forefront of efforts to provide alternatives to animal testing. The new professor will be appointed in the next few months and will be based at the Blizard institute. The professor will particularly look at things such as developing in vitro models using human cells and tissue, and developing three-dimensional models in cutaneous gastroenterology and cancer research, which is a welcome move that provides credibility to the field of animal replacement.
People often think that the debate is just scientists against people who care about cuddly animals and have an emotional response, rather than people who are interested in the most effective scientific methods. At the launch, it was interesting that so many research scientists came up to me saying, “We don’t actually think that testing on animals is an effective way of doing it. We don’t think it gets the right results. Mice are genetically not the right animals to test something that we are developing to treat humans.” The professorial post creates credibility for the search for alternatives to testing on animals, which is important.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome what the hon. Lady is saying. She talked earlier about science and new technology. Does she welcome the fact that, last year, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research established 15 PhDs to consider alternatives to animal experiments? I think it is great to see both more scientists and more funding.
Kerry McCarthy
That is another welcome development. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research has done some good work, but more can be done. As we know, the number of animal experiments has gone up, partly because of medical developments, new forms of testing, and so on. I will judge the centre’s success by the reduction in the number of overall animal experiments, rather than success in one area and increased tests elsewhere.
Angela Smith
Is it not also important that the key Departments work together on reducing the incidence of animals used in research? The Home Office regulates research, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funds much of the research and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills often funds academia to undertake research on alternatives. Is it not important that those Departments should be committed to working together to deliver the coalition Government’s objective?
Kerry McCarthy
That is true, and I would add the Department of Health into the mix with its role in new drugs, safety standards, and so on. To an extent, the issue has suffered from being parked in the Home Office. The previous Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, for example, had the equalities brief and so much else to deal with that did not sit neatly with addressing the animal experimentation side of things. There is a tendency for the issue to be sidelined and not given the attention that it deserves. It would have been better to pull it together in a cross-cutting way under one post.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The recent legislation carrying forward the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force in January 2013. It requires that alternative non-animal research techniques be used in medical research if available. Researchers must ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy not entailing the use of live animals should be used, and the number of animals used in projects should be reduced to a minimum. How will scientists know whether a non-animal alternative method is available, given that no central database currently exists? Without such a resource, how will the Home Office be able to monitor compliance properly or encourage the promotion of alternatives?
As I mentioned earlier, that topic leads into the ongoing problem of duplication. Currently, researchers have no way of knowing the results of previous experiments involving animals. An experiment at Cardiff university, for example, which involved sewing up the eyelids of newborn kittens had already been done elsewhere; it had turned out to be fruitless in finding a cure for lazy eye in children. Has the Home Office assessed the feasibility of introducing a central database that licence holders would have to search before submitting a project application? I understand that it has been discussed recently at European level in working groups, but that no progress was made. Why, and what steps will the Minister commit to take to help those discussions progress?
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way before coming to the end of her contribution. She is absolutely right about duplication, but one problem is that not all scientific work is published, because sometimes no journal is willing to publish it. Would it not be a good idea to have a system of open access, so that all work could be published on a database and everybody could have access to it, even if journals were not prepared to publish it?
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is partly that results of some research are not publicly disseminated, but there is also an issue of commercial confidentiality where products for sale are involved. People do not want to reveal in what direction their thoughts are headed, in case someone steals their research and comes up with a similar product. They do not want to give their rivals a commercial advantage. I can see why drug companies, for example, would resist the idea of a central database, but we definitely need to go down the path of open access.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will welcome the creation of the professorial chair at Queen Mary, university of London. Can he do anything in conjunction with his colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to roll it out in the research departments of other universities in the UK?
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this important debate. The participants so far have certainly reflected quality rather than quantity.
Over the past few decades, many improvements have been made to the welfare of animals in research laboratories. We banned testing for cosmetic products and toiletries back in 1998, and conditions have improved under strict adherence to the three R’s. Unfortunately, as has been said, the number of animals used in scientific research continues to increase.
The guiding principles for the humane use of animals in scientific research are known as the three R’s: replace, reduce and refine. According to those principles, scientists must prove that there are no alternatives to using animals, use the minimum possible number of animals and refine their experiments to ensure that animals suffer as little as possible. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research is the organisation working on the coalition Government’s pledge to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. According to its research, drastic advances have been made in implementing the three R’s. As a result, thousands fewer animals are being used in certain experiments.
The problem of animal testing is global, and progress towards minimising its use has been hit and miss. As of March this year, EU law will prohibit not only animal testing for cosmetics within the EU, but importing any cosmetic products tested on animals outside the EU. Sadly, many companies responding to the growing appetite for cosmetic products among China’s middle classes are abandoning their cruelty-free status and resuming animal testing. Chinese law currently requires all cosmetics to be tested on animals to ensure that they are safe for humans. The law forces cosmetic companies to test every product in that way, even products that have been tested by other means and deemed safe.
There is knowledge within China of how to test cosmetics without animals. A grant from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals helped train a number of Chinese scientists at Beijing technology and business university to test cosmetic ingredients without using animals. Perhaps we should add the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the long list of Departments mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and involve it in cross-departmental action and discussion on the protection of animals from cruelty.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that one of my other hats is shadow Foreign Office Minister. I talk to animal welfare groups, and then I meet ambassadors or visiting delegations. People have raised with me the dog meat trade in the Philippines, for example, but the problem is that, if our Foreign Office representatives go over there, that issue will be so far down their agenda that they never raise it. There are far more important issues of trade, defence, security and so on to raise. I accept entirely his point that the FCO should be involved as well.
Mr Sanders
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
I hope that the training will ensure that if China changes the law requiring mandatory animal testing of cosmetics, scientists will know how to test products without using animals. The only way that the situation within China will change is if pressure is put on the Chinese Government to change their laws.
The claim that animal testing is needed for safety reasons does not hold up, given that the EU and many countries around the world manage to ensure that products are safe without involving animals. It is important that we all encourage cosmetic companies to put principles before profits and, rather than reversing years of progress, to stay firm by refusing to conduct tests on animals. Testing on animals is not necessary, and the companies that have started using animals again are doing so only to increase their profits.
We have a number of great companies here in Britain, such as The Body Shop, Lush and many others, which refuse to stock products tested on animals. I hope that we can do more to promote such companies and refuse to buy from the growing number of companies that are selling out by needlessly testing their products on animals. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance that the Government are aware of the growing problem and will introduce measures to reduce it.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this debate and speaking expertly and clearly about the four issues that he wanted to raise, particularly the importance of reducing the number of animal experiments —he pointed out the 1.9% increase in their number—and the issue of inspections. I will address both those issues in my contribution.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who reaffirmed and reinforced the point that animal testing should be carried out only when essential. She explained duplication in animal testing and raised the issue of public opinion on cosmetic animal testing, as well as asking numerous detailed questions that I hope the Minister will address. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) for giving us an international perspective. He spoke about the high-quality contributions that had been made to the debate, and his was one. He talked about the global challenges we face and about the need for a global strategy.
I should say that I am standing in for the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). If people want to raise issues, I will make sure they get the answers they require.
Many Members talked about the EU directive, which the Labour party was proud to support. It ensures that welfare standards do not drop below a certain level. Where the standards in it were lower than those in the UK, the Labour party called on the Government to maintain the UK’s high standards, and I am pleased to say there was broad agreement on that. Where the directive raised standards, we of course welcomed the extra protection.
As Members have said, the key to how the regulations work will be in the detail of the codes of practice. Although we have not seen all the regulations, I can assure hon. Members that the Labour party will examine them in great detail when they are published to ensure the UK remains a leader on animal welfare standards.
Although the directive will come into force under this Government, it is the result of 10 years’ work, much of which was done by the previous Labour Government and our MEPs, who were instrumental in strengthening the animal welfare provisions in the European Parliament so that all EU countries have the same basic standards of animal welfare for the first time. That will not only protect animals from unnecessary suffering, but prevent UK bioscience jobs from going to other EU countries, thus ensuring that one of our most important sectors remains competitive with its rivals around the world.
It is essential that the Government’s policy on animal experimentation continues to strike the right balance. As Members have said, it is vital that we keep a watchful eye on the number of experiments being conducted. The Labour party supports the coalition agreement to reduce the number of experiments conducted on animals, and we want to ensure that the Government stick to their pledge. As Members will be aware, the number of experiments involving animals has been steadily rising for a number of years, reaching a 25-year high in 2011.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that the shadow Front-Bench team are as concerned about the issue as we were when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised it towards the end of last year. Clearly, the Government need to examine the issue and to get to grips with the numbers as quickly as possible. As with any other issue, Governments are judged on what they say and what they deliver, and this issue should be no different. The Government need to work with the bioscience industry to ensure that progress is made.
The shadow Front-Bench team’s other concern, which the hon. Member for Crawley also raised, is the fall in the number of laboratory inspections and the closure of regional inspection offices. The Labour party’s stance on the issue remains the same. The UK has some of the world’s highest animal welfare standards, but the number of inspections has fallen, while regional inspection offices have been closing. We have understandable concerns about how the Government expect to implement those closures without compromising the quality of inspections and animal welfare standards. The public, campaign groups, animal rights groups and the Labour party expect the Government to ensure policy is strictly enforced.
We have heard a lot about the three R’s, and I reaffirm the importance of the need to reduce the number of animals used, to refine experiments to avoid suffering and to replace animals where possible.
Animal experimentation is an issue that both sides of the House can feel passionate about, and I have no doubt that it will remain high on the agenda of animal welfare groups and our bioscience industry. It is essential that the Government continue to do their utmost to guarantee that their policy on animal experimentation is well protected.
To conclude, I have two questions for the Minister. First, I ask him to address the rise in the number of animal experiments and the steps the Government are taking. Secondly, has an assessment been made of the impact of the fall in the number of laboratory inspections on the quality of inspections and animal welfare standards?
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate, which has been a good one. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) in the Chamber, standing in for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).
I am pleased that colleagues have given me time to elaborate at length on all the points raised by my hon. Friend and other Members, including, in particular, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). First, however, I will set out a bit of context. I can do that because we have time left, so people will not think this is an excuse for not getting to my hon. Friend’s detailed questions.
The position of both coalition parties—I think it is shared on both sides of the House—is that we should license the use of animals only when it is essential and when there is no alternative. That is, indeed, Government policy, and it was the policy of the previous Government.
As several Members, including my hon. Friend, said, our current legislation—the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—has recently been revised to transpose European directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. There were two key objectives in the new directive. One was to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific procedures, and the other was to promote the three R’s—strategies that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific procedures. The hon. Member for Bristol East asked about an academic post in that regard, and I will come to that in a little while.
The Government have fully embraced those aims in transposing the directive. The amended Act provides a high level of protection for animals. As several Members have made clear, work cannot be licensed if it could be carried out without using animals. The procedures must also cause the minimum possible suffering to the smallest number of animals of the lowest sensitivity.
We have taken the opportunity to place in the legislation absolute bans on the use of great apes and stray animals of domestic species. We have retained stricter United Kingdom standards, which provide for: special protection for cats, dogs and horses, in addition to non-human primates; protection for immature forms of birds and reptiles; larger enclosure and cage sizes for dogs and a number of other species; and more humane methods of killing animals. Those measures are necessary and justified on animal welfare grounds and to maintain public confidence that animals used in experiments and testing will continue to be properly protected.
At the same time, animal experiments continue, at the moment, to be necessary if improvements in health care are to be developed with the minimum of delay. It is a fact that our national health service would be unable to function effectively were it not for the availability of medicines and treatments that have been developed and tested through research using animals. Almost every form of conventional medical treatment has relied in part on the study of animals. That includes asthma treatments and medicines for ulcers, schizophrenia and depression, polio vaccine, and kidney dialysis and transplants—those are just a few examples.
While we accept that animal experiments are effective and necessary, they should be used only when the benefits have been carefully weighed against the costs to the animals; when there is no other way of achieving the desired result; when the procedures applied to the animals will cause the least suffering possible; when the minimum number of animals will be used to achieve the outcome; and when high standards of animal welfare are applied. That approach closely reflects what the public want. They understand the necessity and importance of using animal experiments in some areas, but they want the number of such experiments to be the minimum necessary.
Roger Williams
While animal welfare considerations must always be paramount, the use of animals in scientific procedures is extraordinarily expensive, so there is pressure in that sense to ensure that other forms of experimentation are used where appropriate.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is sometimes a caricature of those involved in research. If they had alternatives to using animals, they would implement them; they use animals because there are not currently alternatives in all cases. My hon. Friend puts his finger on the issue: the use of animals for experiments, particularly in a country such as the UK, which has high standards, is expensive. Companies use animals only because there are not more effective remedies. Also, they are conscious that they could develop effective alternatives that would also be more cost-effective. However costly—in several senses—animal experiments are, if there are no alternatives, those cannot be used; but many pressures are pushing researchers towards the use of alternatives when they are available, and that is welcome to all of us, including my hon. Friend.
We also accept that regulation must not be overly bureaucratic, so we have made some small but important changes, allowing us to simplify the detail required in personal licences and the way we process applications for them. Another important change in the revised Act is the requirement placed on member states to collect and publish statistical information, on not just the number of animals used, but the severity of the procedures applied to them. Publication of information about the experience of the animals will be an advance in transparency. Combined with the mandatory requirement to publish non-technical summaries of authorised projects, that will help to inform the parliamentary and public debate .
Kerry McCarthy
To what extent is security an issue affecting the making public of the kinds of testing that are going on? I do not agree with some of the more extreme, violent protests used to highlight animal testing. Would that prevent some experiments from being made public?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. This may be a good time to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley about section 24 of the 1986 Act, which, as he said, currently prohibits the disclosure by Home Office Ministers and officials, other than in their discharge of functions under the Act, of confidential information about the use of animals in scientific procedures. There are two reasons for the provision. One relates to the hon. Lady’s point, and covers information that might put individuals at risk from those people who sadly are not content with democratic decision making and debate, but choose to use violence—something that we in the House would all abhor. In addition, the provision protects intellectual property. I think that I can say a little more on that than my hon. Friend did.
The Government agree that section 24 is not framed satisfactorily. There is little room for manoeuvre, and it acts somewhat as a blanket ban on disclosing information. It can, for example, make it difficult for Home Office inspectors to share good practice between establishments. The hon. Lady raised that, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. The problem is that clear consensus about what we should do did not emerge in the recent public consultation on the transposition of the European directive—whether we should repeal the section or change it in some way. There was a range of views, and we wanted, as my hon. Friend said, to give it further thought. As to a timetable—I think that is what he was after—I can be a bit more specific. We are doing that work now, over the next six months, and aim to report our conclusions to Parliament before the House rises for the summer. I hope that that gives some reassuring firmness to the timetable.
The problem was that many of the people who responded to the consultation did not like the status quo, but there was no really clear sense of what to replace it with. We must be mindful of the two issues I raised: intellectual property, which it is legitimate for researchers to protect; and the extent to which we need to protect those involved in important work. Changes to the regime for animal welfare should be made by Parliament, after legitimate public debate. They should not happen because people take it on themselves to try to drive out of business through intimidation and violence those who conduct lawful work. Those are the things that we shall be thinking through: being as open as possible, but with those two constraints. I hope that that is helpful, and that that approach is widely shared in the House.
It is probably worth picking up the point about statistics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and several other hon. Members raised. He is correct to say that the latest statistics, for 2011, showed that the number of animals used in experiments and testing was higher than it had been for some years. It was not the highest ever number. The high point was reached in statistics produced under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which preceded the current legislation: in the 1970s about 5 million animals were used. Thus there has been a drop, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the number is going up.
An interesting point arises in that context, which brings me back to a point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield, about the United Kingdom’s reputation as a place to do life sciences and bioscience. I understand that that industry is growing in the UK, more quickly than the increase in the number of animals used; so the usage of animals for each £1 of research, or however one might characterise it, is falling, but more such work is being done in the UK. It seems to me that that is a good thing, because we want that work to be done here; we want those generally well-paid jobs to be in the United Kingdom. Also, because we have high standards of welfare in our animal testing regime, it is better for animals, if research is to take place anywhere in the world, for it to happen in the UK. However, if the size of the business in the UK grows, that may mean that even if the number of animals used for every given type of research falls, the overall number goes up.
Of course, the quickest way to reduce the number of animals would be to drive the work overseas, which would not be good for the United Kingdom, for jobs or for animal welfare. We must be thoughtful about the numbers. We should consider the size of the industry and the work that is being carried out, and whether we are driving down the proportion of animals being used in that work. We need to think about the global position. It is a coalition Government objective to get more of the life sciences business—the bioscience industry—in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, the Opposition support that, and if we attract such business here more quickly than we manage to deliver on the three R’s, the number of animals that are used will rise. However, we may be driving down the rate at which they are used, while the industry grows. That is a bit of a conundrum, and I do not have the answer, but it shows that care should be exercised in using statistics.
Roger Williams
The Minister makes a good point. I put a question to the Home Office about the number of animals used for experimentation in Wales, and was surprised that the figure had gone up; but after I visited Cardiff university, I understood that its success in attracting research funds, and its high status in life sciences and bioscience, was the reason for the rise.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was really only cautioning about the need to examine data and be careful about how we apply it. It is also worth commenting on the way statistics are set out, which was put into primary legislation. The most significant number relates to the breeding of genetically modified animals—largely mice. When the relevant table was designed, that was a small number at the end. Most of the animals that are bred—1.4 million mice—are used in other areas of research: they might well be used in medicine studies, or in fundamental biological research, but they are not categorised in that way. We need to be careful about categories and how we define uses. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that only 13% of procedures relate to applied studies for human medicine or dentistry; but, of course, the remaining 87% includes fundamental research, which can involve any of the categories; and applied veterinary studies and the protection of man, animals and the environment also underpin much medical research. Again, therefore, it is worth being cautious about numbers and what we read into them.
Several hon. Members mentioned enforcement. It is no good having good legislation if we do not enforce it properly. The Home Office inspectorate picks up much of that work. The Home Office inspectors are skilled individuals. They are all registered medical or veterinary practitioners and usually have first-hand experience of biomedical research and possess higher scientific or clinical postgraduate qualifications. Their work underpins the 1986 Act. They provide advice to the Secretary of State on licence applications, and technical and operational advice on issues related to regulating animal experiments. They also visit the facilities where work is carried out, to check compliance with licences and certificates and to provide advice on applications and good practice.
The majority of visits are unannounced. The relationship between inspectors, licence holders and animal care staff is critical to our implementation of the regulatory framework. We want to be careful not to jeopardise that. The Government are committed to maintaining a strong, properly resourced inspectorate with a full programme of inspections.
There is no magic number of inspections. Under the revised Act, there is a risk assessment for determining the frequency of inspection. We look at the number and type of procedures that take place at an establishment; the severity of those procedures; the number and species of animals housed and used; any special conditions placed on the licences; the history of compliance of that institution; and any information that might come to light and indicate non-compliance with the terms of the licence. That means that inspectors focus their effort where they can be most effective.
The Government made two specific and important commitments on animal research and testing, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and Opposition Members. One was to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research, and the other was to end the testing of household products on animals.
The commitment to work to reduce the use of animals is ambitious. There is no quick fix, as people have acknowledged. We want genuine reductions that improve animal welfare. We must be careful not to drive work abroad to countries where, it is generally accepted, standards are lower and there may be less stringent guidelines. The strategy should be science-led and that is why we have asked the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research to take a leading role in its delivery.
That might be a good point to pick up something the hon. Member for Bristol East said. She referred to the Dr Hadwen Trust chair in replacements. We welcome that. Home Office officials meet that trust regularly and we look forward to seeing the impact of its professorial post. That is a welcome step towards the science of replacement methods and will contribute to our commitment. The hon. Lady raised the specific question about the extent to which it could be rolled out elsewhere. We will take that away and think about how we might practically do that.
The Home Office takes this issue very seriously. Lord Taylor of Holbeach this morning visited a research laboratory to observe the work. He also has a close relationship with the Minister for Universities and Science, and they work closely together on examining trends in the industry, attracting life sciences to the UK and the implications for regulating this area. There is a fair bit of joined-up activity between the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The hon. Lady also raised information sharing. I mentioned in connection with section 24 that that sometimes gets in the way of inspectors sharing best practice. We will think about that as we consider how we change that section. She also mentioned databases and alternatives to animal testing. Several databases already exist. A new role has been created of the named information officer, who, we hope, will be able to assist scientists in searching for alternatives. I have said this before, but I repeat that nobody really wishes to use animals when there are alternatives. We need to make it easier for those involved to seek those alternatives and use them where we can.
Several other issues were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and supported by others. The number of procedures conducted for testing household products and their ingredients has fallen since 1997. There were no procedures under that heading in 2011. We have already announced our commitment to end testing household products on animals, to be implemented using licensing powers under the 1986 Act. We will put a condition on the relevant product licences. We have consulted on that to get a working definition of “household product”, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East. We are close to finalising a definition that we think will be workable—there is no point having one that is not. We will make an announcement on that in due course.
Several responses to the consultation favoured inclusion of ingredients in the ban, a point made by the hon. Lady. That is a bit more complicated than it might at first appear. Some substances used as ingredients in household products can have other uses. There are also ingredients, such as chemicals and biocides, that under other legislation have mandatory safety testing requirements that involve using animals. Therefore, it is quite a difficult area. We are in the process of thinking the matter through to come up with something that is workable and sensible, but does not have a chain of unforeseen consequences. It is complicated, and an obvious answer did not present itself during the consultation. I assure the hon. Lady that we are thinking and working on that, but rushing to do it and getting it wrong would not be helpful. I hope that she can take it on trust for the moment that the thought processes are under way. I have listened carefully to what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said and will feed that into our thinking.
My hon. Friend also talked about the mid-term review. He was slightly concerned by the use of the past tense. That was simply because it was a mid-term review, looking back over the first period of government. However, we are very much in the present tense in terms of continuing work. The national centre I talked about is actively pursuing a wide range of initiatives, including increased funding for three R’s work in universities. It supports innovation in the three R’s through its CRACK IT programme. It looks at new disciplines such as engineering and mathematics to reduce animal use. I think the hon. Member for Bristol East touched on that when she talked about the professorial post.
Other initiatives include working with regulators to reduce animal use, investment in education and training and support for stem cell and tissue engineering technologies. There is quite a lot of work going on led by experts in their field. That is what we want: a science-led approach to driving some of the change. That was touched on by my hon. Friend, and by the hon. Lady when she spoke about those involved in the business having alternative methods of delivering testing and safety assessments.
My hon. Friend also talked about the animals in science committee—the advisory committee that is in the process of being set up. There will be a working protocol agreed with the committee chair that sets up the size and qualifications of the committee. That working protocol will be published and will set out the issues that will be automatically submitted to the committee for advice. It will also cover important issues such as the promotion of the three R’s.
My hon. Friend talked about the use of non-human primates and their importation. Many people have a particular concern about the use of non-human primates in scientific research. It is a small part of animal research compared with overall usage, but it is an important part. In the UK, we use small numbers of non-human primates for developing and testing vaccines against some of the world’s largest killers, such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB, and for the potential future treatment of degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The majority—about three quarters—of the primates used in 2011 were used for the safety testing of medicines.
Most such primates are sourced outside the UK, where animals of the right quality are readily available—I am afraid that that comes down to our not-brilliant climate. For those particular animals, rearing them in the UK is not viable, as they would have to be reared inside. It is much easier to rear them outside in overseas locations, which makes the process more productive. Banning their importation would harm essential work. However, what is important, as my hon. Friend said, is for those who import the animals to ensure that the suppliers they deal with have proper controls and processes in place so that, in the breeding part of the operation, the animals are well treated.
My hon. Friend also talked about the personal licence system, which identifies the individual, the place where the work will be carried out, the species authorised for use and the types of techniques. Granting a licence depends, as it did previously, on a demonstration that the person has done the appropriate training, both for the species they are using and the techniques they are carrying out. The application requires a declaration by the local named training and competence officer to confirm that that level of training has been carried out by the applicant, and that the list of species that may be authorised is similar to the previous descriptions provided by applicants. It is also similar to a list used for the statistical returns. It is personal to the individual, which is important—when we debated the transposition of the directive, the personal link was felt to be welcome and valuable—and so it is not transferable to someone else. Furthermore, not only training, but the practical work experience under supervision, is important. That is something that the Home Office inspectors can monitor on their visits—not only someone’s initial training, but the practical experience under supervision to ensure compliance with the terms of the personal licence.
The hon. Member for Bristol East asked a couple of questions to do with cosmetics. She rightly noted that the UK banned the testing of finished cosmetics and ingredients in 1997 and 1998, because the Government considered the justification for using animals to be inadequate given the benefits of the products and the alternative tests available. She also referred to the European cosmetics directive; the EU banned animal testing for finished cosmetics in 2004 and for ingredients in 2009. To meet the requirements of the directive, a partial marketing ban was also implemented in 2009. It banned the supply of cosmetics for which animal tests had been carried out anywhere in the world, but did not extend to the test for the three most complex human effects of testing. A full marketing ban, which includes such tests and to which the hon. Lady referred, is expected to come into effect on 11 March, regardless of the fact that validated replacement tests are not available.
The ban is not a complete sales ban on all animal-tested cosmetics. Some parts of the world, as discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), insist on animal testing as a regulatory requirement, so products subject to such a regime are not banned from the EU. Nevertheless, animal testing to meet the requirements of EU cosmetics legislation will be prohibited once the marketing ban enters into force. That is a bit complicated, and I have probably made things less clear, rather than clearer. The impetus, however, will come from consumer pressure, which the hon. Lady talked about, and transparency. Moreover, as other countries develop, as their consumers become more sophisticated—as happened in this country—and as their legislative processes improve, they will come under pressure on such issues. It is helpful, working through the Foreign Office and elsewhere, for us to explain what we have done in the UK and the EU to set our standards, to show that we can deliver on testing when necessary, or simply to lead by example when it is not necessary. We can all participate in that.
The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned enforcement of the marketing ban, which does indeed fall to local authority trading standards, on which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills leads. I will talk to my colleagues in BIS to see where that issue has got to and how it is being rolled out to trading standards departments. It may be rather dreadful to hand the action over to my colleagues, but I will ask them to look into the subject and to write to the hon. Lady. I will put a copy of the reply in the Library. I suspect that she will then use that information to go and duff up her local trading standards organisation, to ensure that it is fully engaged in that important work.
I hope that I have set out the Government’s approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made a wide-ranging speech. I think I have addressed all his questions, as well as those asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield, who spoke for the Opposition. I am grateful for the shared work with the Opposition on the subject; when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I debated the transposition of the directive, she was machine-gunning her questions at me, so it did not feel entirely as if we were on the same side, but I machine-gunned all the answers back. A lot of the work in this area, however, which we supported, was done when the Labour party was in government, and now we are taking things forward with support from the Opposition.
The United Kingdom has a good reputation for delivering expertise in science and research, which is recognised throughout the world, and for doing so while delivering high standards of animal welfare and minimising the use of animals in research. That sends out all the right messages. Working together, we can continue to move in the right direction, minimising the use of animals, using them only when absolutely necessary and, if we do use them, having the highest possible standards. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley for the debate, which has been an excellent opportunity.
A120
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Good afternoon, Mr Sheridan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this important debate for the county of Essex.
I thank the Minister for his attention today. He is fully aware of the strategic importance and significance of the A120, in particular, as an economic and strategic link, not only throughout the county of Essex, but to Europe. It is part of the trans-European transport network route known as the UK-Ireland-Benelux road axis, and it connects with Stansted airport in the west—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst)—which is Britain’s second largest air freight port transporting cargo worth £8 billion a year, as well as with Harwich International port in the east, which has trade links with northern Europe and serves about 1 million passengers a year.
However, the A120 is not only about connecting locations. It is important and strategic, because it gives people and businesses opportunities to access national, European and global markets. The importance of the road to the economic well-being of the region and the county of Essex cannot be understated. The road is particularly important to my constituents and to businesses there. Essex is a dynamic county of entrepreneurs with a vibrant mix of traditional industries, such as manufacturing, rural farming and innovative light businesses. Of course, entrepreneurs are the wealth creators not only for the county of Essex, but for the country, and are creating private sector jobs and prosperity in our economy.
In my constituency, small and medium-sized businesses are highly significant. The proportion is more than 80%, and they are growing, despite the economic downturn that we have had. I have to say—the Minister has heard me say this before, as have many other Essex colleagues—that we are a great county to do business in. Our strategic geographical location, our proximity to London, and our access not only to ports, but to Stansted and Southend airports has a lot to do with it. Our 20th century transport infrastructure, however, is holding us and, particularly, businesses back. Nowhere is that more evident than with the A120 and particularly the 12-mile single carriageway stretch that runs north to my constituency, between Braintree and the A12 at the Marks Tey end of the A120. That also touches the southern edges of the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Newmark) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
The road is one of the most heavily used in Essex by the business sector. Some 56% of businesses responding to an Essex chambers of commerce survey indicated that they use the road regularly. However, the single carriageway section, as I have alluded to, is not fit for purpose. It is extremely congested, causes severe delays, is highly dangerous, and is a barrier to economic growth. Those delays harm businesses and damage small and medium-sized firms, not only in my constituency, but in neighbouring constituencies. For them, an extra half-hour delay in traffic can mean the loss of a lucrative contract. It can damage their reputation, prevent them from expanding and adding more capacity, and it adds hundreds of thousand of pounds to their running costs each year.
The Minister has been generous with his time, meeting me and other representatives from my constituency to look into the pressures on the road, but I would like to highlight that figures as far back as 2005 show that an estimated 25,000 vehicles use that stretch of road every single day, when single carriageway roads are typically expected to carry approximately 23,000 vehicles. Annual daily traffic flow data from the Department for Transport in 2010 indicated that on parts of the A120, some 14% of traffic is accounted for by HGVs, compared with an average of only 6% across Essex. That demand inevitably puts strains on the road and its junctions, leading to delays and a backlog on to smaller roads, affecting nearby villages.
In 2008, a report by Atkins, commissioned by the East of England Development Agency, examined those problems and stated:
“The single carriageway section of the route, between Braintree and the A12, is congested and suffers traffic delays.”
It noted:
“The A120 is currently constrained by the capacity of the single carriageway section of A120”,
and there is clear evidence that most traffic on that particular section
“has no real choice of route”.
There are no alternative routes where traffic can go. The report also highlighted that unless plans were put in place to accommodate increased traffic flows in future, stress levels as measured by the congestion reference flow indicator could reach 150% on the western section of the single carriageway.
To address those problems, it was recommended that the A120 was classified as a route of strategic national importance to attract funding from other sources and a wider pool, and crucially that the single carriageway section be dualled in a scheme which, at that time, would have cost approximately £500 million. The advantages of dualling were clearly laid out. First, it would enable the road to increase capacity and accommodate an average 25% increase in traffic in both directions. Secondly, with less congestion, journey times would decrease by between six and 11 minutes, which is significant for this 12-mile stretch of road. Thirdly, an upgraded and dualled road would lead to economic benefits, estimated at the time to be around £725 million for users, and with wider economic benefits of £106 million. At today’s prices, it is estimated that the benefits would exceed £1.1 billion. The proposed scheme would have delivered good value for money and, naturally, it would have unlocked wider economic potential, helping to create thousands of new jobs in the process and improving access to the Haven Gateway.
However, as my hon. Friend the Minister and other colleagues know, the A120 was not considered to be a priority by the previous Labour Government, who went on to scrap the scheme. We are now living with that local legacy, and there is huge disappointment locally. The Minister will be aware that we are coming together collectively with the Essex chambers of commerce, Essex county council, Braintree district council, the Highways Agency, Colchester borough council, Tendring district council and the Haven Gateway partnership, in particular, to start lobbying and fighting to make it a strategic route, and to get it listed as a strategic route on the priority scheme.
I take this moment to pay tribute to all my colleagues, and my local authorities and neighbouring local authorities. Despite the disappointment of what happened in the past, we are now adamant about building an even stronger economic and business case for dualling the A120. The Essex chambers of commerce has recently set up the Essex business transport and infrastructure forum to support businesses and the business effort in co-ordinating the development of economic arguments. I invite the Minister to come to one of our future meetings to discuss this important issue, and to support new and much needed road infrastructure for our county.
I want to touch on the A120 and the road safety implications. As the Minister has heard before, there are significant road safety issues relating to the A120 and to the single carriageway being dualled. Local parish councils along that route—Marks Tey, Bradwell and Coggleshall—along with local residents, to whom I would like to pay tribute, have set up a significant campaign called “Save Lives Not Time”, and they have campaigned to see the road become much safer. We have had lots of problems on the road, as I have mentioned, but they have done tremendous work to see that lives are saved and that accidents are prevented.
The Road Safety Foundation has classified the A120 as one of the 10 most dangerous roads in the country and figures from the CrashMap website, set up by the Government, also show the number and seriousness of road traffic accidents. There has been not just a high number but more than 50 further serious accidents in the period from 2005 to 2011, and further fatalities have occurred on this stretch of road. Naturally, we want to see that stopped. The Highways Agency has been very helpful and recognised that. It has in place a maintenance programme to address some hot spots—in particular, around the Earls Colne road junction. However, unless this road is upgraded and the capacity issue addressed, there will be further serious and life-changing accidents, all of which I believe can be prevented.
I would like now to come on to how we can fund the A120. I have touched on the fact that the cost of a previous scheme was estimated at £500 million. I appreciate that in the current economic climate and given the appalling state of the public finances inherited from the previous Labour Government, the current Government are prevented from doing what we would all like to see—investing and committing hundreds of millions of pounds to the A120. However, I have already said—the Minister has heard me say this consistently—that this should be treated as a priority scheme. I believe that there is an opportunity for the Government to consider innovative funding models.
The Minister will be aware that in recent years the Marks Tey consortium, known as Gateway 120 Ltd, has developed proposals that could unlock a considerable amount of money, through section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, to help to provide private sector funding to support upgrades. Braintree district council has already said that it has allocated £5 million of new homes bonuses to contribute towards joint investment in this major infrastructure project. In addition, there have been discussions on and the development of a revised proposal, which differs from the previous scheme considered by the Highways Agency and could be much more cost-effective.
I believe—I would like the Minister to look into this—that funding may also be available through the European Union. The A120 is part of the trans-European transport network and may qualify for TEN-T programme funding or funding from the structural and cohesion funds. I urge the Government to look into that. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I believe that Europe has had far too much of our money. I think that this is an opportunity for us to bring back some of that money and invest it in infrastructure, not just within the region but in our country. I urge that more work be done to investigate that aspect of funding.
I believe that spending public funds on upgrading this road will yield significant economic benefits, along with greater tax revenue for the Government. At a time of economic austerity, we need barriers to trade and private sector growth and investment to be removed; with alternative private funding models, such as that to which I have alluded, we can help to unlock that process. If the Government can commit to upgrading the road, that will naturally help to unlock the economic potential not just of Essex but of the eastern region and also the south-east of this country and unleash the power of the country’s wealth creators. But at the same time, we must look at alternative funding sources as well. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being allowed to make a small contribution to the debate. If I may, I shall add a little historical perspective. The Saffron Walden constituency, from the point at which I became the Member in 1977 until 2010, included the northern part of the Braintree district, and across that section of the county there ran the A604, which was a principal road between Colchester and Cambridge. It was later downgraded to become the A1124 and the A1109. I had, as the Member, many representations at that time for village bypasses to overcome some of the problems—very similar to those that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has mentioned on the stretch of road from Braintree to Marks Tey—and to avoid the heavy traffic that was thundering through, with accidents and great risk to pedestrians.
However, I was told then, by Essex county council and by the Department for Transport, that I did not understand what the strategy was. It was explained to me that the strategy to bring heavy traffic and, indeed, all traffic from the east coast ports to the midlands and the north was twofold. It was to build the Orwell bridge, so that traffic could have the choice of going up the A12 and then on to the A14, or come along the A120, which was to be upgraded to the M11 at Stansted. It is extraordinary that after 35 years, we had half of that done, from Stansted to Braintree, and the other half conspicuously, dramatically undone—one and a half routes between the east coast and the midlands and the north. That is truly ludicrous.
Of course, that strategic decision, explained to me in 1977-78, was before a decision had been taken to allow the development of Stansted airport, which of course has generated much more traffic, so it is even more extraordinary, with the institution by many of the freight companies of headquarters at Stansted and the traffic that that generates, that there still appears to be no recognition in the Department for Transport, over many, many years now, of the importance of completing the link that was originally intended when I first became involved on behalf of my constituents. Thirty-five years we have had to wait—how much longer? Surely the time for the gap to be plugged has come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr Sheridan, and I am delighted to be here. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate. She knows that, were it not for the debate in the main Chamber, many more people would be here this afternoon. I have been particularly struck by what she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) said in lobbying to reverse the local legacy and to ensure that Essex is a great county in which to do business in the future, to quote her.
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on the need for future investment in this road, as has my right hon. Friend. I recognise her continuing determination to speak about the importance of this subject for her constituents, local businesses and the local economy. I am of course aware that she has asked a number of parliamentary questions about the improvements that she quite rightly believes are required to the A120 and to the A12. She secured an Adjournment debate last year on transport in Essex. As she will remember, I met her recently to discuss the proposals to improve the A120 and therefore I am pleased to be responding to this debate this afternoon.
The strategic road network is the Government’s largest single asset, currently valued at about £100 billion and comprising some 4,350 miles of motorway and trunk road. The Government recognise the importance of the transport infrastructure to supporting the economy, and local economies throughout the country, and therefore we have announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements targeted at supporting economic growth.
My hon. Friends will remember the announcement in the 2010 spending review that we were investing an extra £1.4 billion in starting 14 major road schemes over the spending review period. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of the 2011 autumn statement, identified several other schemes that would be brought forward for delivery. In the 2012 statement, the Chancellor announced additional capital investment in this Parliament that would enable four major schemes to be brought forward.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that the Government are keen to support the infrastructure of our country. Indeed, in the 2012 statement, there was the provision of a further £100 million of capital expenditure in this spending round to undertake further pinchpoint schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham will be aware that that included a £0.28 million—£280,000—pinchpoint scheme to widen Galley’s Corner roundabout south-east of Braintree. It is obviously true, but I am sure that it disappointed her, that no other schemes that applied for pinchpoint funding on the A120—several did apply—could be delivered within the scope and the criteria of that fund. She and I have spoken about that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden spoke a little about the history of the A120, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Witham. Obviously, sections of it are single-carriageway road, as she rightly said. The A120 east of the M11 is a trunk road and therefore part of the strategic road network. As she points out, it also forms part of the comprehensive trans-European road network.
My hon. Friends were right to point out that if one looks at the history of the road and the Department’s consultations, surveys and studies on proposed improvements to the A120, one sees that in 2001-02 a comprehensive study was undertaken to look at the problems facing the A12 corridor between London and Ipswich, which included the A120. The study recommended road improvements between Marks Tey and Braintree, and that dualling the A120 from the A12 to Harwich should be considered in the longer term.
As my hon. Friends said, the previous Administration’s review of regional priorities in the east of England provided advice that changed those priorities, and the regional assembly removed the proposals from their prioritised programme. In the previous Government’s response to the advice, they accepted the recommendations for prioritisation, and the Department for Transport instructed that the scheme should not proceed further. That is the history. It is worth setting out the context.
My hon. Friends will know that, given the previous decisions on the prioritisation of improvements, there was not a sufficiently developed business case for the proposal at the time of the Government’s 2010 comprehensive spending review. I have spoken about the schemes that the Chancellor prioritised. A developed business case was a key requirement in both 2010 and 2011. The Department therefore had no plans to develop future scheme improvements in this location. There have been subsequent developments, to which my hon. Friends referred.
In our January meeting, I explained that, in assessing schemes for the future, the Highways Agency is looking at a process that would involve local parties in considering future priorities on a more local level, rather than on a simply regional basis. For the record, it may be worth setting out exactly how we expect such route-based strategies to work.
In response to the recommendations in Alan Cook’s review of the Highways Agency, we agreed to develop and roll out a programme of route-based strategies to identify future transport investments for the strategic road network. The Highways Agency is developing three route-based strategies at initial locations, one of which is the A12 from its junction with the M25 to its junction with the A14 and the A120 between Colchester and Harwich.
The three initial strategies will be complete in March this year. We will take the lessons learned from the production to inform a wider programme of strategies to assess network prioritisation, starting in the next financial year, which as I explained is likely to include the remaining section of the A120 west of the A12. Route-based strategies will ensure that there is clear evidence to make informed decisions on what is necessary for the strategic network to support economic growth locally and keep the country moving.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham when we met in January, a key element of the route-based strategy is the engagement and involvement of local groups, including, as we discussed, local enterprise partnerships. I very much welcome the work of the Haven Gateway group in bringing together the range of local interests. I also welcome its analysis of the potential transport benefits and, more importantly, the potential benefits for economic growth in the region, which will be useful in informing the route-based strategy for the rest of the A120. I have made it clear, and I hope she accepts my reassurances, that the Highways Agency will work closely with local groups, via the LEP and local authorities, when it undertakes the route-based strategy work for the rest of the A120.
As I have said in this and other debates, the Government recognise the importance of transport infrastructure to facilitating economic development and the role that it can play in bringing forward proposed new housing developments. In our January meeting, my hon. Friend highlighted the development proposals from Gateway 120 Ltd. My Department and the Highways Agency are more than happy to discuss with prospective developers the needs and costs of transport infrastructure improvements to the strategic road network in the area. As she will recognise, any development proposals will clearly need to fit in with the aspirations of the local plans, and, at the meeting, I took some reassurance from her that that was so. She also knows that I promised to facilitate a meeting between officials and Gateway 120 to that end. That meeting took place yesterday. I am happy to ensure that she gets a full debrief.
My hon. Friend is right that, potentially, there are new and innovative funding areas for the A120 for us to explore together, with my Department’s officials, and I will ensure that we do so. She will also be aware that the Department clearly needs to know more about the absolute details of the transport proposals that underline the Gateway 120 scheme before we can take a view on the future funding that could be committed. She and Gateway 120 have undertaken to ensure that such details are available.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned safety. I understand the deep concern and recognise the continued campaign for improvements. I have been speaking to the Highways Agency. We recognise the concerns over safety. I have asked Highways Agency officials to investigate options to make the junction at Pellens Corner safer. It is shortly due to complete a road safety audit for that location, which will provide detailed evidence of incidents and accidents and allow a detailed analysis of the situation. That will allow us to bring forward options to address the problem. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friends to discuss their concerns about safety and the options that we are likely to bring forward.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden for their contributions. I congratulate them on their tenacity in campaigning for the transport infrastructure needed in their local area to make Essex a great county in which to do business. The Government recognise the importance of the A120 as a strategic road and the benefits that the Highways Agency and Gateway 120 working together could bring to their constituencies.
Universal Credit (Wales)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. It is delightful to see that so many colleagues from across Wales have joined me here, and some of them will undoubtedly wish to intervene during my speech.
We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that universal credit would ensure that work pays, improve incentives to work, simplify the benefits system and be easy to introduce. I am afraid to say that the widespread consensus is now that it might be fine in theory, but that it will seriously backfire in practice, with serious consequences for some of my most vulnerable constituents and those of my hon. Friends throughout Wales. I applied for this debate to draw attention to my sincere worries about the potential impacts on people across Wales of what one colleague has described as a car crash waiting to happen.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is not part of the problem the whole climate of uncertainty and insecurity in which benefit claimants are living? In particular, the bedroom tax means that carers cannot have a bedroom available for night sitters, people on home dialysis cannot have a room for that purpose and, more worryingly, parents without custody of their children during the week cannot keep a room so that they can have custody of them at weekends. Should the Government not have sorted that out before introducing yet more changes?
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. In anticipation of the number of interventions that may be coming, it would be acceptable if they were brief.
Stephen Doughty
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I will come to the issue of uncertainty, but that point has certainly been reflected to me by many constituents and organisations that work with those affected by the changes. I have spent much time speaking to constituents. One of the benefits of standing in a by-election is spending an awful lot of time speaking to people, and the issue regularly came up on the doorstep. I have spoken to housing associations and other registered social landlords, to local authorities—specifically Cardiff council—and to other experts. Although there are a variety of views about whether the simplification of welfare payments is desirable, there are clearly consistent fears and forecasts of dire consequences that Ministers and the Department for Work and Pensions have not adequately answered or addressed. Perhaps the Minister will do so today.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
To be brief, it seems to me that the Government have simply not considered the inflexibility in the housing market, or if they have considered that, they do not seem to care. Is that the hon. Gentleman’s view, too?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Coming on top of two of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has called “rancid” measures—the bedroom tax, and the tax on people in work in the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill that we saw a few weeks ago—I am deeply fearful about the impact of the changes on many of our most vulnerable constituents, not to mention the organisations that support them.
Let us look at some of the headline figures. On Monday 10 December 2012, the Government published their new impact assessment for universal credit, which showed several very worrying facts. First, 800,000 more people across the UK face lower entitlements. The original assessment, which was published in 2011, said that 2 million people would face lower entitlements under universal credit, but that number has now risen to 2.8 million, with an average loss of entitlement of £137 a month. I will come to the specific statistics for Wales in a moment. Of those losers, 400,000 will be concentrated in the two lowest income groups.
We expect 600,000 more parents to lose out under universal credit. Households will also lose more: the original impact assessment said that only 200,000 families would lose more than £75 a month, but the latest one states that 1.3 million households will lose more than £100 a month and that an incredible 300,000 families will lose more than £300 a month, which amounts to £3,600 a year. The impact assessment points out that higher administrative costs will result from the changes. The Department has also dropped its claim that universal credit will tackle poverty, which has been removed from the 2012 impact assessment.
There have been delays, and we might hear the reasons for some of them when the Minister speaks later. The roll-out of universal credit is already a significant number of months late, and the DWP has been unable to confirm the timetable. Indeed, there is a great lack of clarity on the part of my local authority and others about how universal credit will be rolled out and when.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have still not given any real answers about how those without bank accounts or internet access will be helped to adapt to the new monthly payments? Such answers are long overdue.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and I will come on to that point in due course.
It is not only those whom I have spoken to who have sincere worries about universal credit. As we have several times seen in the press, one Cabinet Minister has reportedly said in private:
“The information technology for the new system is nowhere near ready. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.”
Who knows whether such rumours are to be believed, but I understand that a number of Cabinet Ministers share that view, which is perhaps one reason for the delays.
What is the specific impact on Wales? Based on an analysis of the December impact assessment and some rough calculations, we estimate that a staggering 140,000 people across Wales might lose £1,600 a year. That is based on an estimate of the Welsh population that will be affected. I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s figures and estimates about how many will be affected in Wales and how much they will lose. Will he provide a breakdown by local authority to help local authorities prepare for the impact of the changes?
Aside from the raw figures, which are shocking in themselves, I want to share the key fears that people have raised with me about the implementation of universal credit in Wales. First, there is the challenge of budgeting for many families; secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned, there is the digital divide; thirdly, there are power relationships within the home; and, finally, there are the risks posed to local authorities, housing associations and other registered social landlords.
First, on budgeting, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions frequently appears to suggest that those of us who raise the issue are patronising our constituents. Rather than taking so entirely complacent an approach, I commend the work that organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the Cardiff and Vale credit union, housing associations—for example, Cadwyn in my constituency—are doing to support tenants by helping them to set up bank accounts, jam jar accounts and similar facilities in credit unions. I also commend the Welsh Government’s work to support those efforts.
Levels of financial literacy––let alone access to a bank account––are not, unlike this measure, universal, and we need to be realistic about the impact of the changes on many people. Rather than making huge assumptions, perhaps the Minister would tell us what risks he sees in relation to the problems in the area and what his Department is doing to assist. I can certainly tell him that many of the organisations that I have mentioned, let alone individual constituents, have experienced varying or little support from his Department, and that relates only to those who are aware of such support.
I want to touch on direct payments and the data from the direct payment pilots that the Department has conducted. A couple of days ago, “Inside Housing” published an article entitled, “Direct payment pilots report increased arrears”, by the journalist Carl Brown, which states:
“Landlords testing direct payment of benefit failed to collect 8 per cent of rent on average in the first four months of the six pilot projects.”
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend also ask the Minister what assessment has been made of the effect on local councils of all those arrears, because they will have major cash-flow problems?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which I will move on to later.
Mr Brown also stated:
“Data released today by the Department for Work and Pensions showed 6,220 tenants across the UK were paid directly in the first four months of the projects. Of these, 92 per cent of rent was collected on average overall, meaning arrears were around double the normal figure. A total of 316 tenants have been switched back to payment of benefit to the landlord.”
To give a figure that is specific to Wales, in relation to Bron Afon Community Housing and Charter Housing in Torfaen, 535 tenants were involved in the first payments and there have been 59 switchbacks so far, which is about 11%. Those figures are obviously of deep concern and they raise wider issues: there are deep worries about how universal credit will work in practice and about the support provided to people, and there are also major implications for organisations, whether they are local authorities or housing associations, that are supporting those tenants.
Secondly, on the digital divide, my colleague the Welsh Minister for Finance, Jane Hutt, has repeatedly warned that people with few or no IT skills might have difficulty applying for universal credit. In 2010, figures suggested that about a third of adults in Wales did not use the internet regularly, and recent figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that about 20% have never used it.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Speaking as the former deputy Minister for digital inclusion, may I say that my hon. Friend makes a strong point? In my borough of Caerphilly, some 37% of the population are excluded digitally. The borough is making provisions to ensure that those people have access to computers, but many local authorities have had, for example, cuts in library services and excluded people will have no access to computers whatsoever.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend also makes a strong point. What assessment has the Minister made of the problem? I quote to him evidence submitted by Community Housing Cymru to the Work and Pensions Committee last year, which said:
“The presumption of a predominantly online self-service process is concerning since it is our experience is that a large percentage of people lack not only the knowledge and accessibility to make on-line claims but also the confidence…We know that a large percentage of social housing tenants do not have access to the internet at home, for example, in 2010 Tai Calon, a housing association based in Blaenau Gwent found that 42% of their tenants have access to the internet.”
That is shockingly low. The evidence continues:
“Blaenau Gwent remains the most digitally excluded area in Wales”
which I know from conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith). Finally, the evidence states that there is
“a lack of clarity in Wales as to where independent advice can be sought on Universal Credit. Citizens Advice Bureaux are already inundated and welfare benefit enquiries have now overtaken debt enquiries in number.”
The concerns are serious.
Thirdly, in the spirit of openness, I announced on Twitter that I would be holding this debate and asked constituents to come forward with concerns. One such concern, which was shared by many others, is that there will be particular risks for women as relationships in the home may be affected by changes to payments and to who will have control of the money, especially given that child benefit was always paid to the mother in the past and provided some security. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and others who have raised such concerns?
Finally, I turn to the real concerns of organisations working with vulnerable clients, particularly those in the housing sector in Wales. Last week, I met representatives of Cadwyn, a housing association with significant numbers of homes and tenants in the Grangetown and Butetown areas of my constituency, and they are deeply worried about what they see as a perfect storm with the coming together of the bedroom tax, the benefit cap—by which only London is affected more than Cardiff—and universal credit. They showed me some extremely worrying figures about rent payment, the risk of arrears, high-risk customers and the challenges that the proposal will create for them and other registered social landlords across Wales. What forecasts has the Department for Work and Pensions made of the financial challenges that registered social landlords may face as a result of increasing rent arrears?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman has made some strong and valid points. I know that what I am about to refer to took place before his time in this place, but does he agree that it was a serious political miscalculation of the Labour party to abstain on Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 that led to the changes being implemented?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Gentleman says, it was before my time in this place, so I will refrain from commenting and make some progress.
I am happy to report that Cadwyn is taking proactive measures to help its tenants adapt to the swathe of changes, including help with jam jar accounts, visits in person to vulnerable tenants and organising property swapping mechanisms on Facebook. Those are the types of methods to which it is resorting. There is, however, a limit to what it can do to mitigate the impact of all the changes coming together, particularly with the hard core of tenants who will prove difficult to access, reach and support and who will find it difficult fundamentally to adapt to universal credit and other changes. On the bedroom tax, there are simply not the properties to move into.
If that is not enough, let us take the perspective of Cardiff, the largest local authority in Wales. I know that its concerns are shared by many neighbouring local authorities, including Vale of Glamorgan, which is also in my constituency. Last week, I spoke to officials at Cardiff council last week who said:
“With regard to Universal Credit, this is expected to start in Cardiff from February 2014 but there is still considerable uncertainty about when this will be fully implemented. This will affect 140 jobs in Cardiff.”
They face concerns such as a
“lack of clarity about how face to face services will be delivered. Cardiff currently sees 1000 customers a week about housing benefit face to face. The insistence on digital by default fails to recognise how many low income households cannot afford broadband and how much help is needed by vulnerable tenants to claim benefits. Payment direct to tenants in social housing…is likely to result in arrears, evictions and homelessness. Indications from the pilots are that tenants are falling into arrears.”
I have already mentioned that evidence. The concerns continue:
“There is still no clarity about the circumstances in which payments will be made to the landlord.”
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Like me, my hon. Friend is a supporter of the Co-op’s campaign against legal loan sharks. Does he agree that, in the case of his and my constituencies, legal loan sharks are positively rubbing their hands and waiting for residents to come to them?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen an explosion in legal loan-shark activity on our streets, whether that be people knocking on doors or opening up offices on the high street. I commend the work of organisations such as the Cardiff and Vale credit union that are trying to provide alternative options.
Cardiff council was also concerned about the following:
“Budgeting issues are also a concern as Universal Credit will be paid monthly in arrears. This is one of the major concerns expressed by customers visiting our roadshows.”
It has been taking proactive steps. It was also concerned that:
“Low income families who depend on this money will have no resource at all if there are any problems with receipt of the payment.”
I do not want to guess the future, but a serious concern is that the record of all Governments in implementing large-scale IT projects leaves much to be desired.
Lynda Thorne, the cabinet member for housing at Cardiff council, wrote to me just yesterday and said:
“I am concerned that the end result of many of these changes will be an increase in homelessness and the transfer of extra financial burdens falling on local council tax payers in terms of picking up the cost of a reduction in the collection rate of council tax, the extra cost of providing help and support to those who need support completing claims and a rise in homelessness created from direct payments.”
She makes the point that Cardiff has
“more private Landlords providing accommodation to those on benefits than all the RSLs, housing Associations, put together. Private Landlords have indicated that they are likely to revert back to only letting to those in work resulting in even more families and individuals becoming homeless thus costing council tax payers more. We currently have more than 500 families and individuals in temporary accommodation at any one time.”
What are the Minister’s reflections on those legitimate concerns raised by a major housing association in my constituency and the largest local authority in Wales?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being generous. Would it not be ironic were the Government to bring about a situation in which, as he describes, private landlords cannot rent out their accommodation to those most in need, because it cannot be guaranteed that they will receive their rent? Is that not the sign of a policy that is ideological and not based on evidence and common sense?
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is new to the Chamber, but we would like to leave some time for the Minister to respond.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I will give the Minister some time to respond very shortly.
If the examples I gave before the intervention are not good enough, the Minister can look at the example of National Energy Action in Wales, which works extensively on fuel poverty. It recently stated:
“Sweeping changes to welfare reform including Universal Credit…will be hitting Welsh households hard in the coming months and will have major implications for the Welsh Government's plans to tackle poverty, including fuel poverty, in Wales.”
My friend, Huw Lewis, the Housing Minister in Wales, has said:
“We can't make any distinction here. I think it would be foolish if people were under the impression that it's just going to be something that affects people in social housing.”
There are huge concerns, which are shared by not only me or the people who have raised them with me on the street or in correspondence to my constituency office, but also the largest local authority in Wales, a number of housing associations, the bodies representing such people and a wide range of other experts. Wales will be hit disproportionately by the measures and by what could be an extremely chaotic set of reforms. I am seeing, frankly, poor evidence of support and engagement from DWP Ministers and others, and I fear that many unintended consequences will affect some of the most vulnerable people across Wales.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing the debate. He raised some important issues, but I counsel some caution. It is easy to create uncertainty among constituents by mentioning such stories in a way that is not balanced and does not reflect the support that will be in place. He actually identified the answer to his problems in one of the quotes he gave from a housing association about the additional work that it will do to help to support its tenants, such as jam jar bank accounts and additional support for budgeting, both of which we intend to deliver. The support around the introduction of universal credit will not only make the transition easier but improve families’ quality of life and financial stability. He should not overlook the beneficial impact that the proposal will have in improving financial capability.
Mr Hoban
I have 12 minutes and many questions to answer in that time, and I want to correct some of the misapprehensions and misunderstandings that have been raised in the debate.
Universal credit is a cornerstone of the Government’s welfare reform programme, and it will simplify the benefit system and tackle welfare dependency by making work pay. Our aim is to offer seamless support for people making the transition into work. No longer will people find themselves in the absurd position where their benefit is disrupted the moment that they start work. Our reforms will ensure that people are better off in work than they are on benefits.
In Wales, we estimate that once universal credit is fully up and running some 200,000 households will be eligible for higher payments under it, typically seeing an increase of almost £160 per month, and we also estimate that the proportion of people in Wales who would stand to lose more than 70% of their increased earnings by moving into work for 10 hours a week will reduce under universal credit from 32%—as it is under the system we have inherited from the previous Government —to 3%. That is why delivering this reform is important for the people of Wales. It will make people better off in work, it will make work pay and it will reduce the risks involved in taking up work or doing more work.
Let me deal with some of the specific concerns that have been expressed. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth raised the issue about benefits being paid in arrears on a monthly basis. It is important that the new system is designed around the patterns of modern working life. Given that three quarters of the employed population are already paid on a monthly basis, receiving payments monthly will be something that people are familiar with when we move to universal credit.
Of course we recognise that some people may struggle to budget, and we are making provision to ensure that they do not fall through the cracks. We are working with banks and credit unions, such as the ones the hon. Gentleman quoted, to explore suitable financial products that may help people to budget and to put money by each month to fulfil their responsibilities to pay their rent and other household bills. Around 4.2 million Department for Work and Pensions claimants already have a bank account. We know that historically some people on a low income have experienced difficulties in accessing and using banking products. We want to ensure that claimants have access to a basic bank account with safe and secure standing order and direct debit facilities.
Let me move on to the point that was made about online services. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the service will be online. We want people to be able to make a claim and to report changes, as they would with online banking. If people are going to participate effectively in today’s modern labour market, they will have to be conversant with digital tools. In the words of Lord Freud, digitisation is a “social imperative”. Of course we can and must do more to ensure that people can access services online. We do not want the digital divide in his constituency and others to persist. We must tackle it and this process is a very good way of tackling it. I am surprised that Opposition Members are so resistant to the actions that we can take to help tackle that digital divide and improve social inclusion.
We are already looking at some of the local authority pilots that have been carried out. Two of them are in Wales, with one in Caerphilly and one in Newport. The pilots are helping us to understand what support we need to give to help people to move into universal credit. We will use the pilots to learn the lessons, and we will apply them as we develop future stages of delivering universal credit, because we have ambitious targets for digital take-up of our services.
Mr Hoban
No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had more than his fair share of time, so let me try to deal with more of the questions that he put.
The hon. Gentleman talked about this project being behind schedule. I have no idea where he got that idea from. The programme is not behind schedule; it is actually on time. I counsel him, and he will learn this more as he is in this House, never to believe what he reads in the paper. The programme is on time and on schedule. The first stage will start at the end of April in the pathfinder area in Greater Manchester and the north-west, and the programme will continue to roll out nationally.
The hon. Gentleman rightly made a point about the failure of previous Governments to deliver big IT projects on time. We saw that under the previous Government. I think that all of us in this House who have had to work with the complexity of tax credits on behalf of our constituents will recognise the failure of that system and the problems that it created for our constituents.
The way that we are working through the implementation of this programme is through our pathfinder approach, which enables us to proceed with implementation in phases. It is an approach that we have used in other large programmes. For example, in the new child maintenance scheme we have used the pathfinder process. In implementing the personal independence payment, which replaces the disability living allowance, we will begin with a few thousand new claims in April, before rolling it out. So the staged and methodical approach that we take to rolling out programmes—“prove before you move”—means that we will fully implement a change once we are satisfied from experience in a live environment that it is safe to do so.
That is why we are rolling out the pathfinder in April in Greater Manchester and Cheshire, to allow us time to test during this period and with a view to successful implementation nationally later this year. This thoughtful and considered approach to rolling out is important. It will ensure that we test the operation to run universal credit; the people capabilities required to support the service; communications; implementation; the behaviour of claimants; and how to ensure that we respond effectively to unintended consequences.
Let me touch on direct payments. I understand the concerns about the payment of housing costs directly to claimants, but we remain of the view that paying housing costs directly is an important way of helping people to manage their own finances and to become more independent. The emerging evidence from the demonstration projects, including the one in Torfaen, does not suggest that large numbers of claimants will suddenly fall into arrears. On the contrary, because the take-on of claims is going to be gradual—over a period of years—there will be no big bang effect, and there is no real evidence of any likely sudden impact on landlords’ incomes.
There will be lessons to learn from those projects, and we will continue to monitor the position very carefully. They will enable us to test trigger points at different levels of arrears, so that if a tenant does fall behind with their rent, action can be taken, including—if necessary—switching back payment to the landlord for a period and offering additional support to the tenant.
We should treat people receiving universal credit as adults. We should encourage them to stand on their own two feet and to manage their money as others manage their money, particularly as they will have to do so as they move into a situation where they increase their earnings. Nevertheless, the support mechanisms that are in place are very important. They give landlords a real incentive to work with their tenants around employment issues to help them into work, and encourage landlords to work more closely with their tenants to understand their financial capabilities and what support might be needed. We should not infantilise universal credit recipients in the way that Opposition Members seem to be suggesting.
There has also been discussion about local support services. We are working in partnership with local authority associations, including the Welsh Local Government Association, on a local support services framework. That will ensure that effective local partnerships are put in place to help claimants with getting online and to learn how to manage their household budgets. As I said earlier, we will learn a great deal from the pathfinder phase of universal credit.
To ensure that we have taken into account the concerns of authorities in Wales, Wales is also represented in the development of the universal credit across a number of forums, pilots and projects, including a senior stakeholder group, a local authority transitional working group, a local authority finance and commercial group, a local support services taskforce, a direct payment demonstration project and local authority-led pilots.
Let me say just a little more about the pilots. We are currently running 12 local authority-led pilots and we aim to conclude those by the end of September. The aim of the pilots is to test and inform the development of a face-to-face delivery model. The pilots will provide important practical lessons on delivering services in an innovative way at the local level, including triage, which is working with claimants to identify their needs, how those needs can be met and where support can be accessed locally; improving online access, so that we can get more claimants using online resources and, where they cannot use them, providing assisted support to get online locally at libraries, community centres and other community buildings where personal computers may be accessible; budgeting support, so that people can manage their finances independently; and, of course, all underpinned with a work focus, to help claimants to find work and stay in work through a range of training and support networks. We have been working very closely with local authorities on a framework for delivering local support to those who need it, and we will announce further details of this very shortly.
We recognise the valid point that the hon. Gentleman made about ensuring that support is available at a local level. It is in none of our interests for claimants of universal credit to be left high and dry. That is why we are working to ensure that the support is in place, whether it is about getting online, debt advice, managing money, or setting up the right bank account or jam jar account to enable people to manage their money. We want to provide the infrastructure around universal credit to help claimants.
By doing it that way, and focusing on how we tackle those problems rather than simply throwing our hands up in horror and saying that it is all doomed to fail, we will provide the right outcomes for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and for mine. That is because it is absolutely right that we do all we can to ensure that people know that work pays, that people in Wales will be better off as a consequence of the introduction of universal credit and that people do not see the disruption that happens at the moment when they move from out-of-work benefits to in-work benefits. The system is here to ensure that people understand that it is better to work than not to work, and better to earn more than to earn less. There will not be the situation that many people are in now, of having to turn down bonuses from their employers because it does not work with the benefit system. We need to tackle some of the problems of the past, to give our people hope for the future.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Committee on Standards in Public Life (Triennial Review)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I announced on 18 September 2012, Official Report, column 31WS that I had asked the right hon. Peter Riddell CBE to carry out a review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In the course of his review, the right hon. Peter Riddell CBE consulted with a wide range of interested stakeholders, many of whom sent substantive written responses to the Issues and Questions paper. I am very grateful to him for his detailed work on this review, and his informative report.
The review recognises the valuable role played by the Committee and the evolving nature of the issues it tackles. As such it concludes that the Committee on Standards in Public Life should remain as a non-departmental public body.
The report makes a number of recommendations, which the Government broadly accept. In particular, the report recommends the clarification of the Committee’s terms of reference in two respects. First, the Government agree that in future the Committee should not inquire into matters relating to the devolved legislatures and Governments except with the agreement of those bodies. Secondly, the Government understand the Committee’s remit to examine
“standards of conduct of all holders of public office”
as encompassing all those involved in the delivery of public services, not solely those appointed or elected to public office.
The Government note that the report also recommends that the appointment panel for the chair, and ordinary members, should include an MP but exclude members of the Public Administration Select Committee. The Government believe that the inclusion of the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee on the appointment panel for the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life would add valuable expertise to the appointment panel and, provided he then recused himself from any pre-appointment hearing for the new chairman, it would not create any conflict of interest.
The report suggests that the Committee on Standards in Public Life should consult the Chairs of the Public Administration Select Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee when deciding on inquiries, with which the Government agree.
I am grateful for the work of Sir Christopher Kelly over the last five years in his role as Chairman of the Committee. His term in office comes to an end in March and the Cabinet Office will now begin the process of recruiting a new Chairman for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to take these recommendations forward.
Copies of the review report, “The Report of the Triennial Review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life”, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Equitable Life Payment Scheme
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Treasury can confirm that the Equitable Life payment scheme has made £535 million in payments and has paid nearly 80% of eligible individual policyholders. In addition, the scheme has today published a further progress report, which can be found at: http://equitablelifepaymentscheme. independent.gov.uk/.
In the coalition agreement published in May 2010, the Government pledged to
“implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
As of 31 January 2013 the scheme has paid nearly 80% of eligible individual policyholders with 370,867 policyholders receiving payments totalling £535 million. Payments to all the individual policyholders the scheme can trace are on track to be completed by April 2013 as planned.
Following receipt of payment, the scheme has continued to receive low levels of response from policyholders. The vast majority of policyholders continue to cash their warrants without further recourse to the scheme with 0.8% of eligible policyholders having complained to the scheme.
As stated in the last report, there are additional complexities in retrieving the contact details of those policyholders who bought their policy through a group (i.e. company) scheme which mean that payments to these policyholders are in a later phase of the scheme. The scheme has now written to the trustees of all 5,700 eligible company schemes and as a result of this payment to these policyholders will accelerate from April 2013.
The scheme has also confirmed that the estates of 5,760 deceased policyholders have been paid and the process of identifying, tracing and contacting the estates of deceased policyholders continues. As this is an understandably complex area with some cases going back many years, this verification work will continue over the coming months.
The Government are committed to drawing a line under the Equitable Life issue and the scheme remains on track to close as planned in 2014. As part of this closure process the scheme will publish more regular reports with the next one due to be published in early May 2013.
Public Service Pensions (Up-Rating 2013)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Legislation governing public service pensions requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions—state earnings related pension and state second pension. Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 8 April 2013 by 2.2%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2012, except for those public service pensions which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase.
Government Wine Cellar
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I have today placed a copy of the annual statement on the Government wine cellar for the financial year 2011-12 in the Libraries of both Houses.
Following the outcome of the review of the Government hospitality wine cellar announced by the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham)— 13 May 2011, Official Report, column 48WS—this first annual statement meets our commitment that there would be an annual statement to Parliament on the use of the wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money.
The report notes that:
The wine cellar has already moved to a self-funding regime, through the sale of some high-value stock;
Sales of stock amounted to £44,000;
Further funds from other Government Departments added £10,519 to the overall receipts;
Purchases amounted to £48,955;
Highest consumption level by volume was French wine, followed by English wines in second place.
Mental Health (Registered Practitioners and Approved Clinicians)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
In my oral statement on 29 October 2012, Official Report, column 32, I said that I had asked Dr Geoffrey Harris to conduct an independent review into the technical irregularities that had occurred within four strategic health authorities (SHAs)—North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, West Midlands and East Midlands—with regard to the functions of approving registered medical practitioners and approved clinicians under the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, I asked Dr Harris to consider this matter in the context of the new NHS structures that come in to force from April this year in order to identify whether any lessons need to be learned.
Dr Harris has now submitted his report to me. “Independent review of the arrangements made by SHAs for the approval of registered medical practitioners and approved clinicians under the mental Health Act 1983” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
In summary, Dr Harris found that the SHAs involved did not overtly or wittingly delegate the functions concerned. However, he identified two key principles as to how the technically irregular delegation happened. First, the SHAs concerned should have been aware that, where a function has been conferred by statute on a public authority, the public authority may not further delegate the performance of the function to another body unless expressly permitted to do so.
Secondly, the SHAs considered that, because they remained accountable for the functions, the delegation of the operation of the approval arrangements to mental health trusts through contracts was not something that risked legal irregularity. The report sets out the factors that led to this situation in more detail.
In the second part of his review report, Dr Harris recommends that every organisation in the post-April 2013 NHS, including the Department of Health, should undertake a process of due diligence. To guide this process he sets out four key principles:
that there is a clear and secure location of responsibilities across the system and that all organisations taking on transferred functions, and receiving new ones, should have a full understanding of them;
that each organisation is assured that it has the authority to exercise its powers and duties. All of the bodies must be cognisant of the duties and powers conferred upon them by Parliament, or delegated to them by the Secretary of State, and recognise that this provides the essential authorisation for all decision making and action;
that each organisation ensures it has the appropriate capability and capacity to carry out its functions; and
that there should be a process of continuing audit, that is once the functions of the organisations are settled, understood and resourced, that there is periodic audit of their discharge;
Finally, Dr Harris recommends that all bodies should include material in their governance statements for 2012-13 and for all subsequent years, which confirms that any arrangements in place for the discharge of their current statutory functions have been checked for any irregularities, and that they are legally compliant.
I have accepted all of Dr Harris’ recommendations, and will ensure that the Department and the NHS now take these forward.
Judicial Pensions Reform
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
On 17 July 2012, my predecessor informed the House that he had written to the heads of jurisdiction setting out his proposals for reform of judicial pensions, Official Report, column 131WS.
The Government recognise that although there is a longstanding practice that the total remuneration package offered to the judiciary, including pension provision, should not be reduced for serving judges, this forms part of a broader constitutional principle that an independent judiciary must be safeguarded. However, in the particular context of difficult economic circumstances and changes to pension provision across the public sector, we do not consider that the proposed reforms infringe the broader constitutional principle of judicial independence.
Nonetheless we have listened to the concerns of the judges and we have modified our proposals.
The judicial pension scheme will be constituted under the same legislation as will apply to other public service pension schemes. But we now propose to proceed on the basis of a new, stand-alone judicial pension scheme for which the Lord Chancellor would be the responsible authority. The scheme regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. This approach will allow the judges to participate in the governance of their pension arrangements and to have a say in how their pension terms develop in future.
It is proposed that the new scheme will apply to all judges other than those within 10 years of pension age at 1 April 2012; this group (around 75% of judges at 1 April 2012) will continue in their current schemes. Other judges will move into the new scheme for service from 1 April 2015. Those appointed before 1 April 2012, and who were aged between 51½ and 55 at that date, will have the option to defer joining the new scheme until an age-related later date; this “tapering protection” is intended to avoid a cliff-edge in treatment for those who fall just outside the group with full protection. Previous service in any of the current judicial schemes will be fully protected, continuing to be pensioned under the rules of the current scheme but reflecting the individual’s salary on retirement.
In common with the approach applying to other public service pension schemes, the new scheme will be registered with HM Revenue and Customs for tax purposes. Particular concerns have been expressed about the impact on some judges of moving to a tax-registered pension scheme. We understand these concerns and propose to address them by allowing those likely to be most affected the option of a transitional protection allowance in lieu of pension accrual in the new scheme. Eligibility to apply for this allowance will be strictly limited to those serving judges who have had continuous membership of a judicial pension scheme, who have registered their prejudicial pensions for enhanced protection under the Finance Act 2004 or fixed protection under the Finance Act 2011 and who have made no contributions to a tax-registered pension after 5 April 2006 (for those with enhanced protection) or after 5 April 2012 (for those with fixed protection).
The Government will bring forward amendments to the Public Service Pensions Bill as necessary to deliver our amended proposals.
I have today written to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President and, via the judicial intranet, to all judges holding non-devolved office, to inform them of the Government’s revised proposals, including those in respect of transitional protection, and to provide them with further information.
The Government’s view is that the new pension arrangements will continue to provide a good way of saving for retirement and the new judicial pension scheme will remain among the most generous in the public sector.
Communications Data (Intelligence and Security Agencies)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its valuable work and its latest report, entitled “Access to communications data by the intelligence and security Agencies” (Cm 8514). Following consultation with the Committee over matters that could not be published without prejudicing the work of the intelligence and security agencies, I have today laid the report before the House.
Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Driving Test Language Support
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) today launched a consultation on the language support available to candidates taking theory and practical driving tests. The consultation seeks views on whether foreign language voiceovers and interpreters should continue to be provided or whether the statutory driving tests should be conducted only in the national languages (English and, in Wales, English and Welsh).
The reasons for adopting these proposals would be to:
Improve road safety—there is concern about the ability of non-English or Welsh speakers to understand road signs and other advice to drivers.
Enhance social cohesion—to encourage integration in society by learning the national language.
Reduce fraud—to address the problem of an interpreter attending for test with a learner driver and communicating advice beyond a strict translation of the theory test questions or the instructions given by the examiner.
Reduce costs—there will be a small saving to DSA from not paying a fee to the theory test service provider for the annual update of voiceovers.
There are three options for change. These include the removal of all voiceovers and translation services in non-national languages, as well as the retention of some elements of support. Consideration is also given to the option of making no change.
The consultation will run from 5 February to 2 April. The consultation paper is available at the following web address:
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/driving-test-language-support.
Universal Credit
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
I am pleased to announce that later today the Government will publish the Command Paper: “Government’s response to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee’s third report of Session 2012-13—Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants”.
On 22 November 2012 the Work and Pension Select Committee published its third report of Session 2012-13, following its enquiry into the implementation of universal credit and plans for meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants.
The Government welcome the ongoing interest of the Work and Pensions Select Committee in this fundamental reform of welfare provision and delivery. Although the report was not received until after the principal universal credit regulations were near to being finalised, we have carefully monitored the progress of the inquiry and considered the evidence presented to the Committee alongside the policy development and service design for universal credit and will continue to do so.
By removing the barriers and disincentives to work that exist within the current system, universal credit will make sure work pays—especially for those on the lowest incomes, helping people to live independent lives. This will reduce worklessness, and encourage people to take personal responsibility. Work can transform individual lives and society for the better and should be encouraged. It is therefore important that we allow claimants to make the same sorts of decisions as those in work and support people to move towards greater independence.
The Government however recognise the Committee’s concerns about the impact changes to the existing welfare system may have on claimants with complex needs. From the very start of the development of the policy, we have been absolutely clear that we must and will protect the interests of those who are in vulnerable circumstances or will face challenges in dealing with the new system.
The Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report details how we will provide support for vulnerable claimants, including helping with access to the online system and offering alternative channels for those who need it; ensuring personal budgeting support is in place to enable claimants to take financial responsibility and having alternative payment arrangements for those who need them. We have also confirmed our commitment to continuing work with Government Departments and devolved Administrations on how they operate passported benefits both in the short and longer term.
A copy of the Government’s response will also be available later today on the Department for Work and Pensions website at:
www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/policy-publications/.
House of Lords
Taxation: Tax Collection
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have sufficient resources and staff in place for the full collection of tax.
Lord Newby
My Lords, this Government are investing in HMRC so that it will collect £9 billion a year more from its compliance activities by 2014-15 than at the start of this Parliament. The number of HMRC staff in compliance roles fell under the previous Government. Under this Government there will be around 2,500 more staff tackling tax avoidance and evasion.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, given that the Public Accounts Committee found that £1.1 billion was lost to the Treasury by foolishly cutting 3,300 staff from the compliance and enforcement unit of HMRC, can the Minister give us a greater assurance that that folly will not be repeated, especially with the new comprehensive policy that has been announced on offshore tax evasion? Will the Minister say when that will be published, what its focus will be, and whether that, too, will be properly resourced to do the job that is required of it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is important to recognise that the big cut in staff in HMRC took place before 2010. The number of staff fell by 25,000, and 10,000 staff working in compliance roles—that is, the very staff about whom the noble Lord is concerned—were cut during that period. We have added 2,500 staff in that area since we came in and they are generating a very significant amount of additional funding. On international tax evasion and avoidance work, a whole raft of initiatives is under way. There is a new unit within HMRC and we are working very closely with the OECD. I am sure that a number of further announcements in this area will be made during this calendar year.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, the 2010 comprehensive spending review committed HMRC to improving the customer experience. However, in December last year, the National Audit Office concluded that customers were still not getting a good service. For example, last year 20 million calls went unanswered and there was a cost of £33 million in phone charges to customers kept hanging on. Will the Minister say whether HMRC intends to increase staffing and resources to address this problem?
Lord Newby
My Lords, HMRC has a target of answering 90% of calls. It was more than achieved in the third quarter and was certainly a better performance than that achieved in some earlier parts of the year. An example of the challenge that HMRC finds itself facing in this respect is that the number of calls that it gets per day ranges from 86,000 to 3.2 million on a peak day. Either a very small number or a very large number of people phone, and it is unsurprising that on a small number of days it is impossible to reach the 90% target. However, HMRC has put more resource in. It has upgraded the equipment and, as I said, the 90% target has been more than met in the last quarter.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, when he assumed office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer commissioned a study on the creation of a general anti-avoidance regime. The committee that performed that study reported two years ago. When are the Government going to do something about it?
Lord Newby
I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know that the Government are committed to introducing a general anti-abuse rule in this year’s Finance Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, the Government could do with fewer tax inspectors if they simplified the tax system. How are they doing on that?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think everybody agrees that we have a particularly barnacle-encrusted tax system. This Government have set up the Office of Tax Simplification, which has started work in this area. One advantage of the general anti-abuse rule is that once such a rule is in place, it should not be necessary to introduce as much new tax legislation to deal with tax abuse, because the general rule will cover it.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, will the legislation include a definition of aggressive tax avoidance as compared with ordinary tax avoidance?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister help me? I have heard conflicting figures for staffing at HMRC. Can he tell me the figures for the total staffing complement over the past three years, as well as give me the breakdown between individual areas of work?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the staffing level at HMRC fell from about 94,000 to 66,000 under the previous Government. Under the comprehensive spending review, it is due to fall by about another 10,000. While that is happening, there will, as I said, be an increase of about 2,500 for compliance. There will therefore be a shift towards more compliance against a backdrop of a significant change in the way in which people submit tax returns. In 2010 only 42% of corporation tax returns were submitted online, but in 2011-12 that number had increased by 96,000. As I have said before, the number of staff you need to process that kind of activity has fallen considerably because they are no longer dealing with paper returns.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, will my noble friend think again about the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? The noble Lord asked a perfectly simple and straightforward question and it deserves a rather better reply.
Lord Newby
My Lords, my reply would be that the Government are cracking down very hard on tax evasion and tax avoidance. We are putting more resources into this area. We are submitting more cases for prosecution and are having more successful prosecutions. The key question is: what is the outcome on the ground? Are more people who avoid and evade tax being taken to court, and are abusive practices being cracked down on? Yes, they are.
Ministerial Code
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the arrangements for enforcement and monitoring of the Ministerial Code.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of the standards set out in the Ministerial Code.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, now that it has been clearly established that the Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood, totally failed to carry out a full inquiry into the Mitchell affair, by discarding the evidence and in doing so, perpetrating a huge injustice on Andrew Mitchell, the former government Chief Whip, is it not now time to transfer the responsibility for carrying out inquiries into alleged ministerial transgressions from the Cabinet Secretary—indeed, anybody in Downing Street—to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for Commons’ Ministers and to the Commissioner for Standards in the case of Ministers in the House of Lords? Surely we all recognise that all Ministers are Members of Parliament and should be subject to rules set by Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the Cabinet Secretary’s recommendation to the Prime Minister was that the e-mails were unreliable evidence and that Andrew Mitchell should stay in post. In the evidence that he gave to the Public Administration Committee on 10 January, he said:
“My report to the Prime Minister basically said that there were some inconsistencies and inaccuracies between the account in the e-mails and what I could see in the CCTV footage. What was fundamental was the conclusion, which was that you could not rely on these e-mails to terminate Andrew Mitchell’s career”.
What then followed was a continuing press campaign, possibly with others involved, that led to Andrew Mitchell later offering his resignation.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend regard it as really satisfactory that the allegations of misbehaviour by the Metropolitan Police in respect of Mr Andrew Mitchell are being investigated by the Metropolitan Police?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I need to be very careful about commenting on an ongoing police investigation. Given that the investigation is ongoing, I will say that I note the noble Lord’s concern.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, under the Ministerial Code, Ministers are responsible for their special advisers. In the Sunday newspapers there were allegations that the special advisers of the right honourable Michael Gove MP might have been acting improperly. If that were to be the case, what would be the consequences for the Secretary of State?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Baroness will be aware that allegations of this sort arise from time to time. She will remember the case of Damian McBride in the previous Government. On the whole my experience in government is that special advisers work very well with their Ministers, but the Ministerial Code is quite clear that special advisers are appointed by Ministers, subject to the Prime Minister’s approval, and are accountable to their Ministers. If they behave outside their responsibilities, it is their Ministers who should hold them to account.
Lord Grocott
That does not seem to square with what happened in the case of Jeremy Hunt if, as the Minister has just said, Ministers are responsible for the activities of their special advisers. We had a Secretary of State acting in what was described as a quasi-judicial capacity who was clearly and demonstrably sympathetic to one side rather than the other in a very important ministerial decision. Surely it is an odd conclusion that the special adviser should lose his job and the Minister should not only remain in his job but be promoted.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am not fully aware of exactly what happened in that case, and I am fully prepared to write to the noble Lord if I can get some further information. Of course, if special advisers operate beyond what the Minister has asked them to do, they must take responsibility as the Minister requires.
Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, will the Minister address himself to the Question put so succinctly by the noble Lord? Should there not be, outside of government, a way of dealing with complaints against Ministers, which is equal to how Members are dealt with in this House and in the other place?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, at that point we begin to get into fundamental constitutional issues about the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. While preparing for a Question on collective responsibility that will come up next week, it occurred to me that this was something over which we fought a civil war in the 17th century and then had a further revolution in 1689. However, we never quite resolved the question of how far it is the Executive who have independent authority or how far Parliament is able to assert its sovereignty over the Executive.
Lord Elton
Is the Minister aware that Parliament was invented to control government and not to serve it, and therefore that it is perfectly proper for Parliament to have a view on these issues and to try to change them?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is perfectly possible for Parliament to have a view. Having read several recent reports by the Public Administration Committee and the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, I can say that Parliament makes its views felt extremely actively and frequently.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government are considering changes to the Ministerial Code in the light of the Leveson report, or whether they are putting their energies into achieving an agreed code of practice that would apply both to Ministers and the opposition Front Bench, in order to ensure the transparency of future relationships between all leading politicians and senior media executives, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Ministerial Code now makes it clear that Ministers should report their meetings with all interested parties—which clearly includes those covered in this part of the Leveson report concerning media proprietors, newspaper editors and senior executives—so such meetings should be covered by the Ministerial Code.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Ministerial Code in Scotland is so narrow and lax that the First Minister gets away regularly with lying to Parliament—and other transgressions?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I will tell noble Lords about the transgressions later. Seriously, do we have any reserved powers to look at the Ministerial Code in Scotland and tighten it?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not sighted on that supplementary question, but I look forward to the enjoyable evening on which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, tells me about the transgressions that he feels have happened in the Scottish Executive.
Food: Banks
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
My Lords, Ministers meet a wide range of organisations and individuals at locations all over the country. There is no central record of visits to food banks since May 2010 but I can inform noble Lords that, in their official capacities at Defra, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Caroline Spelman both made visits to FareShare in 2011, that my noble friend Lord Taylor and I have both visited FoodCycle, and that I will soon visit FoodCycle again.
Lord Dubs
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the volunteers working in food banks provide an essential support service for people in poverty. Will the Minister comment on the fact that from April there will be savage cuts in the welfare budget, estimated at some £3 billion, which will hit the incomes of the poorest in our society, while at the same time there will be £3 billion-worth of tax handouts for the better off? Do the Government have any contingency plans to provide extra support for the voluntary organisations running food banks so that they will be able to cope with the inevitable extra needs that will be created?
Lord De Mauley
First, I absolutely echo the noble Lord’s welcome for the work done by the volunteers who work in these wonderful charities. We know that families are seeing the price of their weekly shop increase. The impact of food price inflation is a real concern to us. Food prices are affected by global drivers such as world food prices, oil prices and exchange rates. In answer to the noble Lord’s supplementary question, there are several schemes that help people, especially children, get a nutritional diet, including Healthy Start and the school fruit and vegetable scheme.
Baroness Parminter
Will my noble friend outline any plans the Government have to encourage the food industry to divert surplus food to organisations such as FareShare, which help feed local people and contribute to meeting the Government’s target of no food waste going to landfill?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend asks an apposite question. As I have said, we thoroughly support the work of charities such as FareShare and FoodCycle, which work with the food industry to ensure that surplus food is distributed to people who really need it. Defra Ministers held a round-table meeting with retailers and food charities in July to explore the barriers to food redistribution. They also considered an outline proposal from FareShare and FoodCycle that seeks to make redistribution easier for both charities and retailers. This proposal would build on the partnerships that most major retailers already have with redistribution charities.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, does the Minister accept that an increasing number of people who are in work are resorting to food banks? The CAB has identified this as a result of high interest rates combined with low wages and insecure work. In these circumstances, what will the Government do about introducing a living wage?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to help the poorest in our country. That is why, over the past two years, the Government have provided grants of around £2 billion to help freeze council tax; the fuel duty increase that was due to take effect on 1 January was cancelled and the increase planned for 1 April deferred until 1 September; and we have lifted the personal tax allowance and taken 2 million of the lowest-paid people out of tax altogether. It is, of course, why we have the Healthy Start and school fruit and vegetable schemes. It is also good news that on 23 January we learnt that employment is up by 90,000 and that the rate of job growth last year was the fastest since 1989.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister said that the duty of the Government is indeed, as I am sure we would all agree, to help the poorest in the land. Following the Question of my noble friend Lord Dubs, how does the Minister reconcile that statement with the fact that, from April onwards, some of the poorest families in the land, including something like 1 million children, will lose £40 to £60 per week, over time, from their benefits? What estimate has the Minister made of how many of those families will need to go to food banks in order to survive until they get their payment at the end of the month?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, we are straying a little from food banks. The difficult economic situation is having an impact on everyone, including workers, who find their wages either being frozen or increasing only by small amounts. The Government have protected poor and vulnerable groups as far as possible while undertaking the urgent task of tackling the fiscal deficit. Work remains the best and most immediate way out of poverty, and we have continued to prioritise providing the best possible work incentives through welfare reform and increasing the personal allowance.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, food banks are usually used in an emergency to stave off hunger. However, there is a risk that people with no other source of food will become reliant on them, including the 60% of those who use them who are already in work. Will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that welfare reform does not leave families more at risk from hunger?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, we have heard about the increasing reliance on food banks from a number of noble Lords. We know that a quarter of parents put food back when they get to the checkout in the supermarket because they are struggling with rising prices and falling wages, and that the hereditary poor are increasing again. Will the Minister agree to visit a local food bank with me so that we can thank its volunteers together and ask the recipients whether they are in work and what is their view of benefits reform under this Government?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, I shall shortly be visiting FoodCycle. I agree with much of what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Corston
I note, in passing, that FoodCycle is not a food bank. Would the Minister be interested to know that, during the years of the Major Government, my staff in my former constituency of Bristol East never once received a phone call from anyone in work, in floods of tears, because they could not afford food? I gather that now happens routinely on his watch. Will he please tell us not that he is concerned about poor people who do not have enough food, but what he is going to do about it?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness’s first question, we know that these organisations are part of a complex and community-led response to these issues. There is a range of food aid provision, from very small local provision through to national charities working on the redistribution of food. We welcome the actions of all these organisations working locally in the community to help meet local needs. Of course we are concerned about those who need to turn to charities for food, but we should not suggest that the work of such organisations or the need to help and support the most vulnerable in our society is a recent phenomenon. The use of food banks went up 10-fold under the previous Government.
Forestry
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation in this Parliament to establish the Public Forest Estate management body proposed in their response to the Independent Panel on Forestry’s Final Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
My Lords, subject to parliamentary time, the Government will look to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity in order to establish the new independent body to manage the public forest estate and hold it in trust for the nation. I declare an interest as a woodland owner.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I hope the whole House will join me when I thank the Government for the good sense in what they call their “refreshed” forestry policy, when I thank the Independent Panel on Forestry, under the excellent chairmanship of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, and when I congratulate all those people who rallied some two years ago when they felt that their local forests and woods were under threat.
Does the Minister agree that, following the despair and fear there was at that time, there is now hope and expectation about the future of our public forest estate, to be held in trust for ever for the people of this country, and that there is a real enthusiasm for the Government getting on with their new, refreshed forestry policy, certainly during this Parliament?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, we are committed to keeping the public forest in public hands, to maintaining and improving public access to our woodlands, and to increasing woodland cover very substantially over the next 50 years. Everyone has a role to play in managing our woodlands better, as well as in increasing woodland cover. Noble Lords will know that all Governments zealously guard the contents of the Queen’s Speech and these are not divulged in advance. What I will say is that the Government fully intend to do this, and to do it expeditiously.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I, too, join the noble Lord in thanking the Government for their U-turn on forestry, which is very welcome. But it is incumbent upon us now to make sure that the new architecture is right and fit for purpose. I have my doubts as to whether we will see legislation in this Parliament. Therefore, the Forestry Commission is going to have to ensure that the forest estate is kept in a suitable state for it to be handed over to the new body. Bearing in mind the massive cuts that the Forestry Commission has had of late, will the Minister give me an assurance that there will be no further redundancies and cuts in the budget of the Forestry Commission?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, what I will do is confirm that we will support the Forestry Commission to the level required to secure the long-term success of it and its successor. This long-term success includes enabling it to become more financially sustainable through the increased generation of trading income. We have put back £3.5 million into the Forestry Commission’s budget next year specifically to make up for the income that would have come from sales of woodland. We have allocated £2 million to the Forestry Commission to recognise additional pressures arising from Chalara and the importance of implementing the commitments in the IPF response. We will continue to provide funding to ensure that the public can access their public forests and woodland over the remainder of the current spending review period.
Baroness Sharples
Does my noble friend not agree that with four bodies already dealing with forestry, one more is really one too many?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I do not think we are going to have one more, save that we will effectively split the management of the public forest estate away from what Forest Services does.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government’s commitment to keep the public forest estate in public ownership and I salute all those campaigning organisations that did a splendid job in changing the mind of the Government. Like my noble friend, I am concerned about the forest estate as it is now. Recently, Ministers have quietly cut 500 Forestry Commission staff and a quarter of the budget, and the admirable chair of the Forestry Commission has resigned. My noble friend quite rightly asked for an assurance from the Minister that there will be no further cuts in the staff of the Forestry Commission. Will the noble Lord answer that specific question?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we recognise concerns about the future funding of the estate. However, we continue to face very challenging financial circumstances, requiring hard choices to be made across the whole public sector. The Forestry Commission and the public forest estate have had to bear their share of the cuts that we have had to make to bring public spending under control. Nevertheless, we want to ensure that the public forest estate can continue to provide a high level of public benefits. We are therefore carefully considering the estate’s financial needs for the long term. In particular, we want to place it on a secure financial footing for the future by enabling it to generate as much income as possible through its commercial activities without having to resort to unsustainable land sales to make ends meet.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, like my noble friend, I declare an interest as a forestry owner. Does he agree that the present situation, under which the Forestry Commission is my competitor but also my regulator, is intolerable, and will the new arrangement reverse that situation?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Has the Minister ever experienced any conflict of interest by being both a Defra Minister and a woodland owner?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, that it is why forestry is not within my personal policy brief.
Baroness Parminter
Can my noble friend explain why the Government are trying to get rid of tree preservation orders, which was announced as part of the Red Tape Challenge on the same day that they announced their very welcome policy on forestry?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as part of the Red Tape Challenge, tree preservation order regulations have been included on the website. We are not saying that we want to get rid of the regulations or protection for trees. It is a chance for the public to tell us which regulations are working, which are not, which should be scrapped, which should be simplified and what can be done differently.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister please answer in full the question asked by my noble friend Lady Royall?
Statutory Instruments
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Walpole be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of Lord Rees-Mogg.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 19 December 2012 be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January.
Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc. (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 December 2012 be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January.
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That the draft order laid before the House on 19 December 2012 be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
Defamation Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:11 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 1 agreed.
18:05 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 193 - Amendment 2 agreed.
Lord Puttnam
“Arbitration Service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board
(1) The Lord Chief Justice shall establish a Defamation Recognition Commission.
(2) Schedule (Recognition Commission) makes provision relating to the Defamation Recognition Commission.
(3) The Defamation Recognition Commission shall certify bodies as Independent Regulatory Boards in accordance with the criteria in Schedule (Recognition Commission).
(4) An Independent Regulatory Board shall provide a recognised arbitration service as set out in Schedule (Specialist Arbitration Service).
(5) A court shall take into account when awarding costs and damages whether either party, claimant or defendant in a dispute has chosen not to use the recognised arbitration service of an Independent Regulatory Board.
(6) A court shall award costs under subsection (5) on an indemnity basis unless the interests of justice require otherwise.
(7) A court may order a successful party to pay all the costs of proceedings if such party has unreasonably refused to use an available recognised arbitration service.
(8) A court awarding in its judgment exemplary damages where a defendant is guilty of a flagrant breach of a defendants rights, can also take into account whether—
(a) a claimant refused to use a recognised arbitration service;(b) a defendant refused to use or join a recognised arbitration service;(c) the court shall also take into account whether a defendant first sought advice from a recognised Independent Regulatory Board before publication.”
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1, 24 and 25 and associate myself with those tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Hollins.
Four months have passed since the Second Reading of this Bill—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I ask those who are leaving the Chamber to, as a courtesy to the noble Lord, do so quietly.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, four months have passed since Second Reading; two days earlier, on 7 October, the Prime Minister had committed to implement the Leveson recommendations so long as they were not, as he put it, “bonkers”. Since returning from the Christmas Recess, I do not believe myself to be the only Member of your Lordships’ House to have felt a little like the principal characters in Samuel Beckett’s tragicomedy Waiting for Godot. As your Lordships will remember, they came even to contemplate suicide—anything, as they put it,
“to hold the terrible silence at bay”.
These amendments are designed to break that terrible silence.
Like my fellow signatories I was moved to act following the remarkable display of unity mixed with frustration that typified the delayed debate on the Leveson inquiry that was held in your Lordships’ House on Friday, 11 January. This mood was, I felt, brilliantly summed up by my noble friend Lord Alli when he concluded:
“I … say to my fellow Back-Benchers on all sides of the House that leadership … does not always come from … the Front Benches. We, too, have our role to play … this would … be a good time to intervene on timing. If we believe that the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson require action, we on the Back Benches in this place have a … constitutional role to play in making that happen”.
He went on to say:
“There is an onus on us to ensure change. In doing so, we can help to restore trust in the press, in the police and in … Parliament”.—[Official Report, 11/1/13; col. 381.]
He is right, of course. I believe that we, as active Members of this House, have an obligation to act, and to be seen to act, on behalf of victims past, present and future.
I am no lawyer, but my concern to create movement has been enormously buttressed by the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, all of whose exemplary careers and knowledge more than compensate for my legal and constitutional inadequacies.
The Bill before us contains a fatal flaw: it does not deal with the manner in which ordinary citizens will be able to utilise the protection that it offers. The Bill has been drawn up with the help of newspapers, which understandably see the world through their own looking glass. Anyone who reads the Bill as it stands will not find so much as a hint of the fact that we live in a country that has spent much of the past two years debating the fall-out directly attributable to the unaccountable power of newspapers over our public life and over the lives of ordinary citizens. It is almost as if Leveson never happened.
In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, might wish to recall the absurd situation that he and I were placed in 10 years ago when we were asked to scrutinise the then Communications Bill but not to debate or discuss the implications of the emerging digital world. That was pushed safely back into the “too difficult” drawer. We have all looked a little daft ever since. These amendments seek to address those real-world concerns. They put into effect an arbitration system that would allow ordinary people to get redress if they are defamed under the new definitions that we are passing into law within the body of this Bill.
The Bill may deal with some of the perversities of the current libel system, which is largely to be welcomed, and it can be reasonably expected to lead to fewer defamation actions against newspapers. However, for the citizen who has a case in law that suggests they have been wronged by the press, the Bill has absolutely nothing to say about access to justice or the costs of seeking that justice in the courts, all of which is plainly unaffordable except for the very wealthy. After everything that we heard at the Leveson inquiry, the problems of access to justice and to remedies are far too important to be left unresolved. It is fundamental to the issue of balancing the rights of the citizen against the rights of the press; it cannot continue to be overlooked or shoved off to form part of some future piece of legislation.
Fortunately for us, Lord Justice Leveson has already proposed a ready-made and carefully considered solution. The advantage of our simple amendments is that they closely follow those recommendations, which laid out exactly the way in which this system of low-cost arbitration should be introduced to deal with legal disputes involving newspapers. They also have the merit of showing that the arbitration service proposed by Lord Justice Leveson can be put into effect in a remarkably simple and straightforward manner.
After his exhaustive and searching inquiry into the newspapers and their relationship with politicians, Lord Justice Leveson’s written recommendations said that the board, by which he means the new independent self-regulation body to be set up by the newspapers,
“should provide an arbitral process in relation to civil legal claims against subscribers, drawing on independent legal experts of high reputation and ability on a cost-only basis to the subscribing member. The process should be fair, quick and inexpensive, inquisitorial and free for complainants to use (save for a power to make an adverse order for the costs of the arbitrator if proceedings are frivolous or vexatious). The arbitrator must have the power to hold hearings where necessary but, equally, to dispense with them where it is not necessary. The process must have a system to allow frivolous or vexatious claims to be struck out at an early stage”.
That is the system that these amendments seek to put into effect. It also happens to be the system for which the newspapers have shown broad support, and it closely resembles the system welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who is holding the national newspapers’ negotiations with the Government. In his evidence to the Leveson inquiry, the noble Lord said:
“It could prove extremely valuable to the UK system of self-regulation if such a provision could be inserted as an amendment to the current government Bill”.
He went on to say:
“I do not believe this in any way crosses a ‘red line’ for those of us who have serious qualms about a statutory regulator”.
The newspapers also know only too well that an arbitration service could save them collectively hundreds of millions of pounds a year in legal costs.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment to Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, because it is urgent to establish an effective, affordable and independent route for resolving claims of defamation. In doing so, I declare an interest as chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Unlike my noble friend Lady Hollins, who also brings the expertise of experience of intrusion and defamation to this debate, I bring only a track record of speaking and writing on the conflict between rights to freedom of expression and other rights, including the right to reputation.
I do not think that it is a matter of dispute that we need a cheap and effective way of resolving claims of defamation. However, the mechanism for resolving such claims needs also to be fair, and that means that it has to be independent not only of the interests of both parties but also of the Government. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to achieve that. I think that this amendment to the amendment would do so rather more effectively; it is at least more explicit, which enables your Lordships to consider what it would actually take to achieve independence in this matter.
Both amendments build on Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal to create an independent recognition commission that will validate the standards to which any voluntary regulatory body for the media works. Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal is, as we all recognise, ingenious because it offers a way of retaining media self-regulation while requiring that self-regulation to meet adequate standards of fairness and independence as certified by a recognition body. The amendment sets out incentives for media organisations to participate in a voluntary regulatory body—it will be much cheaper for them if that body is recognised by an independent recognition body—and it also sets out incentives for claimants to use the arbitration service. Again, it will be cheaper and quicker.
The complaints system run by the PCC—or should I perhaps say the former PCC?—was in many ways cheap to use, but it had a range of deficiencies, which have been much discussed in your Lordships’ House and in Lord Justice Leveson’s report, and it lacked that crucial form of independence. I do not think that we should pass a defamation Bill that fails to address these fundamental defects. The connections between intrusion and defamation are too close for us simply to overlook them.
The detail of these amendments and of Schedule 17 is complex, although they have been much discussed by those with the relevant drafting expertise. I do not think we are likely to come much closer to satisfying the requirements of all parties. I hope very much that the Minister can indicate that the Government will accept these amendments or at least can indicate that their fundamental purpose will be secured by government amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
One can see why the other place was so well regulated.
It is essential for the three main political parties to reach agreement on what needs to be done to give effect to the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s inquiry. If these amendments are designed to put pressure on the coalition Government to achieve that aim, they are most welcome. But if they are intended to become part of this Bill, then I cannot support them, despite the great authority of their supporters, including a former Lord Chancellor, a former Attorney-General, and my old friend and Cork neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I am not aware that he took much part in the earlier deliberations on the Defamation Bill, and most of what he said about the Bill is wrong, but I am not going to go into the details now because I do not think it is relevant. The Government have done a great deal to secure a Bill that balances reputation and free expression, tries to deal with the abuses of costs, procedural rules, downscaling and so on and so forth. It is not a Bill, as the noble Lord suggested, that has been written by the newspaper industry. In its original form, it was written by me, and I made quite sure that the original Bill and the Government’s draft Bill were not like that at all. That is not relevant to what we are now considering.
I made clear during the debate on Leveson that I support statutory underpinning to make press self-regulation effective and that my little Bill is intended to do that. I shall, if necessary, introduce a Bill on those lines in the next Session, no doubt improved by this debate. I want to make it clear that I have strong objections to excessive statutory intervention, including the use of exemplary damages as a sanction, which was twice rejected by the previous Labour Government as punitive, but which the draft Bill put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for some reason includes. The sanction of exemplary damages is likely to be in breach of the convention right to freedom of expression, especially when read with the coercive amendment punishing publishers who fail to seek clearance pre-publication from a statutory regulatory board. During the Leveson debate, I pointed out that Mr Justice Eady had set out in detail in his judgment in the Mosley case,
“why it would be wrong in principle and a violation of free speech to extend exemplary damages”.—[Official Report, 11/1/13; col. 374.]
That was the position of the previous Labour Government.
The concept of pre-clearance and punitive damages was also rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 10 May 2011 in the Max Mosley case, in which I intervened for Guardian Newspapers. The European Court decided in paragraph 129:
“Although punitive fines or criminal sanctions could be effective in encouraging compliance with any pre-notification requirement, the Court considers that these would run the risk of being incompatible with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention … It is satisfied that the threat of criminal sanctions or punitive fines would create a chilling effect which would be felt in the spheres of political reporting and investigative journalism, both of which attract a high level of protection under the Convention”.
The Leveson inquiry was concerned with serious press misconduct involving gross media intrusions on personal privacy. The Bill before the House is, as its Long Title makes clear, a Bill to amend the law of defamation. It is not a Bill to amend the law of privacy. These amendments would stretch the scope of the Bill beyond its object and purpose by referring to what is described as,
“defamation and related civil claims”,
to include, apparently, violations of personal privacy. They cannot do so, and therefore do not address the central concerns of the Leveson report, but seek to use this Bill as a vehicle which was designed for a very different journey.
Leveson recommended an arbitral process in relation to civil legal claims that, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, would be,
“fair, quick and inexpensive, inquisitorial and free for complainants to use … The arbitrator must have the power to hold hearings where necessary but, equally, to dispense with them where it is not necessary”.
It would seem that Sir Brian Leveson did not consider whether what he proposed would be compatible with Articles 6 or 10 of the convention. It is unclear whether the movers of these amendments intend Part One of the Arbitration Act to apply. It is also unclear whether they intend the arbitration arrangements to be voluntary and entered into freely. Apparently they do not intend that, and the amendments are silent on these crucial issues.
Article 6 of the convention guarantees a fair and public hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. In Paul Stretford v Football Association—where the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, appeared for the FA—the Court of Appeal examined the relationship between an arbitration agreement and Article 6 of the convention. The Court of Appeal considered that the provisions of the Arbitration Act were important in the context of Article 6, because the Arbitration Act, unlike these amendments, provides for a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, and its mandatory provisions ensure that the High Court has the power to put right any want of impartiality or procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal noted that the Strasbourg jurisprudence has made it clear that the arbitration agreement must be voluntary and not compulsory. It said:
“By compulsory in this context is meant required by law”.
The scheme envisaged by these amendments is inquisitorial and not adversarial. It is not a voluntary scheme because of the threat of exemplary damages for failure to use a recognised arbitration service. The arbitrator does not satisfy the requirements of judicial process by an independent court or tribunal established by law. The arbitrator can dispense with hearings in his or her discretion. There is no right of appeal to an independent court or tribunal and the process is free for complainants but to be paid for by the press. In my view, such a scheme would be incompatible with Articles 6 and 10 of the convention. It would result in complex legal disputes.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I was going to say “Mr Speaker”, but I will not. I do not intend to follow entirely all the points made by my noble friend Lord Lester, but I agree with him that this does not entirely give effect to the Leveson report, and nor could it, given the confines of the Defamation Bill. The amendments do not deal with the complaints process or, more to the point, the way in which any complaints process is periodically verified. On the other side, it does not set down a legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press.
The questions are whether the amendment can be seen as a building block in implementing Leveson—a kind of stalking horse, although perhaps we have enough stalking horses flocking around just at this moment—and whether it deals with some of the evils or disadvantages, one in particular, that Lord Justice Leveson exposed. My noble friend Lord Lester obviously prefers the solution of his own Private Member’s Bill. I do not entirely disagree. I think it would be an excellent Bill. I just think that the chances of it being passed are practically zero, so I do not regard it as a realistic option. If we reject this proposal, I do not think that the Government are going suddenly to fall over and say, “Well, Lord Lester, you can go ahead now with your Private Member’s Bill and we will put all our effort behind it”. I just do not think that that is realistic. The answer is that this Bill gives many of the advantages that we want.
One of the long-standing complaints about dealings with the press is that a serious complaint to the editor fails, as it often does, and then the only option is legal action. But most of us would take the view that a libel would have to be absolutely fundamental to persuade us to take legal action. The outcome is far too uncertain and the cost is only too certain. That is why legal action is all too often seen as a remedy open only to the rich.
Lord Justice Leveson considered this question and set out quite clearly his view at paragraph 66 of the summary. He said that there was a “need for incentives” to persuade publishers to join the new procedure but that, in addition, there was a need for,
“the equally important imperative of providing an improved route to justice for individuals”.
That had led him,
“to recommend the provision of an arbitration service that is recognised and could be taken into account by the courts as an essential component of the system, not (as suggested by Lord Black) simply something that could be added at a later date”.
He said that it was “an essential component”. That is precisely what it is.
Also, the amendment clearly puts the intention into practice. I do not intend to go into all the detail of it, some of which can doubtless be improved, including by meeting some of the points about drafting made by my noble friend. We can come to those. The important thing is that the principle has been recognised, and the amendment gives us the opportunity to vote on this matter and serve notice on the Government that this is one of the areas where we want progress.
There are two other reasons in favour of the amendment. First, the Leveson report was published at the end of November. Since then, we have waited and waited for action, but, instead, some newspapers, sensing a weakness of intent, have continued to attack Leveson in the most lurid and extreme manner, and often quite inaccurately. Perhaps I may quote from this morning’s Sun editorial, commenting on the Chris Huhne case. It states:
“Those urging a Leveson law to muzzle the Press should reflect hard on yesterday’s … events”,
and adds, “No wonder” the Deputy Prime Minister,
“backs a law to silence newspapers”.
The Sun goes on to say that,
“in the post-Leveson climate, many at Westminster want papers stopped from investigating scandals like this”.
One wonders who these “many” people are. Frankly, I do not know of any people who want to muzzle the press and prevent the exposure of scandals. While I think it is the biggest nonsense to propose that that is the case, I also think that people want some redress when they are the victims of injustice. That is what the public actually want.
I very much hope that by passing the amendment, which would set up an arbitration service, as proposed by Leveson, it would at once establish the truth of Leveson—that it is to the benefit of the public, and as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, to the benefit of the press. Indeed, the amendment is quite obviously to the benefit of the press. In other words, it inserts truth for the kind of smears that we have been all too used to over the past months.
The second reason why I support the amendment is because the present way of dealing with the Leveson proposals is woefully inadequate. It has brought nothing forward, although everyone at the time said how urgent it was to make progress. The process itself is open to severe objection. In paragraph 84 of Leveson’s report, he says,
“The suggestions that I have made in the direction of greater transparency about meetings and contacts should be considered not just as a future project but as an immediate need, not least in relation to interactions relevant to any consideration of this Report”.
“Greater transparency” is not exactly how I would describe what has been happening over the past two and a half months since Leveson reported. We hear mutterings about a royal charter, but there has been no attempt whatever to engage the public or, for that matter, very many politicians in this discussion. Doubtless, a magic circle of them has been engaged, while the press itself shows an almost total lack of inquisitiveness about what is going on. It is such a contrast to what happens in almost every other area where the press is for ever trying to find out what is going on. In this case, it does not seem to be trying to find out what is going on at all.
I say simply to my own Front Bench that in the circumstances of this “news blackout”, with no assurance that the Government intend to act sensibly, I can see no objection whatever to this House suggesting to the Commons a sensible path that I think would have the support of the public. The amendment is good for the press. Above all, it is good for the public, and I support it.
Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, I spoke in the debate on the Leveson report, so I shall certainly not weary the House this afternoon. Let me start by saying that I take no pleasure in what has befallen the newspaper industry in the past few years. I am sure that no one wants to see journalists facing criminal charges, but who among us is proud of the way in which newspapers are now perceived? I believe that the amendments before us would help the newspaper industry to re-establish itself as that trusted investigator it once was, bringing the news to the nation fearlessly and accurately and holding us all to account.
I said in my speech during the Leveson debate that many of the transgressions happened because of the culture of some newspapers whereby they grew to believe that they were untouchable. It is that culture that must be changed. It can be done with the establishment of a new complaints procedure for the public which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, touched on, allows problems and issues with the press to be nipped in the bud at an early stage and dealt with.
We need a system that allows the citizen to raise their complaint in a low-cost and non-adversarial way. Newspapers must be required to meet and hear those with appropriate complaints against them. A robust arbitration service will, I am sure, help to change the culture of newspaper reporting and improve on the current mentality that everything and everyone is fair game for them.
This Government and all previous Governments over the past 60 years should have taken action and never did. Yet after seven royal commissions or parliamentary inquiries and the spending of a lot of public money, it will no longer suffice to be told that there will be an announcement “tomorrow”. It reminds me of the very famous line in “Gone with the Wind”: “Tomorrow is another day”. We have run out of tomorrows— tomorrow never comes.
It is today that we have to deal with, and it is today that your Lordships must take action. This House must step forward and help our leaders to take the action that they themselves have found difficult. Passing these amendments now does not prevent the Government improving on them should they choose to do so—as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, they are a sort of building block—but the amendments say quite clearly that time has run out and we must take action this very day. I hope that the House will support them.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, for those of us who were involved in the Committee stage of the Defamation Bill, this is a surprising and exciting development on what might have been regarded as some of the more dry amendments that were then before the House. However, it is important—I declare an interest as a practising barrister with some experience of the law of defamation—that we bear in mind that this is an amendment to the Defamation Bill. It should not be thought that all claims by those who say they have been defamed result in full-scale trials. Thanks largely to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the Civil Procedure Rules, and to initiatives by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, by way of protocols, much has been done to improve the way defamation actions are heard.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, as an expert by experience of press abuse, I consulted Hacked Off, the charity that has represented many victims of such abuse, and asked its views of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. There is widespread frustration about the lack of transparency and presumed lack of progress on implementing Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. Given this, Hacked Off is extremely grateful for the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. However, its advice to me was that, as they stand, the amendments appear a somewhat diluted version of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. The amendments that I and my noble friend tabled are offered in the spirit of trying to be as faithful to Lord Justice Leveson as possible and thus to command wider support.
Many victims fear that a deal is being brokered with the press behind closed doors, one that does not include the independent element that Lord Justice Leveson considered so important. Hacked Off’s advice was that the characteristics of the regulator need to be detailed enough so that implementation of Lord Justice Leveson’s criteria is not fudged. Interestingly, most of the draft Bills already published spell out the criteria in some detail.
The public expect the Leveson report implemented as published. They expect robust arrangements to be put in place. They also expect an independent regulatory board to be set up that that will provide an arbitration service, and that these measures will provide protection for innocent members of the public, both with respect to defamation and intrusion. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and accept that some further amendment of the detail may be needed.
Lord Skidelsky
My Lords, I have only one point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that these amendments in effect introduce Leveson by the back door into a Bill dealing with other matters. To my mind, that is an important merit of the Bill because we are unlikely to get Leveson through the front door. I particularly emphasise the point that these amendments are the best chance we have of getting the Leveson proposals implemented in their full integrity. The amendments are about access to justice. They would put in place two fundamental elements of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals, namely means of legal redress for ordinary people if their rights are breached and a fair and independent system to deal with complaints against the press. I doubt whether those who support these fundamental elements will get another chance, or at least as good a chance as now exists, to have these principles embodied in law. The private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will not afford the same chance, for reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. If we fail to take advantage of this opportunity, we will in effect kick Leveson into the long grass. The amendments would make the Defamation Bill relevant to the entire population instead of just to the rich, and it is vital that we support them.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
At Second Reading, I devoted most of what I said to the issue of access to justice. I take my hat off to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his supporters, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve and Lady Hollins, for concentrating on the huge lacuna in this Bill and in the law of defamation generally. Let no one be under any misapprehension as to how unjust our law of defamation is. I speak as one solicitor—long in the tooth, it must be said—who has dealt over the years with defamation, from time to time. It is a scandal how much it is a plaything of the rich, completely beyond access by people of even ordinary means. So I am wholly emotionally in favour of what is intended by this set of amendments and the schedules.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who never speaks with less than authority. At first hearing, I am not sure how all the points that he made would impact, but I accept at large what he has said. One has to hope that my noble friend Lord Fowler is correct, and that if we pass this set of amendments today the defects in them can be rectified either at Third Reading in this place or in the House of Commons or when it comes back to us. I am convinced that to leave this for another day would not be responsible of us—as the last speaker said. We must take the chance that we now have, defective though the amendment may be.
I add only one detailed point. My noble friend Lord Lester said that he was wholly opposed to the notion of exemplary damages pretty well willy-nilly. At least subsection (8) of Amendment 1 talks about exemplary damages for,
“a flagrant breach of … rights”,
of the claimant. Given the sensitivity of the relationship between the press and the citizenry, it might be an acceptable use of what is generally not desirable—exemplary damages, or the concept of it—in respect of a “flagrant breach”. Incidentally, subsection (8) of the amendment has in it a serious misprint. It talks about breach of a defendant’s rights when it should refer to a claimant’s right. That is but one of several matters that could and, I hope, will be improved in the course of this Bill through the two Houses. On that basis, I am in favour of the amendments going through.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, first, I apologise that I was not in Grand Committee when the Bill was going through. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, always speaks with great authority on human rights and the conventions, but I would have thought that this was not the Third Reading of the Bill. If it were, we would be coming to the end of the game. This is Report, so the noble Lord, Lord Lester, might put right the defects in the amendments so that when the Bill comes back at Third Reading it will be amended. So that argument does not hold water.
In the end, it is to do with trust. If trust is absent, what do you do? We all want to trust our newspapers, but what happens when there is no trust? The amendment proposes an:
“Arbitration Service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board”.
Because it is to do, first of all, with a question of arbitration, I am attracted to it. I am attracted to it because the preacher from Galilee said that, if you have a dispute with your neighbour, it is better to try to settle it before you go to court, because when you go to court you may find yourself being given such a stiff sentence that you end up losing doubly. Therefore, I am attracted by the whole question of arbitration. The courts, of course, can look at whether the parties were willing or unwilling to engage in arbitration. If a person has been wronged and another person does not think that is the case, arbitration obliges them to have a conversation. It seems to me that we should accept Amendment 1 at this stage. Then the Government can perhaps suggest alterations to it. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is always very assiduous in correcting things that are not well put. Perhaps he can suggest alterations to the amendment.
I am not persuaded by the part of the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Hollins, which seeks to delete subsections (5) to (7) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 1, although I may be persuaded by other parts of their amendment. Those subsections are very important. They set out what needs to happen. Therefore, I urge your Lordships’ House to pause and consider whether we really think that only the rich ought to have recourse to a remedy in defamation cases. The ordinary citizen could find redress very easily and quickly through arbitration. The press ought to welcome arbitration because it would cost far less than an elaborate court case, which may collapse in the end after a lot of costs have been incurred. When there is no trust, what do you do? You want to be in a position to rectify your situation. For those reasons, I support Amendment 1 and resist deleting proposed new subsections (5) to (7) from it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I always listen with care when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speaking about human rights because of his great experience and his important role in our nation in arguing for human rights. However, I take issue with his interpretation of Article 6 and the statement that any kind of arbitration in this field would in some way contravene that article. The whole purpose of human rights is to empower the weak and to recognise the ways in which due process can often disadvantage those who have no money. The purpose of arbitration in this context is not simply to speed things up or to move things along. Much of our arbitration concerns two parties coming together to try to find a smoother way to deal with something, but in this context the purpose of arbitration is to redress the fact that our current system disadvantages whole tracts of people who cannot afford to go to litigation at all. I think you would find that the courts would not accept the literal interpretation of this concept on the part of some of our colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also said that this provision would be a contravention of human rights. I think you would find that the courts would take a very different view.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful for that but I think the noble Baroness does not understand what I was saying, which is my fault. I was saying that the Arbitration Act is a perfectly fair way of tackling this issue but these amendments do not give effect to that Act and a right of appeal. If they did so, it would be quite a different matter. I was trying to explain why they do not. For that reason, they violate Article 6 as well as Article 8.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance and executive director of the Telegraph Media Group. I have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He and I have made common cause on a number of things over the years. However, we rarely agree on issues of regulation and I am afraid that I will not disappoint him today because I believe that what he is proposing is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for this House to intervene statutorily in press regulation and to deliver an arbitration service. Actually, it would be counterproductive and set back the delivery of the arbitration system which is currently being worked on.
As noble Lords will know—my noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned it just now—I have been working with my noble friend Lord Hunt and others to build a new independent regulator with tough powers backed by the force of contract law. An arbitration system is a central part of that, and it is important that I explain how it would fit in, not least in dealing with the news blackout that my noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned.
Lord Black of Brentwood
It is going to happen, and my lawnmower is out in force already. Media lawyers from across the industry are working flat out to establish a scheme that will be good for the public but not an intolerable burden on the regional press in particular. Crucially, we have to find a scheme that will not simply be a new cash cow for claims farmers. The scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, does not address the legitimate concerns—of the regional press in particular—about the problems that might be unleashed. Therefore, there is more work to do but excellent progress has been made.
What would stop it dead in its tracks is any attempt to establish a scheme by statute. There would be little point in a regulator setting up a scheme and the industry funding it if it were simply to compete with other bodies. If this amendment is agreed today, work will be likely to stop tomorrow because of the potential for what is in effect regulatory chaos. There is nothing in the scheme proposed by the noble Lord to stop the proliferation of a number of statutory regulatory bodies with different functions, codes, arbitration schemes and so on, and so it raises the potential for competition between regulators.
The truth is that no such statutory intervention will be necessary to set up a scheme that will be of real benefit to the public. We are clear that it can be delivered under the Arbitration Act 1996, which requires arbitrators to be impartial, to act fairly, to have rights of appeal and so on.
Legislating in this way is fraught with difficulties, as well as being unnecessary. As I have already said, it is a recipe for regulatory chaos. There is a danger of dragging senior members of the judiciary and the Civil Service Commissioners into matters of public controversy, and that would be highly undesirable. There are also serious concerns about whether such a compulsory scheme would be compliant with Article 6 of the ECHR, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said.
This is an excellent Bill but it is a liberalising measure designed to secure freedom of expression as well as protect the rights of the public. It therefore seems deeply ironic that what is being proposed is the introduction of a system of statutory supervision—press regulation—with the massive constitutional implications that that would bring. I regret to say that I believe the amendments are ill thought through, misguided and likely to prove unworkable. The most important point is that it would stall the initiative by the newspaper industry, which wants to deliver real change that will be of lasting benefit to the public. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord or anyone wants, so I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Black, who did not take part in our debate on Lord Justice Leveson’s report because he was abroad. I spoke in that debate and remind the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, that my main point was about the system that has existed very successfully for some years in Ireland, where many of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson for the United Kingdom have been implemented simply and with no regulatory competition. That was done in the session of the Dáil in 2008-09 by inserting a clause into the Irish defamation Bill—a process that is very similar to the one being proposed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam this afternoon. I explained it on the occasion of the previous Bill and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I shall not weary the House by going over all the details of the Irish situation again as those interested in this topic are already very familiar with them. Let it be said that the regulations are very similar to those proposed by Lord Justice Leveson and, indeed, the most important thing from the point of view of those seeking redress for press complaint is that the guiding notes say that the system is open and free to any citizen, dependent simply on the price of a letter or sending an e-mail. I am very happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, how fascinated I have been by this debate. As one of the proposers of the amendment, it is only appropriate that I speak now. I very much regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is unable to be in his place. I had the advantage of speaking to him this morning and he is clear that he wholeheartedly supports the amendment. I had intended, after his erudite and elucidating speech, to simply say that I agree.
However, the importance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, cannot be understated. He said that the amendments were unnecessary because we would have a system in due course that would suffice. That is a bit like one of the saints saying, “Make me chaste, Lord, but not yet”. We have been waiting for some 65 years for redress. One of the reasons why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is so concerned about taking this opportunity is because, as many of your Lordships will know, in 1993, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee, he suggested that we should have an arbitration system to give redress to the poor, to the needy and to those who would have no redress but for the creation of such a service. We have lived with inequality and inequity for a great number of years. Our House and the other place have regularly been asked to redress that wrong—that mischief that we have spoken about so clearly today.
We have an opportunity to choose, if we wish, to redress that balance. The noble Lord, Lord Black, said that the matter is not being kicked into the long grass. Well, if this is not long, I do not want to see short. We know that we have to grasp this opportunity if we wish to see change. The amendments in this group are not perfect; none of the noble Lords who tabled them suggests that they are. However, they are a vehicle that we can use with great efficiency and energy to enable the Government to be clear that we wish to see this redress.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly pointed out a number of issues. I say to him that there are a number of things on which perhaps I do not agree with him. For instance, on the back of the Bill it states that the Bill—Clause 3 et cetera—does not refer to Scotland. There are lots of things that we need to debate.
We are faced with a choice. The people of this country have been thirsting for change. Do we take this opportunity to slake their thirst or do we say, “No, you must wait even longer.”? I urge the House to give the other place and the Government the encouragement they so clearly need. It is an opportunity—and if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would like to grasp it, there will be no one happier than we on these Benches.
When we debated amendments on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, as it then was, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, assured us that:
“The Defamation Bill and the procedural reforms that we intend to take forward with it are of course about reducing the complexity and therefore the expense involved. In order for those aims to be achieved, we will look at the rules on costs protection for defamation and privacy proceedings for when the defamation reforms come into effect”.—[Official Report, 27/3/12; col. 1332.]
The vehicle that the noble Lord identified was this Bill.
There is a lacuna because, for one reason or another, the Government have not been able to take advantage of that opportunity. Let us, with the generosity of spirit for which this House is renowned, give them that opportunity today. I will vote in favour of my noble friend’s amendment if he is minded to press it, and I hope that the whole House will join us.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, I will interject on behalf of communities that, for lack of resources, have not been able to resist wholesale defamation. I speak about Islamophobia and the way in which it was fuelled because certain young men did something that was considered evil by the total Islamic community. However, for weeks we had “Muslims” as a category identified as terrorists and potential murderers. I would certainly have been willing to take them to court if I had had the resources. Undermining minority rights is simply not acceptable. Therefore, I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, I did not want to pre-empt any other Back-Bench contributions. I declare my interest as the independent chair of the Press Complaints Commission, and my other interests that are set out in the Register.
When we debated the Leveson report on 11 January, I reported to the House that I was confident that I could deliver a fresh start and a new body with teeth,
“with comprehensive sign-up right across the newspaper and magazine industry by the middle of this year”.—[Official Report, 11/1/13; col. 386.]
To those who are worried about perceived delay, that is still my intention—and I will deliver on my pledge.
I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the contributions made so far today. Those of us who have turned every page of Lord Justice Leveson’s report will remember that on 25 November, on the day of publication, I welcomed the report and said that I would now ensure that the new regulatory body would be Leveson-compliant. That is my position today. However, I sense and feel the frustration that it was as long ago as July 2011 when the leaders of all three main political parties said that the PCC must go, a new body must be set up and a new regulatory system established, and that it is now two months since the Leveson report was published.
Lord Puttnam
I would make one point to the noble Lord, because I think that he is picking unnecessarily at what I said. He was clear that he believes himself to be an independent chair. He is not an independent chair. He is an appointed chair, appointed on the basis of his rejection of statutory regulation. That is the position that he comes from. He is an extremely persuasive speaker, but it is very important that he does not claim independence. He is not in any sense recognised by the House as independent on this issue.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I just point out that when I applied for this post, I asked a noble and learned judge what independence meant, because I was concerned about the fact that I would be appointed by the industry. My noble and learned colleague from the judiciary said, “Don’t worry about that. The House of Lords will judge whether you are independent or not”. So I place myself in the hands of my noble colleagues. You will have to decide. I think that the test is whether someone is of independent mind. I think that it is essential that whatever structure is created, the majority of people who administer and are responsible for the new system are people of independent mind.
There is no straightforward definition of that. The point that I made in my submission to the inquiry was that the Republic of Ireland had a voluntary self-regulatory system established some years earlier. It was only after it had proved itself that it was incorporated into the Defamation Act in 2009. That matters, because what Lord Justice Leveson called for was a body that was clearly proven to be independent-run.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I hesitate to get into the detail of this and do not wish to weary the House, but surely the point made by the noble Lord a few minutes ago about what I said about Ireland is that the legal recognition of the system—indeed operated by the industry—is precisely what he is asking for and what Lord Justice Leveson was asking for. Presumably, had the Irish community and the Irish Government felt that it was adequate, there would have been no need for the legal underpinning. It was to reinforce the industry-owned arrangements that the legal underpinning was established.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
The noble Baroness is quite right. I have spoken many times to Professor Horgan and to the Irish press council. Much of what I am seeking to introduce in the new Leveson-compliant body will follow the lessons learnt in the Republic of Ireland. All that I was seeking to point out to Lord Justice Leveson was that as soon as you go down any statutory route, which requires a Bill—I added this after I had made my comment about the Defamation Bill—you would be opening Pandora’s box. I suppose that the proof of that is the revised Marshalled List of amendments, because we are now getting into quite complicated territory.
I think that the way forward is, yes, to hear from the Government what has been happening in these three areas—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but—
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, this is Report, and the noble Lord has had his say.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Is my noble friend Lord Hunt saying that he would oppose any form of statutory underpinning, even my little Bill? Is that his position?
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Not at all, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for enabling me to clarify the position. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was quite right to say that I referred to a possible amendment to the Bill. However, I was talking not about this Pandora’s box but about the recognition of a code, just as we recognise codes in the Data Protection Act. We recognise codes in statute and I can see that there is a place for that.
In conclusion, where do we go from here? It is very important that this House should not start imposing detailed, prescriptive clauses that are not in Lord Justice Leveson’s report. His wish was to see an independent regulatory body established.
I will just mention that it will not have escaped the notice of the House that another important debate is taking place at this very moment in another place. The two debates may seem to have nothing at all in common, except of course that they have the same Secretary of State, but I believe they are both important because both have significance far beyond their obvious and immediate import. Both debates are about the proper role of the state. In both cases, the world is watching to see what sort of country we want to be. Will we assert our belief as free citizens and organisations taking greater responsibility for our own lives and actions, and our support for freedom, diversity and fair and equal treatment before the law?
I ask your Lordships to consider those key points because the alternative is that the state should have an even greater role, both compulsive and compulsory, in arbitrating over what is an acceptable form of expression and what is not. Before I had the honour of joining your Lordships’ House, I was in another place for 21 years and I learnt at first hand how frustrating it was when the will of this House conflicted with that of the other place. However, I quickly learnt to respect the judgment and special qualities of this House. Time and time again, this House has demonstrated the virtues of experience, tempering partisanship and hotheadedness that sometimes characterise another place with the calm consideration and wisdom that reign here. I just hope that noble Lords will follow the same path today because freedom of expression is too important, too precious and too hard won to be legislated upon in haste or in anger. I want to hear from the Minister as to the way forward that the three political parties wish to take. A solution is well within our grasp; let us get ahead, but not this way.
Lord Elton
My Lords, before we come to the Front Bench speeches, may I ask for some help for lay Members of the House and point to an opportunity? An enormous amount rides upon my noble friend’s very convincing and confident undertaking to deliver an acceptable and effective solution by the middle of this year. Many others have had that ambition and failed; there is a danger that he may fail. It seems we would then have a situation where nothing can be done for a very long time. The Minister would be giving a great help to the House if, between now and making his speech, he could get clearance for an undertaking that if a satisfactory solution is not arrived at by the end of this year, or indeed by its middle, then legislative time should be brought in so that we can have a statutory system instead—and not wait to extend the 67 years into three quarters of a century.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, today’s excellent debate has strong echoes of the occasion on which we first received the Leveson report. Your Lordships may recall that on that occasion we had to have two Statements; one was given by the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who said that he was speaking for the Government, and the other was given by, let us say, another government Minister—did we are discover in what capacity it was that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was speaking? The point is that on that occasion, all three major parties claimed to be supporting what Lord Justice Leveson was recommending. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said,
“Lord Justice Leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organised by the media. He details the key requirements that an independent self-regulatory body should meet, including: independence of appointments and funding; a standards code; an arbitration service; and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power to demand upfront apologies and impose million-pound fines. These are the Leveson principles. They are the central recommendations of the report. If they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims, and a step-change in the way the press is regulated in our country. I accept these principles and I hope the whole House will come behind them”.—[Official Report, 29/11/12; col. 340.]
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, obviously quoting his leader, said:
“I have always said that I would support Lord Justice Leveson’s reforms, providing they are proportionate and workable … I believe that to be the case for the report’s core proposal for a tougher system of self-regulation, supported by new, independent checks, recognised in law”.—[Official Report, 29/11/12; col. 351.]
The other groups in your Lordships’ House were equally supportive. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam reminded us, that remained the situation when we had our extended debate on the report on Friday 11 January. Since the original publication of the report, the parties have been engaged in tripartite talks that have been ongoing for about two months. However, we hear that the pace of these has slowed down considerably in recent weeks, with the most recent scheduled meeting being cancelled by the Government and offers to meet and resume talks in the light of today’s amendments being rebuffed. It is worth recalling that when we entered the cross-party talks, we set the Government a deadline of the end of January to publish Leveson-compliant measures. It is noticeable that the Government have so far been unable to publish their proposals, although we know that they include at least one draft royal charter and some statutory underpinning.
At the heart of today’s debate is the question of whether we have independent self-regulation backed by law. We need statute because the current system of self-regulation has failed year after year for 70 years, and despite seven major reports. Trust, as the most reverend Primate said, is in short supply here—something has to happen. Lord Justice Leveson proposes a framework that provides for the continuation of self-regulation by the press but with a legal guarantee that self-regulation will be effective and independent and will continue to meet high standards. The role of the law, the legal underpinning, would be limited to setting up a body whose task would be to recognise the self-regulated system and to check it once every three years. Lord Justice Leveson said that this was essential to ensure that, despite all the protestations of change and good intentions, the press did not once again slip back into its old ways, as it has always done after all the other inquiries and reports.
We believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s answer to that decades-old problem is ingenious. It ensures that the press regulates itself independent of both the Government and its own interests, but it also ensures that there is statutory backing for the system. As I have indicated, there is wide agreement in Parliament that Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations should be implemented. If we were in power, we would make every effort to get agreement to implement the Leveson proposals in full. We think that there is no credible argument for today, and that action should be taken forthwith—certainly by the end of the current parliamentary session.
While the Government have shared their suggestion of a royal charter and accompanying clauses with us in the talks—and with the newspaper industry, it should be noted—most MPs, Peers, lawyers and others with an interest have yet to see them.
The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Hunt, made interesting interventions in this debate today. I am bound to say that without the detail it is very hard to judge what they are doing and how they are going to do it, but I felt that neither of them commanded the support of the House.
It is now time for the Government to have the courage of their convictions. The status quo is not an option. We have drafted and published our Bill and so have others, including Hacked Off. While the talks have been useful and obviously will continue, the main decision here—whether it is to be statute alone or statute and charter—must now be discussed openly; the public must be able to scrutinise the proposals; the victims should be able to signify their consent; and Parliament, to which Lord Justice Leveson entrusted a key role in setting up the new system, must be given an early opportunity to decide.
As I said, there is a strong case for action being taken on an all-party basis; the victims, and the public more generally, expect that. The families who suffered press intrusion and gross violations of their privacy are still pressing for the changes that will protect people in the future from what happened to them. These victims have gone through, and, in some cases, are still going through, unimaginable suffering. They remind us by their evident presence why the status quo, unsatisfactory for decades, is not an option. We must act on Leveson’s proposals for substantial and lasting change.
The amendments so brilliantly introduced by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McKay, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland are a reflection of the lack of confidence in, and the frustration with, the current process of implementing the Leveson proposals. There are some who feel that the apparent politicisation of the implementation process, because of alternative ideas such as the royal charter, takes us some considerable distance from Lord Leveson’s recommendations, and in so doing, erodes the trust of both victims of press abuse and the general public.
The purpose of the amendments in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Hollins, is to tighten up the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Puttnam so that the new clause and schedules being inserted implement Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations in a clearer and more effective way. These amendments are entirely consistent with the spirit of my noble friend Lord Puttnam’s amendments and aim to ensure that the Defamation Bill contains a fully workable version of the Leveson recommendations.
No one is claiming that the amendments answer the criticisms the Government might make about the drafting, nor that these amendments make the package “Leveson in full”, but they would, if passed, mark the beginning of a process to incorporate most of the Leveson recommendations into statute and they send a very direct message to the Government that the House wishes to see the Leveson report implemented. If they are passed this afternoon, as I hope they will be, your Lordships’ House will be doing a valuable service helping the Government of the day to do what at heart they say they want to do but which they have, to date, not been able to deliver.
So the questions we need to focus on are not the particular drafting of the amendments before us, because there would be ample time to sort that out at Third Reading, in the Commons or at ping-pong, but, under our procedures, that could not happen if we do not pass these amendments today. We must beware false choices. We were offered them recently in the sense that the allegation being made is that what is on offer is statutory regulation of the press. It is not. It may well be that what we have on offer today is not Leveson, it may be the back door but, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, the prospects of getting it through the front door, certainly not one with the number 10 on it, are quite remote. It could be characterised as being a first step down the road we need to take, and it changes the status quo. It will remind the Prime Minister and the coalition Government of the welcome they gave to the Leveson report when it was first published and, because a clock will have started ticking, remind them that too much time has already passed.
I suppose that the arguments that the Minister will give us shortly are that the Government are listening, that they can be relied on to act, and that they will be bringing forward consensus proposals which will be acceptable to all parties. He may suggest that all this can be done by Third Reading, which I understand is on Monday 25 February, immediately after our Recess. He may even promise publication of the Government’s proposals—that would be nice—and he may offer a revised timetable for more talks, which we would certainly look at. Can we take that risk? As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, warned us, tomorrow never comes. Is there credible evidence sufficient to believe that those responsible for the current delays are working to a deadline that delivers the necessary changes by the end of this Session? Even if you believe all that, what is the downside if we pass these amendments today? At heart, they genuinely offer the Government a chance to get this process back on track. Even if the Minister, when he comes to reply to this debate, gives your Lordships’ House an unequivocal assurance that he will bring back a government amendment on this topic which will deliver Leveson on Third Reading, I still believe that agreeing this amendment is what the people of this country want, and what the victims deserve.
When the Minister sits down, it will be for the proposer of the amendment to decide whether to test the opinion of the House. If he decides to do so, we on this side will support him.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I always think it is extremely helpful for the courtesy of the House if the Opposition make not only their case but mine as well, but perhaps it will help if I also put forward a few ideas.
This Bill has been two years in preparation. It has been a draft Bill, it has gone through pre-legislative scrutiny, it has gone through all its stages in the House of Commons and it has spent four very full days in Committee. One of my fears over the past two years, and certainly since the Leveson inquiry was set up, has been that this discrete Bill dealing with defamation would be engulfed by the Leveson tsunami. Given the way in which matters are handled in this House, even if it agreed with every word of both amendments, it would be—to put it mildly—impetuous for it to vote for amendments that run to three pages in the Marshalled List, with in one case a weekend and in the other less than 24 hours’ notice of their content. In other circumstances, some of the old barrack room lawyers in this place would have drawn attention to that.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are dealing with one of the most serious challenges to political parties and to Parliament in the past 70 years. I have never been in any doubt that how we respond to Leveson will be a test of how each and every one of us carries out our responsibilities in this Parliament.
To put my own attitudes in context, I have been campaigning for the strengthening of press regulation for 15 years. Some 10 years ago when the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and I tabled some modest amendments on press regulation, I was told from this Dispatch Box by the Labour Minister of the day that our proposals were the “slippery slope” to a state-regulated press. I say that because I do not want people to assume that there is total moral rectitude on that side and none on this side. I do not believe that the proposals I made 10 years ago were a slippery slope towards a state-controlled press. I do not believe that the proposals before the House today are a slippery slope towards a state-controlled press. That is not the issue before this House.
There is an issue before the House that cuts many ways. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has summed it up: trust. I hope that my noble friend Lord Black realised, from the reception to some of his remarks, that the media still have a long way to go before there is any sense of trust in what they are doing to rectify the harm that they have done to our body politic. I hope that one of the values of this debate is that each of the party leaders understands the question of trust which hangs over their intent. I am as frustrated as anybody that two months have passed since publication of the Leveson report. There is a strong case for getting things moving. If this debate has helped to stimulate progress, that is certainly a value that it has. There is a value in all three parties putting their cards on the table. This is not a time for secret diplomacy.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that we should still strive for the prize of all-party agreement on this. We want a settlement about the relationship of our media with Parliament to carry all-party endorsement.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked me a question which an old campaigner such as him knows that I cannot answer on behalf of the Government. He wants to know whether the Government would support legislation in this matter if these talks collapsed and my noble friend Lord Hunt failed to deliver. I cannot speak for the Government but I know my party’s policy; namely, that if there is no agreement and we cannot achieve the tripartite agreement that I believe is the prize, we certainly would be in favour of legislation in this area.
Therefore, there has to be some understanding and balance about this almost unique move that we are going through. From our long relationship, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, knows that I fully understand where he is coming from. There is power in the Back Benches. This show of Back-Bench power today sends a necessary message which breaks the dreadful silence to which he referred. He perhaps has not studied the rest of the Bill as fully as he might. Other parts of the Bill try to deal with access to justice, including costs, as referred to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, where we are pursuing the Leveson recommendations on qualified one-way costs shifting.
The debate has brought up a number of issues that Members should ponder. Over the years, I have been on the same side as almost every Member who has contributed to this debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in her call for a cheap, effective and independent answer. I will come to the point about independence in a moment.
When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was having his skirmishes and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Faulks were making their points, it crossed my mind that passing these amendments as they are might cause even more work for my learned friends while the judges work out the intentions of Parliament in passing these proposals. As I have said, that is the danger in such matters.
My noble friend Lord Fowler is an old ally. He rightfully called for what I think is the rational approach; that is, to look at the building blocks and at how they can be placed. The suggestions here may indeed be the right building blocks. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that there is an expectation in the public at large and in both Houses of Parliament for Leveson to be implemented. However, Parliament has a right to look at these matters. I still believe that the tripartite talks are our best way to make lasting progress. That is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. It is always tempting and alluring to say that this is the best chance we have or that “tomorrow never comes”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said. But sometimes it does come and I do not think that we should abandon hope. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Phillips referred, while supporting the amendments, to the fact that they are defective.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York reminded us about trust. I hope that we can face the question of how we can use the next few weeks—I am not talking about months or years—to restore the trust that clearly has been damaged in the conduct of these talks. There is a danger that passing these amendments today will be a diversion and not progress as regards what I and the House want to see.
It is a matter of judgment, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the other movers of amendments will have to make their decision. However, let me comment on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which I very much welcomed because it brought up to date and put on the record the very detailed work that he has been doing and the real progress that has been made. He was right to remind us that Lord Justice Leveson himself said that the industry has the responsibility to set up the new structure. On the question of independence, I can say only that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I were on the executive of the Atlantic Association of Young Political Leaders— a modest body, as you can tell from its title— some 40 years ago. On the basis of that, I have no doubt that this difficult task is in safe and independent hands.
When Lord Justice Leveson’s report was published, all agreed that the inquiry had uncovered a shocking culture of wrongdoing at the heart of certain elements of the press, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, referred to. There was also, as Leveson pointed out, an inadequate system of press regulation—something that I described in this House as a “sweetheart organisation”. The Prime Minister has stated that the status quo is not an option, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we must not now prevaricate. We are all agreed that a tough and truly independent new system of self-regulation is required to ensure that real change happens. At the same time we must ensure that there is freedom of expression for the press, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.
To that extent, I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in tabling his amendments, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I sympathise with the concerns that the Leveson report needs to be implemented and with the noble Baroness’s wish to see progress on this important issue. We are all agreed on the need for action and I welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to finding the right solution. However, I remind noble Lords that when the Leveson report was published, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister agreed that a cross-party approach was the best way to ensure that a consensus could be reached on these contentious issues—and very few of us in this House would disagree with that. It is right for Parliament to send clear messages to our respective party leaders but, as I said before, the tripartite way forward is the prize that we all should seek.
To that end, the cross-party talks have been taking place over a number of weeks and the Government remain committed to ensuring their success. These discussions are not to be taken lightly. No fewer than 10 meetings have taken place between senior representatives from across the parties, and those representatives include the Secretary of State for Culture, the deputy leader of the Opposition and, from this House, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. From what I have heard, the talks have been constructive, although I also accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there seems to have been a certain lack of momentum in recent days, which makes this debate not unwelcome.
Lord McNally
Have I said something that I should not have said?
I should like to update noble Lords on some of the discussions that have already taken place on Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. First, recommendations concerning the press and police have been considered by the cross-party group and measures are being developed further by the Home Office, on which the Home Secretary will report to Parliament shortly. Secondly, Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations regarding the press and politicians have been considered and are now being taken forward by the Cabinet Office.
Thirdly, there have been discussions on the complex issues raised by data protection. As the Minister with responsibility for data protection, I am looking with my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary at the best way to take this forward, preferably once we have a clear idea of what we are doing as far as the tripartite talks are concerned. This is a complex series of decisions. Furthermore, the talks continue to consider, among many other issues, the best way to recognise the new press self-regulatory body. While there are areas of differences, there are also many areas of agreement. There is a widespread desire for a cross-party solution to this issue of fundamental importance to our democracy. A great deal of work has already taken place in talks and these amendments risk pre-empting their outcome.
This brings me to the key issue: whether statute is the most appropriate route to delivering the underpinning that Lord Justice Leveson sets out. This question has been the topic of impassioned debate not only today but across the weeks since the report’s publication. The cross-party talks have considered a number of options, including various draft Bills—among them the Bill prepared by my noble friend Lord Lester. In addition, there have been discussions about a proposed royal charter. To add to the debate and to demonstrate to this House that concrete progress is being made, I can announce today that a draft royal charter proposal will be published next week—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is well informed.
As I hope noble Lords will recognise, I have outlined just a few of the issues that are subject to detailed consideration in cross-party talks and with stakeholders. I am convinced that an approach agreed cross-party, if it can be secured, is the best way to do justice to Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals and to ensure a new system of press regulation which can enjoy secure and real public confidence.
I recognise the strong feelings in this House and the desire to send a message. I am sure that that message has been clearly heard. However, I ask noble Lords to allow those cross-party talks to reach their full and considered conclusion rather than to bring legislative proposals before this House at this stage. The noble Lord was wrong to say that this is the end of the matter; the Bill will have a Third Reading and go back to the other place.
This is, of course, a matter of judgment. However, I feel that with the progress that is being made on the kind of things to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, and given that the royal charter proposal will be on the table next week, there will be a chance in the next few days to give some real impetus to these talks. As I said previously, there is no doubt in my mind that the real prize is not a victory or defeat on this amendment today but a successful outcome to the tripartite talks. That would give us the real holy grail here, which is a cross-party endorsement which sticks in parliamentary and legislative terms and has widespread support among the public. I hope that, with those remarks, my old friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, it has been a very instructive debate. I think that it has become clear to many of us how little many of us who are not close to the cross-party talks know about what is actually being said or discussed. There is, I am sorry to say, and as the most reverend Primate reminded us, a serious question of trust here that is not going to be remedied quickly. A number of issues speak directly to that. Perhaps I may address one which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised. He spoke repeatedly, as he has previously, about independent regulation, and he was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that independence is not just a matter of one’s belief that one is a person of independent judgment; it is also a question of institutions, structures, how one is appointed and to whom one is accountable. Our debates would be very much clarified if we did not speak of a self-regulation body that lacks an appropriate form of accountability to a recognition body as a form of independent regulation. It is less than that.
I have every faith in the good intentions of the noble Lord and his colleagues in seeking to define a way forward, but without the statutory recognition body which is integral to Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals, we have no reason to expect that that will endure across the vicissitudes of time and self-interest. We have repeated experience that what passes for self-regulation has been self-interested regulation. That is why many of us are extremely anxious on behalf of our fellow citizens who have been victims of intrusion and defamation, and lack remedies.
I will withdraw Amendment 1A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hollins. It is a complex amendment and it is imperfect. Greater clarity will be served if noble Lords make a straightforward decision on supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and colleagues. That puts the issue squarely. We would all acknowledge that the details of these amendments—Amendment 1 and the amending amendments—are not perfect. They probably cannot be perfect at this stage. However, I hope that noble Lords will feel willing to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, knowing that it affords the Government more than one opportunity to reconsider the matter and come back on it. As the Minister indicated in his very interesting reply, it also affords some further time for reflection. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1A.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House any longer than necessary but I would like to make one point very clearly. Speaking from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, frequently and quite rightly stressed the importance of cross-party support. This is a cross-party amendment in every sense. I would never have brought it to the House had it been anything else. We start from the premise that this has cross-party—and powerful—support.
I also take up two points that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, because they are important. We all agree that the issue here is trust. I put it to him that there is some discontinuity between him saying that the newspaper industry accepts the architecture of Leveson and the fact that—as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out—day after day, whenever Leveson or any form of regulation is raised, the newspapers’ response is near hysteria. Where is the equivalence between the hysterical reaction of the newspapers and their apparently comfortable relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as he moves towards an equitable solution? That is why I find myself so untrusting of where this is going. The noble Lord also said that other countries look to us on this matter, and he asked an important question: what sort of country do we want to be? It is very clear that 78% of the population of this country do not want us to be one in which the lives of the McCanns and people like them are ripped apart by newspaper and press abuse. That is the country we do not want to be.
It has been interesting to listen to the criticism of this amendment. A great deal of it has been about what the amendment is not. I make no claims about its faults—there are a number of them. Yet, in respect of the all-party talks that have dominated this discussion and of which we have heard so much, I am reminded of the fate of a frighteningly similar set of talks that have been held for many years—more years than I can remember—regarding the issue of party funding. Any thoroughgoing democrat knows that party funding needs to be in a form that supports the maintenance of a serious democracy. But the instant a momentary or fragmentary form of party advantage raises its head, all thoughts of what might be the right direction for the electorate, let alone the country, seem to go out of the window. My real concern is that these all-party talks seem to conform to that type of pattern, and it worries me greatly.
As Sir John Major brilliantly reminded us in his evidence before Leveson, and as Lord Justice Leveson repeated in his own concluding remarks,
“if one party breaks off and decides it’s going to seek future favour with powerful proprietors and press barons by opposing”—
the recommendations of this inquiry—
“then it will be very difficult for it to be carried into law”.
As I see it, our job in this House is to shoulder that difficulty and carry at least some of these recommendations into law. In truth, I think that it is the very least that we owe Lord Justice Leveson for all the extraordinary effort that he has put into this. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, illustrated, the abiding fault of legislators is to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The amendments in my name and the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, do exactly what they say on the tin. They offer a solution that is quick, just and affordable and, most of all, they offer a remedy that is entirely independent of both government and the media. As my granddaughters might put it, what is not to like about that?
My noble friend—and he really is my friend—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested from the Front Bench that he understood exactly where I want this to go but that I should withdraw the amendment. What flashed across my mind, because I know that he is fond of the film, is that 30-odd years ago I made a movie called “Chariots of Fire”. There is a scene in which Eric Liddell is brought before the Prince of Wales and other dignitaries and asked to run on Sunday. I will always remember his response. He says: “God knows I love my country, God knows I love my King, but I cannot do as you ask”. I think it is very important that we test the mood of the House, and I would like to request that we do so.
“Non-natural persons
(1) This section applies to an action for defamation brought by—
(a) a body corporate;(b) other non-natural legal persons trading for profit; or(c) trade associations representing organisations trading for profit.(2) The permission of the court must be obtained in order to bring an action to which this section applies.
(3) The court must strike out an application under subsection (2) unless the body corporate can show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss to the claimant.
(4) Non-natural persons performing a public function do not have an action in defamation in relation to a statement concerning that function.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, after that excitement I rise to move Amendment 2 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It would end the current position whereby individuals and organisations have identical hurdles to jump in an action for defamation.
Defamation is about someone’s reputation being trampled and seriously damaged by untrue statements made about them. Some commentators think that since only people and not organisations have feelings, only people should be able to sue. We do not go that far. We accept that organisations can be damaged by untrue allegations. Had horse meat not been in those burgers, or pork not in that halal food, such innocent information could have substantially and unjustifiably ruined a company’s reputation and caused untold financial harm. That would be the same if a small corner butcher, for example, was wrongly accused of having mice in the shop, if Perrier was falsely accused of being a purveyor of foul water or if a car manufacturer was said to have made a car with unsafe brakes.
Amendment 2 would allow such cases to be brought, provided that the allegations would cause substantial financial harm. The approach came from the Joint Committee. The amendment was moved in Committee on this Bill by its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, who cannot be in his place today. It is supported by Liberty, the Libel Reform Campaign, the Media Lawyers Association, Which? and the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which noted the mismatch of resources in a libel action between large corporations, for which money may be no object, and a small newspaper or NGO, which has had a stifling effect on freedom of expression.
In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said that it was unacceptable that corporations were able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel actions that they knew the publisher could not afford to defend but where there was no realistic prospect of financial loss.
This morning on the “Today” programme, John Humphrys, normally not afraid of anything, commented on a piece about branding and said that he dared not say anything derogatory about Coca-Cola because it would sue. John Humphrys may be powerful, but clearly not powerful enough to damage Coke’s profits. Even he knew the chill factor of a threatened action.
In Committee, our amendment was supported by my noble friend Lord Triesman and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord May of Oxford. It is no secret that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, shared this view until his then boss, Ken Clarke, took him into a quiet room, sat him down and, with the persuasiveness for which he is renowned, convinced him that corporations have reputations. The words are those used by the Minister in Committee on 17 December.
The cases that led to much of the pressure for libel reform were largely brought by corporations, using deep pockets and expensive lawyers to stifle criticism. An American corporation sued Dr Peter Wilmshurst, the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh, Trafigura sued the BBC, manufacturers are for ever threatening Which?, and McDonald’s infamously and stupidly sued two individuals.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights called for the Bill to be amended so that non-natural persons would be required to establish substantial financial loss in any claim for defamation. Its report stated:
“Professor Phillipson … suggests that the failure to impose any restrictions on corporations’ ability to sue in defamation renders the law on reputation inconsistent and incoherent. Defamation law and the protection afforded under Article 8 has developed on the basis that the protection of an individual’s reputation is a significant human rights issue. Corporate claimants have neither personal emotions nor dignity, and yet are treated as natural persons for the purposes of defamation”.
The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee also called for a requirement on a corporation to prove actual damage to its business before an action could be brought. Regrettably, the Government opposed this on the grounds that a corporation does have a reputation. Our amendment does not contradict that. It simply requires companies to obtain the court’s permission to sue by showing that it has been, or is likely to be, caused substantial financial loss. This has widespread support and we hope that the Minister will think again.
The second part of our amendment extends the bar on public authorities being able to take action to other organisations performing a public function. The Derbyshire principle is a legal precedent that a government authority cannot be sued for libel. There are good reasons for this. First, it is a body corporate and thus, under the first part of the amendment, it should be debarred since it cannot show financial loss, given that all of us must pay its levy, whether by income tax or rates. The second reason is the comparative resources of any government body compared with those of an individual. The third is that such an authority had a monopoly over education, street cleaning, social care, parking and myriad other services, so any damage to a its reputation would not dent its market, while publicity was a key driver of improved services or access to redress, since users were unable to take their custom elsewhere. That world has changed. We now have free schools in competition with those run by local authorities, while the voluntary sector and private companies run myriad services on behalf of public authorities and paid for by public funds.
First, users need to be able to comment on such services without fear of a defamation action. Secondly, ratepayers and taxpayers must similarly be able to comment without fear of action. Thirdly, since such services are won through competitive tendering, it seems extraordinary that in compiling their bids, private or voluntary sector organisations can say what they like about the local authority against which they are bidding, but could take action for defamation if the local authority or any of its service users said a critical word about them. Are these providers spending taxpayers’ money on services, including issues such as the Border Agency, adoption and care homes, really to be protected from criticism by hiding behind the threat of defamation? Surely we should be able to hear questions about standards, complaints or conduct without lawyers bullying commentators into silence.
Our amendment would cover only those parts of a corporation performing a public function. Thus, Virgin Care would lose its right to sue over its commissioned work but Mr Branson could still protect his brand’s name where Virgin’s profitability was at risk. In the Commons, the Government rejected this on the excuse that the court in Derbyshire had rejected it. However, that was 20 years ago, when outsourcing was a fraction of what it is today. Now we have one lot of bidders—public bodies—at a disadvantage compared with others because one side can sue for libel but not the other.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that,
“legislation could remove the flexibility that exists under the common law for the courts to develop the Derbyshire principle … in the light of individual cases … it is better to allow the courts to do this rather than introduce … statutory provision”.—[Official Report, 17/12/12; col. GC 467.]
This is a decision that Parliament should take, not the courts. Why do a 2013 Government, pledged to update our defamation laws, feel bound by a 1993 ruling when new legislation is exactly the time to make good any shortfall in the law? The Derbyshire case upheld the right for uninhibited public criticism of public authorities. We should extend this to organisations carrying out those services which were once the monopoly of public authorities.
The amendment is not unfair to corporations. It allows them access to the courts to pursue a defamation case where there is a risk of substantial financial harm to their business. It would remove that right only from those providing public services, akin to the existing bar on public authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I have added my name in support of the amendment, which would reinstate a provision from my Private Member’s Bill preventing profit-making bodies from suing in defamation except where they can show substantial financial loss or the likelihood of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has indicated, it would extend the Derbyshire principle to bodies performing public functions. It does not seek to prevent companies from suing. It simply requires that they show harm where they feel it most—in the pocket. I do not believe that companies should not be allowed to sue for libel. They have no feelings but they and their shareholders are able to be hurt in their pocket book. If we were to bar companies altogether from suing, that would clearly violate the European Convention on Human Rights because it would be discriminatory.
That is why, in my Private Member’s Bill and in these amendments, I have supported the right of corporations and trading companies to sue provided that they can show actual, or the likelihood of, serious financial loss. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill concluded:
“It is unacceptable that corporations are able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel claims which they know the publisher cannot afford to defend and where there is no realistic prospect of serious financial loss. However, we do not believe that corporations should lose the right to sue for defamation altogether … we favour the approach which limits libel claims to situations where the corporation can prove the likelihood of ‘substantial financial loss’ … corporations should be required to obtain the permission of the court before bringing a libel claim. This would encourage robust and decisive action by the courts to prevent trivial and abusive litigation from being commenced at all”.
Before I turn to the second limb of the amendment, I wish to make it clear that there is nothing to stop the directors or officers of a company from suing in their own right; it simply hampers the ability of the corporate body, the trading body, to do so itself. So it is conspicuously moderate and balanced and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, but I do so on the basis that the general restriction on companies suing for defamation is limited to the requirement in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause that trading entities should have to show actual or likely financial loss before being entitled to sue for defamation. As drafted, proposed new subsection (2) would introduce a restriction on companies that is not so limited and is entirely undefined.
However, the restriction in proposed new subsection (3) is in line with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, on which I served, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has pointed out, the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well. Whether companies should be able to sue for defamation was one of the issues that the Joint Committee was specifically asked to consider outside the ambit of the draft Bill, and we took a great deal of time and heard a great deal of evidence on this issue. The amendment accords with the sense of many who believe that corporate bodies trading for profit should not be in precisely the same position as natural persons in defamation law.
As in so much of the law in this area, the task is to strike the right balance between the right to free speech and the right to protect reputation. But it is a fact that companies cannot suffer hurt in their feelings and personal reputations in the same way as individuals can. Therefore, many have called for companies to be denied the right to sue for defamation. It is argued that companies have other ways to protect their reputations. It is argued that individual directors can sue, but to bring a suit for defamation is a serious undertaking and would expose those individual directors to substantial personal risk in costs when the real claimant should be the company. It is argued that large companies may have other steps they can take to protect their reputations by advertising or seeking publicity for their position, but that depends on their financial strength. A right to sue for malicious falsehood is often mentioned, but that is dependent on an ability to prove malice, which is notoriously difficult to do.
I take a different view. While companies do not have feelings that can be hurt, they can suffer financially, as my noble friend Lord Lester has pointed out. Defamatory statements about companies can have very serious consequences for their businesses, affecting the jobs of their staff and the prosperity of all concerned in them—whether or not untrue and defamatory statements are made with a view to profit by competitors or innocently by journalists. Therefore, it does not seem to strike the right balance to deprive companies of the right to sue for defamation altogether, quite apart from the fact that it would probably be contrary to the HRA to do so.
However, it seems proportionate and balanced to insist that companies and other non-natural persons trading for profit show that they have suffered or are likely to suffer substantial financial loss as a result of the defamation in respect of which they wish to sue. Imposing that condition recognises the difference in kind between individuals and non-natural persons trading for profit. It would not restrict the right of charities and other not-for-profit organisations to sue, and it is right that it should not do so; for example, charities can suffer from defamation in their future ability to raise funds, but it may be very difficult for them to demonstrate that. Proposed new subsection (3) of this amendment applies only to import a modest and proportionate restriction on the right of trading entities to sue and would introduce a valuable extra reform to this Bill.
Finally, I support the reform suggested by proposed new subsection (4) relating to bodies performing public functions, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Lester have already given, but principally because bodies performing public functions should be open to public criticism, even if private, in just the same way that public authorities are.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I, too, want to add a sentence of support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said.
I am patron of many charities and it would not be right if we did not strike the right balance. If a charity felt it was defamed because it was a body corporate, the restriction that has been put in here requiring the permission of the court is necessary. We are living in a very litigious society so if you are going to go to court to sue anybody, the permission of the court should be shown.
In proposed new subsection (3) there is the question of finance and the possibility of striking out if you cannot actually show that you have suffered loss. Because of that balance—that common sense that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was talking about—I am very attracted to this, and I hope that the Government will accept both limbs of the amendment, because you really could not do one without the other. It strikes a balance. For such a very long time, individuals could sue but reputational damage, as well as financial loss, is often incurred by a number of charities and it would be good to be able to do the same thing in terms of bodies corporate.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, of course, there is in the Bill a significant hurdle for any claimant, whether a non-natural person or a natural person: they have to show serious harm, so that is a hurdle of itself.
I supported the general tenor of this amendment in Committee but expressed a reservation at that time. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed a similar reservation, which is: what about the small companies? Of course, I accept that the individual can sue if he or she is sufficiently identified, but if it is a small business—say, the local ice cream vendor; maybe nobody knows them by name but they have a valuable local business reputation—it will have to overcome considerable hurdles before suing. It will have to show substantial financial loss; it may not be very substantial objectively but it may be very substantial to that business. The hurdle of serious harm added to this procedure seems to prevent it recovering in circumstances where it should be able to recover.
Malicious falsehood may be difficult to prove, in the sense that malice is always difficult to establish. None the less, if I say that Hayter & Co. is going out of business, when it plainly is not, it is not difficult to infer malice from that pronouncement. It would be unfortunate if companies had to resort to the alternative tort in circumstances where they should, in my view, be able to rely on ordinary defamation.
My final observation relates to proposed new subsection (4). I accept what my noble friend Lord Lester said about the public function. Deciding whether somebody performs a public function is not necessarily very easy, just as deciding whether something is a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act has caused the courts considerable distress.
I have sympathy with the general tenor of this amendment but I cannot go all the way with it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. As has been pointed out, Amendment 2 concerns two distinct but related issues. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lester, who I greatly respect with regard to this Bill in particular, described it as two limbs. That is a nice way of reflecting on the current Government, in having two arms to the same body, and we are seeking to move forward on these matters.
The issues that have been raised again this afternoon were extensively debated during the previous stages of this Bill. These are whether there should be restrictions on the right of bodies corporate and other non-natural persons to bring an action in defamation, and whether any non-natural person which is performing a public function should be prevented from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function.
In relation to the first issue, the Government have made it clear in previous debates that there is a difficult balance to be struck, as the most reverend Primate articulated. Considerable damage can be done to the reputation of a business by unjustified and defamatory allegations, and this has an impact on all those involved with the business, including its shareholders and employees. On the other hand, we fully recognise the need to ensure that powerful businesses are not able to—for want of a better term—bully individuals or organisations with limited means into remaining silent on issues of public importance by the threat of libel proceedings.
However, if that is the problem we are trying to solve, imposing specific restrictions on the ability of businesses to sue does not seem justified. Wealthy individuals can equally send threatening letters to those with limited means. This is why we think the twin-track approach we are proposing is preferable. It embraces both elements within the Bill and procedural changes alongside it.
First, all claimants—corporate or otherwise—will have to satisfy the new test of serious harm, as my noble friend just mentioned. As we have made clear, it is our intention that the serious harm test will raise the hurdle for bringing a claim and will ensure that trivial claims do not proceed. In order to satisfy the serious harm test, businesses are likely in practice to have to show some form of actual or likely financial loss. The courts have talked in terms of,
“a tendency to directly affect its credit or property or cause it pecuniary damage”.
Quite what that will require will depend on the type of business concerned and the facts of the particular case, and we do not think that it is helpful to attempt to define explicit restrictions in the Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken, particularly those who have spoken in support—the most reverend Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Joint Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who raised an interesting question about small companies such as the ice cream vendor. In the Joint Committee, we went through the question of whether, as in the Australian situation, there could be very big internet companies with fewer than 10 people but enormous turnover. We felt that there was no way to cover that—although, as has been said, if someone is so identified, such as the well-known company Hayter and Hayter, I could probably take action in my own name.
I say two things to the Minister. I am disappointed by his response. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that this is moderate and balanced. I am slightly insulted by being called a moderate, but I can live with it occasionally. This is a moderate and balanced response. It is one that I should have thought the Government would accept. To put together the big issue of companies bullying and rich people bullying is not the right comparison. A few rich people do it. In our next amendment, we will come to a strikeout ability, which is the way to deal with those very few—and we know they are—who bully.
We are talking about, day after day, companies threatening anyone who says that they were not perfect with taking them to court, when they know that they can do that because of the depth of their pockets. On the Derbyshire principle, the Government are just wrong. If we want people exercising public functions but privileged to sue on their reputation, that does not give us the confidence for even more outsourcing of public functions. I think that the Government have taken the wrong call on that, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“Strike-out procedure
(1) The court must strike-out an action for defamation unless the claimant shows that—
(a) its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant; and(b) there has been a real and substantial tort in the jurisdiction.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), no real and substantial tort is to be regarded as having occurred in relation to the claimant unless the publication in the jurisdiction can reasonably be regarded as having caused serious harm to the claimant’s reputation having regard to the extent of publication elsewhere.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if, in exceptional circumstances, the court is satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice not to strike out the action.
(4) An order under subsection (1) may be made by the court of its own motion or on an application by any party to the action.
(5) Subsection (1) does not limit any power to strike-out proceedings which is exercisable apart from this section.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, perhaps I can be very naughty and thank the House for its support on that Division.
The intention behind Amendment 3, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and myself, sets out a vital procedure—the ability of a court to strike out an action for defamation. This power is vital. Everything that the Bill seeks to achieve has been about reducing costs—which have completely distorted the law on defamation—by facilitating early resolution, as the Minister said in response to an earlier amendment. If the key issues can be decided early on—which the virtual ending of jury trials enables—then lawyers’ time is diminished and costs are brought down.
The costs in these cases, as we have heard, are such that they put the use of the law to protect reputation beyond the reach of all but the richest. The only others who have been able to make use of this law are those who have used no-win no-fee cases to do so—arrangements which are shortly to be ended. This law has been beyond the reach of most people. Virtually no defendant can contest a case, or claimants bring one, as they risk being crippled not just by their own legal costs but by those of the other side. I heard just today of a case involving one day in court which cost £40,000 on each side.
So costs are vital, as is early resolution. Up against a rich newspaper, no one without sizeable means can consider taking on a case. With a multimillionaire, an oligarch or a company even threatening an action, journalists, papers, NGOs or Which? will be reluctant to publish anything, no matter how true, that is going to tie them up in legal and financial nightmares.
The amendment is about the last part of the jigsaw. Having enabled early decision of most issues by clarity of the law and the reduction of the use of juries, we now need active case management and the clear authority of the court to strike out before trial actions that fail the test of serious harm based on a falsehood, or where other jurisdiction is more appropriate.
That clear ability of a court to strike out an action is what we want written into the Bill. It would allow either side to apply for this strike-out or for the judge to start the process. At one level, the amendment would write into the Bill what in effect exists in the Civil Procedure Rules but which will not be evident to the ordinary member of the public, be they a potential claimant or a defendant. Non-lawyers do not even know of the existence of the Civil Procedure Rules, much less what they say.
The Bill has aimed to provide for a lay person—an author or the defamed—a clear statement of what the law on defamation is, without recourse to a lawyer or a legal textbook. Our description of the power of a court to stop an action is clear. It would show to the claimant that unless they could show serious harm to their reputation, and a tort—that it was wrongful—then they should proceed no further. It would indicate to the defendant that they could go to the court and ask for such a strike-out when it was obvious to them either that the claimant had no relevant reputation here or that any such reputation had not been caused serious damage. This is clarity; it would add to the Bill a power that is already there, and it would be a signal that we want early case management so that as many of these issues as possible can be dealt with and, where appropriate, struck out. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. One of the difficult things about having a Bill like this is to decide what Parliament should be doing and what the courts should be doing. Parliament has put into Clause 1 this very important barrier of serious harm. In his important reply to the previous debate, the Minister helpfully indicated that serious harm—for example, with a corporate body—would include the likelihood of serious financial loss as one of the factors to take into account. Obviously this is a preliminary hurdle, and obviously the procedure rules, which are not in the Bill but will be in the Civil Procedure Rules, and case management will ensure that a party can come before the judge at the beginning and say, “Strike this out because the serious harm test is not satisfied”.
My first reason for not supporting this is that it deals with matters of procedure that will be dealt with, I think, by the Civil Procedure Rules themselves, a pre-action protocol and case management. The second reason is that the factors that are listed here,
“caused or is likely to cause serious harm … and … a real and substantial tort in the jurisdiction”,
are exactly the kinds of issues that one would expect the judge to have regard to, but the Government have very wisely decided to move against having a checklist—for example, in Clause 4. I think that our judges can be well trusted to be able to apply the serious harm test in Clause 1 without a checklist and without being fettered in any way.
I sympathise with the aim of the amendment, but it is an example of overreach. We should not be writing this kind of procedural detail into the Bill; we should leave it to the wise discretion of the judiciary.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lester. It is possible that the House may remember the contribution that I made to the first debate when I drew the House’s attention to the protocol, which does very much what the amendment seeks to do. Under the current law it is perfectly possible, and indeed it happens on a regular basis, that a court will rule on a preliminary basis and will strike out claims, either pursuant to the CPR or under the inherent jurisdiction. They will manage the case so that preliminary matters are heard—for example, an issue as to meaning—without a full-scale trial. Judges and masters are experienced in dealing with this, and that is a matter that should be left to the protocol and to the masters to develop as a matter of practice. With respect, it is not a matter that should be put in the Bill.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Faulks, have said. I have to admit to having been a judge, but not a judge who tried this sort of case. I believe that this is a matter that should be left to the judiciary, and the amendment is overemphasising something that really does not need to be done.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, while the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is right to say that costs and early resolution are vital, I suggest that this extra strike-out provision is entirely unnecessary and, further, that it would introduce added uncertainty by bringing in a gloss on the serious harm test in Clause 1. In addition, it would add complexity to Clause 3 by introducing another test for whether or not there should be a strike-out. As has been said, the court is already able to strike out a case that has no merit; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, conceded that. It is right at the heart of these reforms that the Government propose to introduce an early resolution procedure in the rules, so I cannot see why the amendment should be necessary.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am unused to getting such unanimous support from all sides of the House. I am grateful for the interventions from my noble friends Lord Lester, Lord Faulks and Lord Marks and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As has been pointed out, we are being asked here whether there should be provision in the Bill requiring the court to strike out actions that do not meet certain thresholds, unless the interests of justice require otherwise.
The noble Baroness has made clear that the intention underlying the amendment is to make the law as clear as possible for the ordinary citizen. We share that aim, and have tried as far as possible to make the Bill accessible and readily understandable to those who may need to refer to it. However, the provision that she proposes is simply unnecessary, and could itself cause confusion and unnecessary cost.
As the Government have made clear in previous debates on this point, the courts already have a power in Rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules that permits them to strike out all or part of a claim where there are no reasonable grounds for bringing it or they consider it to be an abuse of process. The courts are very familiar with that power and we have no doubt that they will use it more often in defamation cases once the new higher threshold of serious harm is in place.
The noble Baroness expressed concern that the Civil Procedure Rules were couched in permissive rather than mandatory terms. We do not consider there to be anything in this point. We see no reason why a court would allow a case to continue if the threshold test were not met.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I reassure the Minister that it was not just because they all feel so sorry for him about the last two votes that they all suddenly rallied to him. Theirs were genuine views, not sympathy.
All noble Lords who spoke are lawyers. They are very familiar with Civil Procedure Rules. Those of us who get caught up in defamation are not, so this amendment is less about the procedure than about signalling to people that they can apply for strike out. That is the essence of the amendment. It is because of that that I am cheered by the Minister’s response and his encouragement to courts to manage cases. That is undoubtedly half of it.
In Committee, the Minister spoke about new guidelines to go with the Bill. I hope that they will refer to the ability outside the Bill to get a strike out, because most people do not know about that but think the matter has to go to trial. That was the point we were really making. However, I know when I am not going to win a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I move Amendment 4 essentially on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who cannot be here this evening. In the light of what has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I am hoping that when the Explanatory Notes to the Bill are brought up to date when the Bill becomes law, some of these points will be dealt with in them, which is an authoritative way of doing so.
There are two ways in which I can move this amendment: the long way and the short way. Since I detect in my noble friend Lord McNally’s previous reply not exactly bitterness but a sort of cynicism about certain attitudes, I shall do it the short way because I think we can cut the cackle on this by coming to the point that was troubling the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and Sir Brian Neill.
The amendment turns on a case called Telnikoff in the context of the honest opinion defence in Clause 3. In Telnikoff, the House of Lords decided that it was insufficient for a letter commenting on a newspaper article to refer to the article in order to establish that it was opinion, not fact. The letter had to be recognisable as opinion on its own rather than in the context of the article. My noble friend wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on 9 January. I shall not repeat what he wrote, nor will I repeat what was said by the Minister. It did not satisfy the noble and learned Lord, which is why he wished to come back to it on Report.
I suggest that if the Minister in his reply can clear up any further confusion by making it clear that in the light of the Bill the Government do not regard Telnikoff as good law, so that if the same facts were to come before the courts under Clause 3(3), a reference to the original newspaper article on which the letter was commenting should be enough to establish the first and second conditions in Clause 3, that would be most helpful. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, returns, if he does not find the answer sufficiently clear I will leave it to him to decide what to do at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I support of this amendment and do so by adopting the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which, I think, in turn adopts what I described as the compelling argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in Grand Committee on 19 December at col. GC 522. I commend the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the Minister.
In rereading the debate in Grand Committee, I am reminded that he offered a very similar opportunity to the Minister on that occasion, which the Minister scorned. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was awaiting the letter that became the letter of 9 January 2013. I recollect that in col. GC 528 in the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, indicated that he might be able, in the same vein as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to give the comfort that the noble and learned Lord was seeking. I have to say—this should not surprise anybody—that we were all, I think, persuaded by the noble and learned Lord’s argument in relation to Telnikoff and why it should not still be considered to be the law in the same circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the opportunity that he has on this occasion to resolve this issue once and for all.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I indeed hope that this will be resolved once and for all. If my noble friend is going to withdraw under the temptation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, can bring this back at Third Reading, I would rather that he tested the opinion of the House. I will try to make as clear as possible on the record the Government’s opinion on this, but I cannot start trying to rerun 20 year-old legal battles.
Clause 3 provides for the honest opinion defence to be available if three conditions are met. Amendment 5 provides that the second condition in subsection (3)— that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion—is met if the defendant indicates the subject matter of a letter or article appearing in a newspaper or other publication and the date when it appeared.
On the basis of our discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on whose behalf my noble friend is speaking this evening, we understand that the core issue underlying the amendment relates to what should be taken into account in determining whether the statement complained of is one of fact or opinion. We consider that this goes to the first condition in Clause 3(2)—that the statement complained of was one of opinion—rather than to the second condition in subsection (3).
At common law, when deciding whether a statement is one of fact or opinion, the court can look at the statement only in its immediate context. So if the statement appears in a news story or in a letter to an editor, the court can look only at the particular news story or the particular letter. The intention behind Amendment 5 is to change this so that the court can also look at other documents that provide a context for the statement.
This is a difficult issue, as is evidenced by the varying judicial opinions that were expressed when this was considered by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords some 20 years ago in the case of Telnikoff v Matusevitch, to which my noble friend has referred. However, on balance, and with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Government believe that the current law is in the right place. We consider that it should be clear from the document in which the statement appears that the author is expressing an opinion, otherwise a reader cannot know that there is a judgment to be made. They must be entitled to accept as a fact something that is presented as a fact. It follows from this that we cannot accept Amendment 5. Although the Bill abolishes the common law, we can see no reason why the courts would depart from the current approach.
As I have said, a defendant who satisfies the first condition that the statement is one of opinion must also satisfy the second condition that the statement must indicate, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion. Amendment 4 would replace the word “basis” with the words “subject matter”. The provisions in the Bill reflect the test approved by the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph that,
“the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based”.
We consider that the word “basis” more accurately captures the essence of that test.
I hope that, on that basis, not only will the noble Lord withdraw this amendment, but that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, returns to these shores and reads Hansard, he will accept that he has had a good run for his money but that this is where the Government’s view is and where it will remain.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The further the Bill proceeds through this House, the more I am convinced that he would have made a superb Queen’s Counsel. Maybe as a result of his experience, that will be his next career.
I have no idea whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will be satisfied by the Minister’s answer. I cannot control or fetter him in any way. As I understand it, the Government’s position is that the second condition—
“that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion”—
was based on the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in Spiller v Joseph, in which he held that it is not a prerequisite of the defence that readers should be in a position to evaluate the comment for themselves. My understanding is that the Government’s position is that Clause 3(3) has been prepared on that basis, and that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is therefore unnecessary.
I see the Minister nodding. I hope that the ministerial nod, which I now record in Hansard, will cause the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to treat it as sufficient for his purposes and for those of Pepper v Hart. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taverne
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 7. I have taken no part in Committee. I should explain why I am moving this amendment today. I tabled my amendments at the request of Sense about Science, a charity which I founded just over 10 years ago, and from which I have recently retired. It has certainly played a prominent part in the proceedings on the reform of libel law, and I have followed its progress with keen interest. I first thank the Government for their helpful approach throughout, and say how much I appreciate the changes which they have made.
However, there are still some improvements to be made. I was encouraged to table Amendment 7 because it is based on the advice of senior counsel. The point can be made briefly. Under Clause 4, the defendant must show that he, she or they, as the case may be,
“reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”.
The amendment would replace “believed” with “decided”. I submit that it would make the clause clearer and simpler. Belief is subjective, much more so than decision. It is often hard to prove belief. It would be open to, possibly endless, argument and discussion, and could well lead us back in the direction of the checklist, which I am sure that all noble Lords wish to avoid.
Further, it may be the case that the defendant is a newspaper. That could make belief even harder to prove. For these simple reasons, I hope that the Government will favourably consider these amendments.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 6, 7 and 9, I declare an interest. I am a member of PEN, the defender of writers’ rights, and have been briefed by it in the matter of public interest defence. However, I speak as a journalist of some four decades’ experience, schooled in what were at the time the exacting standards of BBC journalistic behaviour. If that sounds rather smug or perhaps even naïve, following the earlier debate on Leveson today in which enormous generalisations about the nature of the press and its wickedness passed unchallenged, I am aware and proud of the many high standards of journalism in this country, which has served in part to disclose the scoundrels in the industry whom we wish to call to account.
It is against that background that I seek to make the matter of public interest foolproof against capricious and expensive litigation and extended and opportunistic probing of journalists’ subjective motives.
The advantage of the small but significant changes proposed in these amendments is that the defence can still benefit from a subjective element that would require the court to consider the defendant’s state of knowledge at the time of publication, but would limit the claimant’s ability to spin a long and expensive case by probing the defendant’s motives. It is the decision to publish rather than the belief that is critical.
Matters of public interest require objective judgments reasonably arrived at. Journalists must be held to such judgments. The issue of subjective motives is simply not relevant to the case. As Lord Justice Dyson found in the case of Flood:
“The mere fact that an article is published because the journalist or publisher wants to hurt the subject of the article is not material to whether the publication is in the public interest”.
As long-serving practitioners in the area of defamation law have advised the Libel Reform Campaign, an opportunity on the part of an aggressive, outraged claimant to use the litigation to probe into, to prise open and to seek to expose as flawed the motives and good faith of a defendant, including editors and journalists, may be readily exploited. As a writer of fiction, I am well aware of the complexity of human motive and its expression, including my own. But as a journalist, I acknowledge that my examination and exposure of a story must answer the strictest tests of reason and objective judgment. The law must safeguard my right to do so. In leaving open the option of what I might believe and why, some major intentions of the Bill—to reduce the length of cases and their prohibitive expense so as to enable those without means to get redress—would be damaged. I support the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, the Government are to be commended for having dropped the checklist in Clause 4 and for introducing instead the generic test, which I think was very much the test that Sir Brian Neill, as an adviser, recommended. There are three separate issues here. I am not sympathetic to widening the reasonable test to one which “could be” rather than “is”. I think that the objective test of reasonableness is right. I am sympathetic to substituting the word “decided” for “believed”. It is about whether what was decided was reasonable and, therefore, it seems to me that decided is a better word. It is not just I who say that: as has been said, it also has been said by leading libel counsel with experience.
I very much hope to persuade the Government to drop altogether Clause 4(2) on rapportage. Rapportage was introduced in my Private Member’s Bill originally—then, with good reason. But now that we have a good public interest test in Clause 4(1), I do not understand why we need the complexity of subsection (2), which I regard as difficult to understand or apply and unnecessary. Reading Clause 4(2) and asking oneself as a lawyer or a human being what it means makes my point. Clause 4(2) states:
“If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it”.
I think that I understand what is being said but I do not understand why it any longer needs to be in the Bill.
Rapportage, or reportage, covers cases in which the very fact that certain allegations are being made, or that a certain controversy exists, will constitute a matter of public interest. It is in the public interest to report what is being said, irrespective of whether it is true. In such cases, the defendant may be relieved of the normal obligation to seek appropriate verification of allegations before publishing them because the newspaper is a mere reporter. It is not adopting a defamatory position. In light of the amended Clause 4, there is no longer any need to make specific provision for rapportage because the elements of this subset of Reynolds privilege is covered by the general test of whether the statement published was on or part of a statement on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed that the publication was in the public interest.
Clause 4(2) as drafted is confusing and opaque. It has the potential to cause further confusion in the light of the redrafting of the rest of the clause. Clause 4(2) states that the court must,
“disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation”.
The reference to taking “steps to verify” is there because in the checklist in the previous version, one factor was,
“whether the defendant took any other steps to verify the truth of the imputation”.
However, as Clause 4(2)(g) has now gone from the Bill, there is no need to provide that the court should disregard it. To refer to taking “steps to verify” in subsection (2) is confusing.
I very much hope that we can get rid of this altogether. We do not need it. The general standard in Clause 4(1) is good enough to cover rapportage as well. I do not expect the Minister to give me other than a bleak and wintry reply this evening but I would like to think that by the time we come to Third Reading, the shoots of spring may shoot out of the earth.
Viscount Colville of Culross
My Lords, I support Amendment 7. I welcome the Government’s amendment to Clause 4. However, if the change from “believed” to “decided” guarantees that the checklist does not return and that authors will not be exposed to long and expensive cases in libel courts, I as a journalist think that that must be a good thing and I support it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I wish to make a short point. I wholly agree with what my noble friend Lord Lester said about the confusing drafting of Clause 4(2). It is a most barbaric concoction and, coming in an age when we are all trying to make legislation as accessible as possible to other than legal experts, it really will not do. One particular aspect adds to its inadequacy; namely, reference to,
“an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party”.
I do not quite see why this clause should apply only to a dispute to which a claimant was a party. Why would it not apply to a matter in which the claimant had an interest? There may be no dispute there but it could be to do with a campaign where again there is no dispute. Apart from the generality, that is a bit of a drawback.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I have no amendment in this group but I wish to speak partly in support of Amendments 6 and 7. I am persuaded, I think, that Amendment 7 may bring more to the clarity of this legislation than Amendment 6. I also wish to express some concerns about Amendments 6 and 7, which require clarification. I hope that we will be able to get that clarification from the Minister and perhaps reflect during the rest of the process of this Bill on whether the total effect of Amendments 6 and 7 will be as is being argued.
I approach this from a slightly different perspective. My reading of the effect of these amendments is that they are designed to improve Clause 4, which I accept, but that they would remove the element of subjectivity in the test of whether the publication was in the public interest. The clause has been substantially amended and, in fact, it has been recast. That has been welcomed, particularly by the promoters of these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made clear at the outset. This is a much improved clause but, as I understand it, the aim has been to move away from Reynolds but to reflect the case of Flood in the law.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am grateful to the contributors to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, expressed the concerns of Sense about Science, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, spoke on behalf of, or was briefed by, PEN. These are organisations that I have listened to, and have had contact and dialogue with, throughout the two years’ gestation of the Bill. My aim remains to get as close as possible to the aspirations of those organisations. I suspect that in the end they will still say that we have fallen short but, particularly in Clause 4, we have tried to move in a direction that makes the law better and clearer. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his comment on our work on recasting it.
Amendment 8 is a government amendment that owes its authorship to the noble Lord. I am grateful for that and I hope that our acceptance of it is a demonstration of my willingness to listen as the Bill has proceeded. Our amendment provides for the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case in deciding whether the requirements for the public interest defence under Clause 4 to be satisfied have been met. This amendment responds to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in Committee that following government amendments to Clause 4 which, among other things, removed the list of factors for the courts to consider, there was a risk that the courts would simply invent a new checklist in interpreting and applying the new defence—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
In the context of that debate, I indicated that we did not believe that a provision requiring the court to consider all the circumstances was strictly necessary, because the courts would do this in any event. I also indicated that in developing a body of case law the courts may inevitably decide that particular factors are relevant in determining whether the defence has been established in a case. That remains our view. However, on reflection, I believe that it would be helpful to send a signal to the courts and practitioners to make clear the wish of Parliament that the new defence should be applied in as flexible a way as possible in light of the circumstances.
Amendments 6 and 7 would change the second limb of the test for establishing the public interest defence under Clause 4, whereby it would be satisfied if the defendant could show that he could reasonably have decided that publishing the statement was in the public interest, rather than that he reasonably believed that that was the case. This is intended to make the test more objective, as noble Lords have indicated. It reflects concern that the provision as currently drafted could lead to claimants seeking to introduce arguments relating to the defendant’s motive, which the courts have indicated is not relevant in relation to the common-law defence. While a claimant might seek to introduce arguments about the defendant’s motive, given the strong signal given by the courts in cases such as Flood to the effect that such considerations are usually irrelevant, we think it highly unlikely that the courts would entertain them.
Let me say here—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has indicated that he is listening carefully to this—that my absolute intention is for this part of the legislation to embrace and reflect Flood. We are concerned that adopting the wording of the amendment could shift the focus more towards what a hypothetical defendant might have known or what steps they might have taken. This would not reflect the Flood judgment. In Flood, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said that the courts were examining whatever the defendant,
“knew (and did not know) and whatever they had done (and had not done)”.
To paraphrase, the courts have to focus on what the defendant’s state of knowledge was and what steps they took prior to publication. We consider that the current wording in Clause 4(1) better captures this test and better reflects Flood.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Perhaps the Minister could be referred by his officials to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, actually said in paragraph 113 of the judgment, where he said that there was a single question, which was,
“could whoever published the defamation, given whatever they knew (and did not know) and whatever they had done (and had not done) to guard so far as possible against the publication of untrue defamatory material, properly have considered the publication in question to be in the public interest?”.
As I read that, it is very close to Amendment 6. I mention it because this is a question purely of what was meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated.
Lord McNally
I shall certainly draw that intervention to the attention of my officials. My briefing poses the question: does the new reasonable belief test reflect the current law or change it? It then goes on to say that our intention is to reflect the current law as articulated in cases such as Flood and we believe that it does so. It states that the test draws in particular on the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, approached the question in Flood. It then quotes exactly the same section of the judgment. As an innocent in this jungle of legal jargon and judgments, it does not surprise me that two sides of the case should quote the same judgment. We think that we have got it right and that what we have reflects the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. We were doubly blessed in our Committee because we had both the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to give us wise legal advice. It is interesting that, in anticipating a question on that, my briefing should draw on exactly the same quote from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to defend what we have done as my noble friend Lord Lester claims for his amendment.
On Amendment 9, my noble friend Lord Phillips joined my noble friend Lord Lester in general castigation, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, gave them some qualified support. I have warned my noble friends to be wary of qualified support from the noble Lord, Lord Browne; it leads them only into bad ways.
The amendment would remove Clause 4(2), which deals with reportage. “Reportage” has been described by the courts as,
“a convenient word to describe the neutral reporting of attributed allegations rather than their adoption by the newspaper”.
Subsection (2) is intended to catch the core elements of reportage as articulated by the courts. These are that where the defendant publishes an accurate and impartial account of a dispute between two or more parties, the defendant does not need to have verified the information reported before publication. This would not, however, absolve the defendant from the need to satisfy the court that, in all the other circumstances of the case, it was reasonable to believe that the publication was in the public interest.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend’s determination to give effect to the Flood judgment. I am not sure that the advice that he has received from his department on interpretation is the right view and I hope that he will not just look at the elegance and the style but consider the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Lester. In the circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment but it may be a matter to which we will return.
Lord McNally
“(1A) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“(1) It is a defence for the operator to show that—
(a) it was not the operator who posted the statement,(b) the operator took reasonable care in relation to its posting,(c) the operator did not know and had no reason to believe that what it did caused, encouraged or contributed to the posting of the statement, and(d) the operator responded to a complaint about the statement with expedition and took such action in relation to the statement as was reasonable in the circumstances.(2) In considering the reasonableness of a defence under this section, a court shall take into account any steps taken by an operator to establish or adopt, and then to enforce or implement, any anti-defamation code of practice, any complaints procedure and any system for ascertaining and making available to a claimant the identity of any person posting any statement sufficient for the claimant to bring proceedings against the person.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, there has been an understandable preoccupation thus far with the traditional media, but, of course, the web is becoming an increasingly dominant player in the world of communication. Clause 5 deals with websites and in particular with the position of operators of websites. As fellow Peers will know by now, the Defamation Bill preserves primary liability, fairly, to the author of any defamation and protects and gives a blanket protection to the operators up to the point that a notice of complaint is lodged—and for a period after that.
As we have all said endlessly, it is extraordinarily difficult to strike a balance in this difficult field between on the one hand preventing censorship by threats of libel actions and on the other hand protecting an individual’s personal reputation. The chill factor, mentioned a great deal in Committee, operates on both levels, so to speak. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord McNally said,
“The Government want a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online cannot be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out a framework for how we wish to achieve this”.—[Official Report, 9/10/12; col. 935.]
Fair enough, but my noble friend Lord Faulks and I do not think that the balance has been quite well enough struck—or we would not have put down the amendment. At a previous stage of the Bill, I talked about the position of the little man and we talked earlier today about the position of those without resources in trying to protect their reputations.
One needs to acknowledge that the web is so different from traditional publishing via newspapers and magazines as to be almost another world. It provides a conduit for libel that enables defamations to be carried to the ends of the earth simultaneously at no cost. The libels will not be erased and they are universally and instantly accessible. It is interesting that in Committee my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam said that,
“there are so many millions of pieces of content being posted by so many millions of people within the United Kingdom and elsewhere that to be able to operate these platforms at scale and not have some kind of defence becomes unworkable”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. GC 574.]
I agree with him on “some kind of defence”, but that has to be a fair defence or it will reverberate unfairly against the individuals libelled.
I remind all noble Lords that Clause 5 says that the operator of the website cannot be liable for any defamation posted, however grotesque or damaging, unless and until a notice of complaint is filed and the operator fails to deal with that notice in accordance with the Bill and the regulations yet to come. That is not sufficient or adequate. Under Clause 5 as it stands, the web operator loses his defence only, as I say, once the notice of complaint has been given and he fails to respond in accordance with the regulations. I am happy that Amendment 17, to be moved shortly by the Government, will put into the Bill the amendment that I moved in Committee that would defeat a defence if there is malice on the part of the operator. The onus will be on the person defamed to prove malice, which is a high bar.
One needs to recognise that sometimes, not infrequently, the primary person responsible for the libel—the author of the statement posted—may not be accessible. I do not want to elaborate on what was said last time except briefly to remind the House that often these libels are anonymous, and behind one anonymous libel is another and so on. It is a commonplace for those affected by the defamations to go to court and get one order, only to find that another is required, and another and another. It is vital that the role and responsibility of the operators should be fair to both sides.
Just consider for the minute what the defamed citizen has to do under the Bill as it stands even to get a notice up on the web. First, he or she will need to get legal advice about what to do—we have spoken a lot about the complexity of this whole web of arrangements. That will be expensive—just that will be too expensive for many citizens—but so be it. There then has to be drafted a complaint notice that satisfies Clause 5(6), explaining why a statement is defamatory—fair enough. There will then be extra tests, or at least extra requirements, under the regulations when passed that may add substantially to the complexity of drawing up and lodging a notice. Other amendments tonight would impose yet more complicated tests on the defamed citizen—Amendment 14, for example. Then and only then, when the notice of complaint has been duly drawn up and served, will the operator of the website have to act to preserve his immunity and defence. There will still be time—I think probably 14 days—after all that when he can consider whether to take down the statement complained about. In that time—we could easily be talking about a month—the libel will be up and will have spread across the globe and back. The more grievous the libel the further it will have travelled and the more damage will have been done.
It is against that background that Amendment 10 is drafted. I suggest to noble Lords that it is neither unfair on nor unduly restrictive of operators. It will for example provide that if an operator was aware that the person posting the defamation had his knife out for the person defamed then it could well be falling foul of proposed new subsection (1)(b) of our amendment, namely that,
“the operator took reasonable care in relation to its posting”.
It could also fall foul of proposed new paragraph (c), which states that,
“the operator did not know and had no reason to believe that what it did caused, encouraged or contributed to the posting of the statement”.
Take another situation, where the operator had a stake in this and was maybe a partner or had some business association with the person posting the defamatory statement. Surely then the operator should be under a special duty to keep an eye on what that person or company was doing. Otherwise, as I say, there could be an unfairness to the person defamed and the operator would not be entirely at arm’s length or wholly unaware. It would not be in a position where it could not anticipate some potentially malign action on the part of the person who posted the defamation. It could be, for example, that it was part of a joint campaign. It could be that the website operator itself had an agenda. More and more websites are campaigning websites and have an axe to grind. Our amendments would at least ensure that where that was the case and the court felt that the operator had not taken reasonable care, and had knowledge or anticipation of what was likely to be posted by the individual or company concerned, it would not be able to hide behind the provisions of Clause 5(2) as it stands.
I think I will cease at this point, except to say that the uncontrolled use of the web is, as many would agree, coarsening our culture. There is a great deal of matter put on to websites every minute of every day that is unseemly, often bullying and sometimes pornographic. There is, as I say, a coarsening of our culture. This amendment will not change all that fundamentally, but it will at least control to some extent what is posted by dint of making the blanket immunity of the operator subject to reasonable and fair conditions.
I leave my noble friend Lord Faulks, who has put his name to this amendment, to deal with the relationship between it and the Defamation Act 1996, and to talk about the flexibility that the amendment will introduce into the defamation regime.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the law has been struggling for a little while now, both here and across the world, in trying to find the correct solution to the question of whether, and the extent to which, website operators should be liable for defamation. At the moment, there is no bespoke provision dealing with website operators.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was passed to deal with the position of wholesalers, booksellers, newsagents and libraries. It provides a possible defence for website operators, but this defence failed in the case of Godfrey v Demon in 2001 when a website operator did not remove the posting immediately upon being aware of its defamatory content. There is also a potential answer provided by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, but there is doubt about the level of protection this provides for so-called hosting. There is equally considerable doubt as to what does or does not constitute publication. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on not simply ducking the issue but seeking to address specifically the position of the operators of websites in the Bill.
I also generally applaud the Bill for the reasons that have been given in the course of debates. However, I am concerned that in the provisions of Clause 5 it is too generous to website operators. There is no doubt in my mind that these provisions are the most significant in the Bill. As we were reminded in Committee, nowadays the internet is the main form of communication used by people under a certain age. Even e-mails are something of a thing of the past. So that we can be confident that what we provide by this clause is going to be central in relation to defamatory communications in future, it is particularly important that we get this right.
The terms of Clause 5 leave much to regulations. I would not relish the role of parliamentary draughtsmen in trying to come up with appropriate regulations. It is almost certain that whatever emerges will be out of date almost immediately because of the fast-moving nature of this form of communication. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, in paragraph 15 of its report on the Defamation Bill, was wise when it said:
“We consider that, as a matter of constitutional principle, the relevant provision should be to the greatest extent possible on the face of the Bill, so allowing full legislative amendment and debate. Moreover, only by seeing the proposed obligations to be imposed on operators will Parliament be able to consider whether the regime proposed is fit for purpose”.
That is why our amendment leaves much to the judge, so as to prevent obsolescence in the law.
The amendment attempts to provide a special defence to website operators, acknowledging the vulnerable position that they may be in but none the less specifically echoing the legislative language of the 1996 Act, placing the burden upon the defendant to show that he, the website operator, exercised reasonable care. What worries me about the current drafting is that the burden is very much on the claimant to surmount a series of hurdles before he can overcome the prima facie defence provided to the operator of a website. This seems to me to be getting the balance wrong and places the website operator in a unique position in the law of defamation.
When the Law Commission in 2002 examined the law of defamation on the internet, it came up with various recommendations, including amending the 1996 Act which is effectively what this amendment does. It also recommended that the industry should adopt a code of practice. My noble friend Lord Phillips and I think that is critical, and it is unfortunate that no such code of practice has emerged. As our amendment is framed, it would place a considerable onus on website operators in general to arrive at a code of practice which, if sensible and reasonable and followed in an individual case, would provide a solid defence to claims in defamation.
There is I think consensus that we should be trying to keep defamation claims out of court, if at all possible. The position after this Bill becomes law means only a well funded claimant with a serious complaint can even dream of bringing proceedings. In respect of that rather small risk, it is clear that website operators can take out insurance in respect of which only modest premiums would be payable. That seems to me a small price to pay for the protection of those who are genuinely aggrieved at defamatory content being posted on a website. In Grand Committee I gave the example of a teacher being accused of being a paedophile—almost certainly fatal to their career and their life.
Nobody should under-estimate the power exercised by website operators. I was a member of the Joint Committee subjecting the Data Communications Bill to prelegislative scrutiny last year, and we heard a great deal of evidence from website operators. It was impressive in terms of the quality, and no doubt expense, of those assigned to advance their position. They did not want to have to store any information which was not commercially useful to them even if it helped government agencies to track down and prosecute criminals. Much was made of their users’ rights to privacy. This is something of an irony since the information that users of websites provide is of course extremely valuable commercially. Website operators now say that it is very inconvenient to take down potentially defamatory material and that it compromises free speech. It is perhaps a little easy to deploy free speech in this context, but let us not get too misty eyed about this in the light of the careless and often ill thought out comments that find themselves on websites.
I fear that this clause as currently framed favours the powerful—namely, the website operators—who have a strong lobby, as opposed to the much less powerful, who might be defamed in the future. Our amendment does something to try and redress the balance. On considering the respective positions of the very powerful and the almost powerless, I know which side I am on.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I have the misfortune to be opposed to the amendment, and I shall try very briefly to explain why this is so. As I said in Grand Committee, there is across the world a fundamental difference between on the one hand the Chinese and, on the other, the United States. The Chinese position on the world wide web is to create the great firewall of China and the Chinese intranet and to do whatever it can to be able to censor the use of the web by dissidents of one kind or another. The position of the United States, ever since Bill Clinton’s statute, gives an absolute immunity to United States internet service providers. The European compromise is contained in the e-commerce directive, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated, and seeks to strike a fair balance between freedom of speech and personal privacy and reputation in the structure of the regulations. Although it is vague, it is fairly balanced.
The world wide web is, on the one hand, of vast benefit not only to website operators but to the public and the citizens of the world in terms of free expression, which it enhances. On the other hand, the web creates much more capacity to damage reputation and personal privacy. That is the other side of the story. The puzzle is, given that this is a transnational, worldwide problem, what can any one country do to try to strike a fair balance? How can we devise a system that will encourage operators such as Google and Yahoo in this respect, given that they have no particular commercial interest in keeping up anything they post which is controversial? For example, if they post criticisms of Ruritania as a corrupt, disgraceful and oppressive Government, and then a threat is made to them to take it down, they have no commercial interest in keeping it up, even though we as citizens have every interest in their doing so. That is the free speech side of the argument.
I perfectly agree that one must do what one can to provide effective remedies in privacy and defamation claims. I admire the boldness of this amendment, which seeks to take out of the Bill altogether subsections (1) to (5) of Clause 5—that is, the entire carefully formulated procedure, including, in subsection (5), the regulations and what they may provide—and to put in place instead a structure which it is suggested will tip the balance better in favour of the claimant. I will not take the time of the House in going through that except to say that the more I read the burdens that the amendment would place on the operator, the more unbalanced I think they are in what they seek to do.
Furthermore, words such as “reasonable care”, with the burden being on the operator, or,
“did not know and had no reason to believe”,
comprise burdensome tests. I fully realise why my noble friends think that that wording is better than what is in the Bill. However, I do not think that it is. I think that it would give rise to litigation and would unduly fetter freedom of expression not for the website operators—I do not mind about them—but for us, the people who receive information and ideas on the web.
I like what the Government have done which I think strikes a perfectly fair balance. It is a good scheme. I am glad that they will introduce regulations. I very much hope that they will not accept this amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have not taken part in debates on the Bill so far, so I shall be brief. However, I want to say a word or two in support of Amendment 10 in the names of my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Faulks. I do so on the non-legalistic issue of equality of arms, which I do not believe currently exists on my reading of the Bill and the comments that my noble friends have made. There is an important issue to be addressed here. Rather to my shame, I had not until recently realised that the Bill provided an opportunity to address this growing challenge.
I have raised this issue before at Second Reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill on 8 November 2011. I said then:
“It is a small issue, but one that is growing in importance. In future, how are we going to ensure the accuracy of information placed on social networking websites and who will be responsible for this? This is a freedom which is increasingly going to need protecting. … A situation can now arise where people and their businesses can be irredeemably damaged by completely inaccurate statements that are put up on these websites and for which they can obtain no redress. … People are entitled to some clear way of challenging these statements and, where appropriate, of obtaining redress. I would be interested to hear whether my noble friend”—
that was the noble Lord, Lord Henley—
“has any policy developments under consideration to deal with this issue, one that is surely going to increase in importance in the future”.—[Official Report, 8/11/11; cols. 187-88.]
I am afraid that answer came there none. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friends have taken up the cudgels to try to achieve a better equality of arms, as I said.
My noble friend Lord Faulks referred to the power of website operators. I have seen the power of website operators in interviewing talented young people; I can think of one or two who had disobliging statements posted about them which have had a very deleterious effect on their career. The website operators—this is perhaps more the case now than it used to be—have not been too quick to try to remove this information and cleanse the websites.
As I was preparing my speech on the aforementioned Second Reading debate, a case arose of a Portsmouth plumber whose business had been completely wrecked because he was accused of being a paedophile. It turned out that the statement had been posted by a competitor firm. Holiday companies and hotels have been damaged in the same way. However, I have to admit that on certain occasions people have written bullish accounts of their own hotel in an attempt to increase trade.
It was in connection with this last category that I mentioned in my Second Reading speech the role of the website TripAdvisor. A short 24 hours passed before it asked for a meeting. Its approach in discussions with me showed the challenges the Government face—challenges which I think they have not so far tackled but which my noble friends’ amendment does.
First, the TripAdvisor representatives argued that there was no problem and that their customer surveys showed a high level of customer satisfaction. Secondly, when pressed about the response to those who were unhappy, even if they were a small minority, it seemed that for every solution there was a problem: a problem of jurisdiction, given the international nature of website operators, as my noble friend Lord Lester said; a problem of identification—who posts what about whom; a problem of competitive disadvantage as a result of a checking system which could be portrayed as intrusive; and, finally, when all else failed, a problem of data protection, the reasons for this being slightly less clear to me. I said to the representatives that in my view there was an issue of increasing public concern and that the industry—if that is the right collective noun for website operators—needed to agree to establish, publicise and enforce a code of practice which had a suitable element of representation of the public interest in any disciplinary procedures.
So, in enthusiastically supporting this entire amendment, I particularly support its provision in subsection (2) regarding the value to be placed on the defence of having an anti-defamation code of practice.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, as a website operator, I urge my noble friend the Minister to take no rubbish from website operators. I have great sympathy with the purpose of this amendment. There are a lot of people out there who are essentially defenceless when things appear about them on the web. We need to make sure that the regulations enable them to get easy redress and relief and that we do not allow long timescales to suit operators when short timescales would suit the people who have been defamed. At the same time, as my noble friend said, we have to balance that with our freedom to be rude about people who we need to be rude about and to say nasty things about Ruritania or anywhere else, and to keep the powerful under control. It is a difficult balancing act. I think that the right way to deal with this is in the regulations under Clause 5(5), which can go into some detail and some precision about this. I would hate to be subject to this amendment. As a website operator I really would not know where I was, or what I was or was not allowed to do, particularly with no supporting regulations. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment but I very much support the spirit behind it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Lester for his intervention.
Clause 5 provides a defence to website operators if, upon receipt of a notice of complaint, they follow a process designed to ensure that the issue is resolved with the poster of the material. My noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Phillips raised concerns in Committee about Clause 5, and my noble friend Lord McNally and I met them to discuss those concerns. I am pleased to say that, as has been acknowledged, as a result of those discussions the Government have been able to bring forward Amendment 17 on the issue of malice, which I shall speak to in the next group of amendments. However, this amendment takes a different approach to that taken by the Government in Clause 5. As has been said, it would replace the Clause 5 defence and the accompanying process with provisions which substantially replicate the defence for secondary publishers currently found under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 but with one important addition. New subsection (1)(d) would require the operator, on receipt of a complaint, to respond with expedition and to take such action as is reasonable in the circumstances.
This additional requirement would mean that, in order to have a defence, the operator would, on receipt of a complaint, need to make a judgment on what action it was reasonable to take. This would inevitably involve them reaching a view on the merits of the case, which in most instances they would not be in a position to do. The fact that they would lose the defence if a court decided that they had not acted reasonably would create a great deal of uncertainty for website operators, and we believe that in practice it would mean that many operators would simply choose to take the material down. That would result in exactly the same situation that we have now—an approach which has been criticised as unsatisfactory not only by a large majority of the responses to our public consultation but by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and by the Law Commission in its 2002 scoping study on defamation and the internet.
Subsection (2) in the amendment would require the court, in considering whether or not the defence was made out, to take account of any steps taken by the operator to have and comply with a code of practice in relation to defamation, a complaints procedure or a system for providing identity details of posters to claimants to enable them to bring proceedings against the poster. I totally understand the intention behind the proposed subsection but Clause 5 already sets out a simple process in relation to the handling of complaints and the provision of identity details. In the event that a complainant brings proceedings against a website operator, the court will be able to assess whether the operator has complied with that process. This will ensure that the court takes into account how the operator has responded to the complaint. Perhaps I may also inform noble Lords that we will be publishing specific guidance on how the new process will operate for all those involved.
We have heard a great deal about balance. This new approach is about striking the correct balance and also providing protection to website operators. It is about striking a fair balance between those who have allegedly been subject to defamation and freedom of expression and speech. We believe that the defence in Clause 5 strikes a fair balance between all the interests involved. It will help freedom of expression by giving the poster of allegedly defamatory material an opportunity to stand up for it if they wish to do so, and it will give greater certainty to website operators. At the same time, it will enable claimants to secure take-down of the material on a short fixed timescale in the event that the poster does not wish to defend it. Where the poster does wish to defend it, it will also ensure that the Norwich Pharmacal process is more likely to give the claimant the information they need to pursue proceedings. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to those who took part in this debate. I heard what the Minister said but I fear that I remain completely unassuaged. I think that we will rue the day that the Bill goes through in this form. All I can say is that I hope very much that when the regulations come to be drafted and debated, they will in some way compensate for what seems to my noble friend Lord Faulks, myself and indeed others to be a serious misbalance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
NHS Bodies and Local Authorities (Partnership Arrangements, Care Trusts, Public Health and Local Healthwatch) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:10 - Division on Motion. - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 145 - Motion disagreed.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House regrets that the NHS Bodies and Local Authorities (Partnership Arrangements, Care Trusts, Public Health and Local Healthwatch) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/3094) fail to guarantee sufficient representation of local patient interests and, despite Government assurances given to the House at Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 15 December 2011, have through restrictions on campaigning deliberately tied the hands of Local Healthwatch bodies from giving public voice to those patient interests.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, this is my second Motion of Regret in relation to the regulations on Healthwatch, the body—or perhaps I should say the brand—created in the Health and Social Care Act.
A central theme in the Act is that local people should be able to influence improvements to local health and social care. To succeed, Healthwatch needs the trust and confidence of the public. To win that trust and to become an effective organisation for patients, it must have independence from the providers, commissioners and regulators of health services, because a patient’s complaint may involve the need to challenge any or all three of those interests. It must also have genuine grass-roots representation from groups and individuals, no top-down organisation, and work and comments derived from sound local information.
In our previous debate on Healthwatch England, I welcomed the appointment of Anna Bradley as its new chair. She has the right skills and experience, and I do not doubt her commitment to try to make the organisation work. However, the fact remains that it is a sub-committee of the CQC and it does not have anywhere near the same levers to pull or incentives to use to drive changes in the system. It simply does not have the power and authority of the three big players in the NHS: the Commissioning Board, the Care Quality Commission and Monitor.
In the regulations that we are considering tonight, that problem is mirrored locally. Local Healthwatch is potentially a powerful mechanism, but it is structurally weak because it relies on local authorities for funding, and it is local authorities that provide the social care that it is meant to monitor.
However, my real concern tonight is that, when local Healthwatch eventually opens its doors, it will be bound and gagged by these regulations. This is contrary to the comments and commitment given by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to my noble friend Lord Warner on the sixth day of Report of the Health and Social Care Bill, when she made the following statement:
“The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked again about campaigning. I said in Committee that HealthWatch England and local healthwatch can campaign. I followed that up with a letter confirming that, which I hope he got—but perhaps he did not—and I reiterate it here. I hope that that is of help to the noble Lord”.—[Official Report, 8/3/12; col. 1958.]
No one would condone a local Healthwatch campaigning against or for a political party but these regulations go well beyond that. They effectively ban local Healthwatch from leading campaigns to change poor services and amend legislation. As Healthwatch England has said in its briefing today, its independence is crucial to ensure that patients and NHS users can share their views and experience and to ensure that those will be acted on appropriately without undue influence.
The noble Earl the Minister will no doubt tell us tonight that the words used in the regulations do not have the meaning that I am placing on them—that in Section 36(2) local Healthwatch has the necessary freedom to undertake campaigning and policy work related to its core activities. However, I am not alone in expressing concern at the actual wording of the regulations. Healthwatch England’s briefing states that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 36(1):
“should have been worded more appropriately to avoid any potential confusion around the active role local Healthwatch will have in undertaking policy and campaigning work on behalf of consumers of health and social care services in their areas”.
It goes on to say:
“Healthwatch England would welcome that these concerns be resolved in future statutory instruments. In the interim, Healthwatch England proposes that it works with the Department of Health and the Local Government Association to produce guidance for local Healthwatch and local authorities to assist them to correctly interpret the regulations”.
I say: for once, why can we not have regulations that mean what they say?
Coming just before the publication of the Francis report on the disasters at Mid Staffordshire hospital, in moving these regulations the Government are putting at risk the one prerequisite that Healthwatch needs to do its job, which is the trust of patients and the public. It will undermine the effectiveness of local Healthwatch as the people’s watchdog in health and social care.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am becoming increasingly of the view that the Government have mis-sold the concept of Healthwatch. When we first started on this long journey and the Health and Social Care Bill was coming before Parliament, the Government promised that we would get an effective patient-user voice. They promised that we would have a coherent structure. They promised that Healthwatch would ensure that patients’ interests and the voice of users would be heard centrally in the new NHS structures. But that is not what we are getting.
I spent 12 years as director of the national statutory body representing patients’ interests in the NHS and I learnt a number of things during that experience, one of which was that however well argued or well informed the case made on behalf of the users of services in the National Health Service might be, it is not automatically listened to. The powerful vested interests within health militate against that. Let us be clear: there is a power imbalance between the user and the provider of the health service. There is an imbalance in information and in what they can do. For the voice of the users to become as central as repeated government policy has said it should be, that voice has to be substantial and loud. That means that the bodies representing the interests of users have to be able to make waves. They have to make people listen and, on occasion, they have to be a nuisance. That is why, when the Bill was going through Parliament, we asked repeatedly in your Lordships’ House whether Healthwatch would be able to campaign in the interests of the users of the service that they were representing.
We asked in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, assured us that users would be able to campaign. We asked again on Report, and again the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, assured us that that would be the case—Healthwatch would be able to campaign in support of the interests of local health service users. As is widely known, I defer to no one in my respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. To mis-speak once may be regarded as a misfortune; to mis-speak twice begins to look like carelessness. Either the noble Baroness was being extremely careless—repeatedly, both in Committee and on Report—or policy has changed. Despite the intent that these would be vibrant, effective, campaigning voices on behalf of patients, somewhere along the line someone in the Department of Health took a decision and said, “No, we mustn’t allow them to have any sort of effectiveness whatever. They mustn’t be allowed to make waves; they mustn’t be allowed to cause trouble; they mustn’t be allowed to be a nuisance”, because that is what the regulations do.
What are we to make of Regulation 36(1)(a)(ii)? It is unequivocal. Healthwatch will not be allowed to do anything that promotes or opposes changes in,
“the policy adopted by any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter”.
I find it difficult to know what a local Healthwatch organisation will say about the change in the organisation of, say, diabetes services in a particular area that will not be “in relation to any matter”, or determined by a “public authority” or a “policy adopted by” a public authority, so the local Healthwatch cannot object or campaign against it.
I am sure that in trying to defend the extraordinary wording that is placed before us tonight the Minister will try to tell us that paragraph (2) makes it all right. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is with us, so I hesitate to say that it seems to be a lot of legal gobbledegook. Apparently it will be all right if it,
“can reasonably be regarded as incidental to other activities, which a person might reasonably consider to be activities carried on for the benefit of the community in England”—
and—
“those other activities cannot reasonably be regarded as incidental to activities of the descriptions prescribed in paragraph (1)”—
which is the bit I read out.
That is very clear. I am sure that all the guidance that can emerge from the Department of Health in the future will make it clearer still. But even if you take that as trying to mitigate a blanket effect of forbidding any campaigning that might conceivably be regarded as a,
“policy adopted by … any … public authority on any matter”,
what does it actually mean? What is incidental to other activities? It is not incidental to other activities to say that the reorganisation of diabetes clinics in a particular area is inappropriate. That is what the Healthwatch organisation is there to say on behalf of local users; it is not incidental to something else that it should be doing. What is this meant to mean?
Healthwatch England, all of three hours ago, sent us its comments on the regulations. It said that they could have been worded more appropriately. There is an understatement. I wonder what it really meant. I do not think that the question is one of more appropriate wording. I wonder how much room for manoeuvre Healthwatch England had—given how independent we know that its structure enables it to be—to say what it really thought about the nonsense of the wording. It did feel strongly enough to tell us that it hoped that future regulation in statutory instruments might get it right. That is very interesting.
The definition of an institution that is a political campaigning organisation is any person carrying on or proposing to carry on activities to promote or oppose changes in any law applicable in the United Kingdom. Healthwatch England, by the definition in these regulations, is a politically campaigning organisation. Therefore, no local Healthwatch organisation will be allowed to act in support of a policy that has emerged from the national body representing patients.
I am sure that, however malign the intent was of those who drafted these regulations and of the Ministers who instructed them to do so, they did not mean them to be quite so destructive. I do not know who writes these things. I do not know what they are trying to achieve. However, we should be clear that there will not be one point of contact so that a local Healthwatch would know where to go to be given clear and consistent guidance, because the structure that the Government are creating is fragmented. Each local authority will commission an organisation to provide local Healthwatch services. Individually, around the country, people will try to interpret what the regulations mean—yet they are virtually incapable of being sensibly interpreted.
Of course, there is an answer to this. Ministers could decide, having listened, not to press on with the regulations. They could say that they should be withdrawn. There are two good reasons why they should do that. First, the regulations are appallingly drafted and in practice unworkable—and will be unworkable when they are interpreted in several hundred different ways around the country. The second good reason is that tomorrow we will hear the report on Mid Staffordshire. I suspect that one of the strongest lessons that will emerge from the report is the need for strong, local representation of the interests of local users of the health service. That means strong and effective local Healthwatch organisations. These regulations will not give us strong and effective local Healthwatch organisations, so if the Government are serious in whatever they say in response to tomorrow’s Francis report, they ought to withdraw the regulations tonight and come forward with sensible regulations that will give us the sort of local Healthwatch organisations that the country needs.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support the points made by my two noble friends in their eloquent speeches. I speak as someone who was given assurances about campaigning on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. My filing system is not up to discovering whether she sent me a letter, but I have no recollection that she withdrew her assurances in any way. The set of regulations in Regulation 36(1) and (2) of Part 6, taken together, totally neuter the ability of local Healthwatch organisations to campaign effectively.
As my noble friend said, the extraordinary thing is that the Government have chosen, with absolutely brilliant timing, to bring this before the House on the day before publication of the Francis report. My noble friend was wise. He did not know when the Francis report was coming out, but the Government had an opportunity to offer the chance to defer these regulations. It is very odd that we are having this debate when no doubt tomorrow there will be an unleashing—a positive avalanche—of rhetoric about the need to put the patient at the centre of the NHS. There was a warm-up on “Newsnight” yesterday. We can see it coming. Now we have a set of regulations that will set up local Healthwatch alongside Healthwatch England. The organisations will be totally unable to campaign against policies that they regard as not in patients’ interests.
I will spend a few moments on the text of the regulations. The Explanatory Note on page 38 of the regulations states:
“Regulation 36 sets out certain political activities which are not to be treated as carried out for the benefit of the community”.
This is an extraordinary statement, but Regulation 36(1) and (2) go rather wider than that. The Explanatory Note does not accurately reflect what is in the regulations. Consideration needs to be given to the quality of the drafting of either the Explanatory Note or of Regulation 36(1)(a) and (b), interrelated with Regulation 36(2). Regulation 36(1)(a) and (b) prevents a local Healthwatch organisation promoting or opposing changes in the policy adopted by any governmental or public body in relation to any matter, including the promotion of changes to the policy, unless under Regulation 36(2)(a) they can reasonably be regarded as incidental to other activities which are acceptable. So it is left to a multitude of small local social enterprises around the country to make a judgment, day by day, about whether what they are doing offends the provisions in Regulation 36(1)(a) and (b), as modified by Regulation 36(2)(a).
Even if we assume that there is some scope under that wording for them to campaign—which I very much doubt on any reasonable interpretation of the words—they will be in a state of uncertainty, and they will be expected to resolve that uncertainty with the minuscule amounts of money they have to carry out their operations. So if the Government want them to be effective with the small amounts of money there is likely to be, why do they want them to be tied-up by and concerned about obscure regulations which call into question their right to do the sane and sensible thing on behalf of patients in their area?
This House operates on the basis that one can accept assurances from government spokesmen while legislation is going through and we do not pursue matters when we are given them. However, as an individual Member of this House, I take umbrage about the assurances we were given on our ability to campaign. And not only me—the point about campaigning was repeated by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and again we were given assurances. We did not press this point further at Third Reading but, had we not been given those assurances, I am sure we would have come back to this issue at that stage. The Government have some explaining to do about why those assurances were not reflected in the wording of these regulations.
I support the point made by my noble friend Lord Collins about the extraordinary definition of a lay person. As other interests said to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, this definition of lay person and lay involvement creates a situation in which it is possible to have people in local Healthwatch organisations who could be said to be in a position to manipulate discussion and debate on behalf of the very people that a local Healthwatch organisation is supposed to be monitoring and looking into.
Finally, I draw attention to the requirement provisions in Regulations 40 to 43. If one looks at these as a normal human being, they again pose a bureaucratic nightmare that will be excessively burdensome for the small organisations which will have to understand what it all means. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Department of Health, Ministers and civil servants to produce proportionate regulations in relation to small bodies which spend relatively small amounts of public money.
These regulations are totally disproportionate to what they are trying to regulate in the interests of patients. The best thing the Government can do is graciously to withdraw the regulations, think about what is going to happen tomorrow, reflect on this and, after further consultation with stakeholders, come back with regulations which live up to the promises that the Government made and are more appropriate for the organisations being regulated.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, just under a year ago on 8 March 2012 we were asked, during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act, to accept a last-minute change of structure of local Healthwatch because, as the Minister put it at the time, on reflection the Government realised that greater flexibility was needed over the organisational form of local Healthwatch. It was not entirely clear what lay behind this sudden realisation, which happened after the Bill had been through the Commons. The House was given only five working days within which to make sense of 50-plus government amendments that were put down at the time to achieve this change.
This was a very unusual action for the Government to have taken and very little explanation was given. Stakeholders in patient and public engagement were not consulted; we were asked, effectively, to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. We continued to put our faith in the Government’s intention as stated in the White Paper, Equity and Excellence, which aimed to strengthen the collective voice of patients through a new independent consumer champion within the Care Quality Commission, manifested at a local level as local Healthwatch with a strong local infrastructure.
During the debate on Report, the Minister described Healthwatch as, indeed, the voice of the people. At that time, we were dealing with the third reform of the way in which local communities influenced their NHS in three years, and there was a general view that, for their sake, we needed to get on with it. To avoid switching off the power for local communities to have a say in local services for too long, we felt the turbulence of further reform needed to be kept to a minimum. We hoped that secondary legislation would give the system its real shape and we would have an opportunity to ensure that the essentials were in place, changes in structure notwithstanding. This secondary legislation, which is among the most difficult to fathom, really fails to reassure.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege will deal with freedom of speech and action. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about two issues relating to who will make local Healthwatch’s decisions on what it does and how it does it, and what type of involvement lay people or volunteers will have in those decisions.
Local Healthwatch must be a social enterprise contracted by a local authority and may have many subcontracts with other organisations—which may or may not be local or social enterprises—to support or carry out its statutory functions. To try to cut through this structural tangle and preserve the essence of local Healthwatch as the Minister intended it to be—the “collective voice of patients” operating through a “strong local infrastructure”—in March 2012 we focused on who would be involved. We debated the independence of local Healthwatch from the local authority that contracts it, and similarly the independence of Healthwatch England from the CQC, of which it is a committee.
We felt that if local people wholly outside the health and social care system were leading this new structure, they would make it work properly, despite any inherent inadequacies which we were not afforded the time to correct. Therefore, we were pleased when on Report the Minister gave a clear and unambiguous undertaking on behalf of the Secretary of State. She said:
“I have listened to the concerns expressed about the need for local healthwatch to have strong lay involvement. I completely agree. This will be vital to the success of local healthwatch. Therefore, I confirm to the House today that we will use the power of the Secretary of State to specify criteria, which local healthwatch must satisfy, to include strong involvement by volunteers and lay members, including in its governance and leadership. This will have the effect that a local authority cannot award a local healthwatch contract to a social enterprise unless this condition is satisfied. I hope that that provides reassurance to noble Lords”.—[Official Report, 8/3/12; col. 1990.]
Despite the evident good intentions behind this undertaking, something seems to have gone wrong with its execution. There is a serious legal contortion in the regulations around the definition of “lay persons and volunteers”. Suffice to say, it can include staff of health and social care commissioners or providers, as long as they are not clinicians.
This brings me to the role of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. It considered this SI on 15 January and its 23rd report draws these regulations to the specific attention of the House,
“on the grounds they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House and that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objective”.
The committee noted that staff could be decision-makers in local Healthwatch. The department did not dispute this in its response to the committee, which therefore concluded that,
“the current wording may leave Local Healthwatch vulnerable to manipulation”.
The committee has been unequivocal in highlighting the errors it perceives in the secondary legislation, saying:
“The Department has offered a legal and policy response, but that may not be enough: the Department needs to address urgently the points raised to the satisfaction of the public because without trust in the basic structure the Department simply may not get the volunteers it wants”.
These regulations do not deliver on the undertaking we were given. There is no assurance of independence, credibility or a strong collective voice for patients. Local Healthwatch could be a mere proxy voice spoken by others—indeed, those others are the very people against whom that voice may wish to speak.
To help reassure both this House and the committee, perhaps the Minister could help me with two scenarios. First, could the manager of a care home sit on its local Healthwatch? If he or she did so, how confident would local people be in the conclusions of that local Healthwatch about the quality of services both at that care home and others? Secondly, could a local profit-making provider of primary care be a local Healthwatch contractor? If so, could its manager sit on the local Healthwatch decision-making group? How confident would local people be in the information they obtained from local Healthwatch in helping them choose a GP?
Moving on, what exactly constitutes “involvement”? The regulations require,
“a procedure for involving lay persons or volunteers”,
although the distinction is unclear. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee points out, “involvement” is not defined. The main problem is that in paragraph 38 the regulations deliver,
“the involvement of lay persons and volunteers in the governance”,
but not participation in decision-making, which one would have expected to see in Regulation 40(4).
We know from Sections 23 and 26 of the Health and Social Care Act, which relate to the national Commissioning Board and CCGs, that involvement in the context of patient and public involvement may simply mean giving information. There are no criteria for when more is required.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, it is with regret that we are here this evening regretting that the Government have, through restrictions on campaigning, deliberately tied the hands of local Healthwatch bodies from giving public voice to those patients’ interests.
The regulations seem muddled and unclear. I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has not managed to do better. Over the years, he has witnessed the difficulties that the bodies representing patients have had, ever since the closure of the community health councils. This time around, I feel that the Government are missing an opportunity. I support the view—I always have—that it is essential that local Healthwatch be independent and led by the service users and the public if it is to have credibility and influence. It must not be a tool of those whom it monitors and inspects.
With the Francis report to be published tomorrow, I am sure that it will become evident that a clear, independent voice supporting patients and users of care homes is vital. There should be trust. The dangerous culture of cover-up and not listening to family and friends must be rectified. At the moment, the Patients Association is asked to comment when there is a problem. We need good, dynamic Healthwatches to ensure that disasters do not happen. We need people who know the needs of their local population. We need safety and a good standard of all health and social care. Healthwatch England is there to help and support local groups, but the local Healthwatch should have freedom to do the very best for those whom it should be protecting and supporting. I hope that the Government will realise what is needed and do better before it is too late.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend has got the message now that we are not totally enamoured of these regulations. I think back to when we had the White Paper, which was published in July 2010. I remember, as my noble friend Lady Jolly has said, how excited I was then by the fact that in local Healthwatch we were to have an organisation that really would be the collective voice of patients. There was a mechanism so that it would have a very strong infrastructure at the local level.
So far so good, but throughout the passage of the Bill Members of your Lordships’ House fought strongly to get that policy enacted. We were given assurances, as noble Lords have said, and they were given in good faith. Yet now we have the regulations in this statutory instrument, we are not only disappointed but deeply concerned. I share the grave concern of the House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which says that there is a very real possibility that local Healthwatch is in danger of being manipulated, but our concerns do not stop there.
The Government are right to want local people to have control of local Healthwatch but there is a genuine fear about it being subjected to such complex and draconian restrictions on what it will be able to say and do. It is not entirely clear to us what value local Healthwatch can add to the accountability framework of the NHS. This view is shared by Healthwatch England which, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has said, suggests that this could be dealt with by guidance. However, the trouble with guidance is that it does not have any statutory force. However, it could use its powers to sharpen the way in which local Healthwatch operates—as an independent champion through the trademark which all local Healthwatches must have and have to own. I have not given my noble friend any notice of this, but perhaps he might like to think about that and take it away.
Paragraph 36 of the regulations prohibits local Healthwatch from opposing or promoting changes to any national or EU law, any national policy, any policy by a local public authority—including both local authorities, the NHS or “any organ or agency” of either—and any planned or actual changes in any of these. In addition, it prohibits influencing,
“voters in relation to any election or referendum”.
These prohibited activities may be undertaken only if they are incidental to what could be called the core purpose of local Healthwatch—that is, giving people a say in local health and social care—unless that core purpose is incidental to the prohibited activities. This is mind-stretching. That seems to be something of a circular definition whereby X is allowed if it is incidental to Y, unless Y is incidental to X. This is pretty difficult. I have said that it is mind-stretching but I really fear that it will be unworkable. What is certain is that it will be incomprehensible to local people, who are expected to participate in local Healthwatch.
The impact of this provision is likely to have a chilling effect and to negate the aims of Healthwatch. Why should any committed volunteer get involved in local Healthwatch, giving freely of their time and energy to try to influence things for the better, if they risk being penalised for doing so?
I shall describe three situations to the Minister to test this with him, and I hope that he will reassure me on these points. First, say that there was a controversial policy to close an A&E department in order to save money. Would local Healthwatch be permitted to provide evidence to campaigners of how good the patient experiences had been at that threatened department? Would that be banned under Regulation 36 as the promotion of changes to a policy that a public authority proposes to adopt? If the Minister says no, how could local Healthwatch be confident that the local NHS decision-makers would share this view?
Secondly, could people who had been active in a national campaign to improve quality and accountability in the NHS be decision-makers in local Healthwatch? Would local Healthwatch have to avoid any connections to an organisation seen as intending,
“to affect public support for a political party”,
that was in power? Again, if the Minister says no, and decisions on such matters are to be delegated to local authorities, how could local Healthwatch be confident of that?
Thirdly, during a local election campaign, would local Healthwatch be subject to purdah, like democratically elected bodies such as local authorities or the Government themselves? Would that apply even if it discovered serious abuses of vulnerable people with learning disabilities in a residential home during this period? Such a discovery would not reflect well on the local authority commissioners, who are “an organ or agency” of local government under the regulations. Would the local Healthwatch have to keep such concerns secret or risk being penalised by that very same local authority?
The very fact that we have to ask these questions demonstrates that we do not have the right set of safeguards for the independence of local Healthwatch. The fact that local Healthwatch is funded and controlled by local authorities, which it is supposed to be scrutinising, is pretty uncomfortable. The added constraints of Regulation 36 threaten its freedom to speak and to act in the interests of patients and the population. These very complex restrictions seem designed to protect those in politics or in the provision of services who have something to hide. They impoverish the debate on health and social care, whether it is about controversial reconfigurations or a Baby P tragedy. Patients could not care less about politics and just want someone to speak up for them when they themselves cannot.
I urge my noble friend to consider modifying, redrafting or, if possible, removing these restrictions, or to find a mechanism to ensure that they are not implemented in the way that I have outlined and the way that I fear. To me, it is not clear whom they are really designed to protect, but I fear that it is certainly not patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for raising his concerns and other noble Lords for following in his footsteps in sometimes very trenchant terms. A number of concerns have been raised about these regulations during the course of the debate and I will now do my best to address them in turn. A number of noble Lords reminded us of the critical importance of lay involvement in local Healthwatch and questioned why the wording of the regulations does not therefore prohibit employees of a local authority or indeed of the NHS from taking roles in the leadership and governance of a local Healthwatch. Indeed, your Lordships’ scrutiny committee suggested that this might leave a local Healthwatch in some way vulnerable to manipulation or threaten its independence. That concern was picked up by one or two noble Lords. I can, I hope, provide reassurance on this. Indeed, I am sorry that despite the department’s clarificatory submission to the scrutiny committee, it still remains a source of concern.
We completely recognise the importance of local Healthwatch being truly local organisations that are led by local people and involve volunteers. That policy aim is reflected in the way the regulations are drafted. They impose explicit requirements relating to the involvement of lay persons and volunteers. Both those terms are defined. The definitions of “lay” and “volunteer” are designed to be as inclusive as possible. Essentially, they aim to cover those who wish to give up their time for something they feel passionately about to influence change and service improvement. In practice, very often lay people and volunteers are the same group of people, but we thought it important not to frame a definition in a way that would exclude other people who might not define themselves in precisely those terms. The definition should, and does, apply as much to those who have paid jobs but who wish to do their bit for the community in their spare time as to those who do not work or who are retired.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Earl has been extraordinarily helpful in telling us what Regulation 36 is meant to mean. My first question is: why does it not say that, as opposed to producing a formulation? Your Lordships are used to this sort of stuff. If every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate apart from the noble Earl has found it difficult to follow, I find it difficult to see how people around the country are going to be able to interpret this with the clarity with which the noble Earl has provided us.
Secondly, the noble Earl then said what local Healthwatch organisations can do. He said that they can campaign provided it is evidence-based and draws upon the opinions of local people. Who is to decide that? Is it, for example, the local authority, which might not like the campaign that is being mounted? Is it then going to say, “Well, you are not actually speaking on behalf of the communities you claim to be”?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord’s first point is a fair one. I was coming on to address it as it is quite clear that at least part of the wording of these regulations has seemed complicated and unfathomable to many noble Lords. I have to acknowledge that that is the case.
To address the noble Lord’s other point, we are talking about the difference between being a genuine voice for local people and simply being an adjunct of a political party. Local Healthwatch organisations should not be swayed or influenced by the activities of any political party. They must act independently. The only influence that matters to them is that of local patients and the public in seeking ways to improve the quality of care for people.
In that sense, the regulations tie down a local Healthwatch no more and no less than any other social enterprise. The wording of the regulations has been constructed in a very similar manner to the wording applied to other social enterprises in regulations. Regulations 36(1) and (2), against which so many missiles have been hurled this evening, are designed simply to reflect the standard community benefit test.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, if I have read Healthwatch England’s briefing correctly, it says that social enterprises are being treated differently in this statutory instrument, particularly as regards the 50% that could be retained. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
Earl Howe
I am surprised to hear that. My understanding is that that is not so and that local Healthwatch, as a social enterprise, is being treated on the same footing. My advice is as any other, but if I am wrong about that, naturally I will write to apologise to the noble Lord and copy all speakers into my letter. As I have said, I completely understand that the wording of parts of these regulations appears complicated. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I should say that for that reason I can commit to my officials working with Healthwatch England and the Local Government Association to publish clarificatory material on this.
Having said that, I was slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, cast aspersions on Regulation 41. He asked how small organisations could understand the requirements set out in it. The matters set out in Regulation 41 are matters to be included in local authority contracts with local Healthwatch. In fact, these are based largely on the existing regulations on LINks. I have to say that it has not been previously suggested to us that these have been difficult to understand or are disproportionate.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me who was consulted before the draft regulations were published and whether Healthwatch England was consulted. We consulted a range of stakeholders, including LINks, local authorities, voluntary and community organisations, NALM, Social Enterprise UK, the Charity Commission and providers on the issues relating to the drafting of the local Healthwatch regulations. That included the Healthwatch England interim team.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I have listened very carefully to the Minister, who I know is trying to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. But I still do not understand who exactly judges, in the cases to which he has referred, whether particular campaigns are appropriate, local or acceptable, or whether it would refer to anyone apart from those who may have a role in funding or developing policy to which Healthwatch may object.
Earl Howe
The activities of Healthwatch will be governed by a contract with the local authority. The local authority’s duty will be to hold the local Healthwatch to account according to that contract. If the local Healthwatch were to stray outside the boundaries that I have set out as to what a reasonable person would interpret as legitimate activities and stray into the territory of being a political party adjunct, it would be the duty of the local authority to make a judgment about that. It would be a matter of judgment, but it would be important for the local authority to make its views rapidly known to the local Healthwatch to ensure that it retained the role that it should have, which is a role that primarily involves community benefit. There are checks and balances in the system, and those responsibilities are held primarily by the local authority.
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I must follow up my noble friend’s comments. The noble Earl seems to be saying that if the local authority takes agin what a particular Healthwatch is doing locally, the local authority can say, “Hey guys, your contract’s up and we’re going to retender”.
Earl Howe
That is not what I am saying. As I said earlier, it will be important for a local Healthwatch in any campaigning or public statements to assure itself that it is truly representing local people and patients, and has the evidence to back that up. If it does, and if it can show that what it is saying is genuinely supported by local people, it has nothing to fear. It is only where the Healthwatch may latch on to one or other political party without reference to local people that it may be vulnerable.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I am sorry, my Lords, but the noble Earl is not answering the point about who makes the judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I have served on the same local authority. I can think of occasions when, had he or I joined Healthwatch and formed a campaign, it is quite possible that either he or I on the local authority could have taken a totally different view about what was happening. I want to know who the independent arbiter is of whether the local Healthwatch is actually doing something that it should not do, or something that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, or I did not happen to like, because they are two very different things.
Earl Howe
They are two different things, and I say to the noble Baroness that we are dealing here with a relationship that she may characterise as overly arm’s length. It is in the direct interests of a local authority to make sure that it has a good, thriving relationship with its local Healthwatch but that it is not tarnished by party political considerations that are irrelevant to the concerns of local people. The very fact that a local Healthwatch comes out with a political statement is not to damn its activity. What makes it vulnerable is if that local Healthwatch cannot show that it is truly representing local people as it speaks out. That is a matter of evidence and of fact.
The independent arbitration that the noble Baroness talks about should not be necessary. The matter could, in the final analysis, be decided in a court, although one hopes that that would never happen. However, in the end, the local authority has to exercise its judgment, and in doing so has to act reasonably and in good faith as a public authority. If it does not, it is acting unlawfully. I hope that that is of help to the noble Baroness.
I was asked a number of other questions by my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lady Cumberlege. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked me whether, if there were a controversial policy, say, to close an A&E department, a local Healthwatch would be permitted to provide evidence about patient experiences to campaigners on that issue. Yes. In that scenario, we would envisage a local Healthwatch taking those very views and evidence of good standards of service directly to the commissioners or decision-makers. A local Healthwatch can also make a referral to the health scrutiny function of the local authority, which would be required to keep a local Healthwatch informed of any action taken. If a local Healthwatch thought, as part of its Section 221 activities—patients’ public involvement activities—that local people need to know what their community’s experience of its A&E is, we would certainly expect the local Healthwatch to be transparent and make that evidence known.
My noble friend asked whether people who had been active in a national campaign could be decision-makers in local Healthwatch organisations. The regulations do not set out membership of a local Healthwatch, so it will be down to the local Healthwatch to decide whether such people can add value to the outcomes that it wishes to achieve for its local people. Local Healthwatch has to be different; it has to build up its reputation and credibility in order to secure the public’s confidence that it can have a mature relationship with local authorities, which was the point that I made just now. The regulations seek to ensure that local Healthwatch does not carry out the relevant political activities as its only or main activity. That would not meet the community benefit test.
Would local Healthwatch be subject to purdah? No, it would not. I repeat that it has been set up to be the local consumer champion, and as such its role becomes very important in getting people’s serious concerns listened to and acted upon.
My noble friend Lady Jolly asked me several questions. She expressed the fear that the regulations would render local Healthwatch a mere proxy voice. I emphasise to her in the strongest terms that that is not so. As I have explained, we have sought through the regulations to be as inclusive as possible of people who may wish to give up their time to do what they feel passionately about doing. To be frank, LINks, which is the arrangement that we have at the moment, have all too often been associated with white, middle-class men, and we need local Healthwatch to embrace diversity much better.
Could the manager of a care home sit on its local Healthwatch? Yes, he or she could get involved in their local Healthwatch, but it would be good practice for the Healthwatch in its governance arrangements to have procedures for a code of conduct, and, as set out in Regulation 40, it would be required to have and publish procedures before making any relevant decisions. That is essentially about transparency.
Could a local profit-making provider of primary care be a local Healthwatch contractor, and could its manager sit on the local Healthwatch decision-making group? Again, it would be up to the local Healthwatch whom it wishes to contract with for their expertise to help it deliver its statutory activities.
On the role of local Healthwatch to provide information and signpost people to choices, the decision rests with that individual seeking out the options available to them. We would expect local authorities’ arrangements with local Healthwatch to be robust so that it acts effectively. The local authority will be under a duty to seek to ensure that the arrangements are operating effectively and provide value for money.
My noble friend suggested that the department’s interpretation of lay involvement boils down simply to the foot soldier role. I do not agree. It would be a wrong picture to paint to the public about how a local Healthwatch discharged its obligations. The obligations are quite clear. Engagement, consultation and participation are all words that can be used to describe different types of involvement activity. Referring to “involvement” therefore provides for flexibility, as I indicated earlier.
Could the decisions listed in Regulation 40(2) be made by a decision-making body within a local Healthwatch composed of a majority of people who happen to be health or social care managers? No. Regulation 40(2) must be read with Regulations 40(3), 40(4) and 40(1)(a). The requirement to be imposed on local Healthwatch in the contracts is to have and publish a procedure for involving lay persons or volunteers in such decisions. As stated in the advice to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the plain provision of information would not in most cases comply with the obligation to involve; the involvement has to be in the making of the decisions.
I hope that I have covered satisfactorily all the questions put to me, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will be sufficiently reassured to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank all noble Lords and particularly my noble friends for their comments. I also express my appreciation to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Cumberlege, who drew attention to some fundamental issues here. They are fundamental in relation to the conflicts of interests, particularly in local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to the draconian restrictions and reminded us that guidance does not have statutory force. Here I take the words of Healthwatch England: the Department of Health could and should have done better with these regulations. In my opinion, they have failed. I am afraid that the Minister has not given me satisfactory reassurances, certainly not in relation to the issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Cumberlege, raised. In the light of that, and of the briefing we had from Healthwatch England itself, it is important that the department should think again. The only way I can do that is to ensure that we pass this Motion of Regret, and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Defamation Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(3A) Where a complaint is received by an operator under subsection (3), the operator must publish on their website a notice of complaint alongside the relevant statement and, if the operator fails to do so within seven days of notice of the complaint, the operator will only be entitled to rely on the standard defences available to a primary publisher, if sued for defamation.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment simply asks that where a properly constituted complaint is received, the website operator must post a notice alongside the allegedly defamatory material within seven days, signifying that it is being challenged. Should the website operator fail to do so, he or she would forfeit their particular defence under this clause, although they could still rely on the standard defences available to the primary publisher.
The amendment arises from a recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, in response to which the Government seemed to cite only “issues of practicality”. In Committee, the Minister said that internet organisations,
“identified significant practical and technical difficulties with the proposal relating to the posting of a notice of complaint alongside defamatory material”.
He did, however, have the good grace to add that noble Lords may be saying,
“‘Well, they would say that’”.—[Official Report, 15/1/13; col. GC192.],
although he did not quite add, “wouldn’t they?”. However, when we met with Yahoo, it did not see a problem with our proposal. If it is so easy for an operator to post a comment, it should be no more difficult for it to add a rider simply stating that it is being challenged as defamatory by the person concerned.
Within this group we very much welcome government Amendment 17, which the Minister tabled and will no doubt shortly move. The aim of Clause 5 is simply to ensure that a claimant can find out from the web operator the name and contact details of the person who posted the comment so that they can sort it out between themselves. Provided that they do this, the operator has the defence that the author is the person to be sued. The exception for malice would cover where the operator in some way connived or encouraged the trouncing of someone’s reputation. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on his work in Committee, which I think led to this provision.
For the purposes of time, we did not speak to the amendment just before the dinner break but we were similarly concerned that that might detract from the centrality of this clause, which is to allow the operator to stand back and let the two primary parties resolve the dispute between them. Therefore, although we very much welcomed parts of that amendment, which incorporated the idea of a code, we hope that the operator will wash their hands of the matter unless and until the court finds the defamation proved, when the operator will have to take down the defamation or, assuming that the Government accept our amendment, they will have to put up a note reflecting the fact that there has been a challenge.
I hope very much that the Minister will put the excuse of practicalities to one side and accept Amendment 11. Certainly, we have received no lobbying from any operator arguing against it. It would contribute to dealing with these matters openly, as well as speedily. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 11, I declare an interest in that my day job is working for Facebook—a company that operates a website.
I think that there are some challenges around this proposal. In Grand Committee, in response to amendments proposed by the noble Baroness and her colleagues, we discussed the variety of web services and websites that exist today, and that is where I think there may be a challenge. There are indeed a number of websites that would be amenable to the posting of a notice and where that would be quite straightforward. However, when we consider the vast scope of speech that may exist across the internet, it is clear that we are dealing with a wide variety of services.
The intention behind Clause 5—and it is one that I support—is to make sure that we maximise the opportunities for people to speak freely. There may be cases where we need to interfere but we do not want to overly restrict the opportunities to speak freely and, as we discussed in the previous debate, the intention behind the clause is to ensure that a defence is widely available to such services.
My concern is that, while Amendment 11 would work perfectly well for a number of web services—I suspect the larger, more mature and more sophisticated could implement a system of posting notices in a relatively straightforward manner—there is a whole host of web services of varying shapes and sizes for which this would present a barrier. That would effectively mean that those services would lose the defence—a defence which I think we agreed in a previous debate is important to sustain the notion of free speech.
I understand the noble Baroness’s intention behind the amendment and I imagine that, as a matter of good practice, operators should post such notices where it is reasonable for them to do so. Indeed, Wikipedia has implemented a good practice system so that when content is contested, people are able to discuss it. That kind of good practice is reasonable but I think that restricting the scope of the defence only to services that are able to do that goes further than is sensible if we are to maintain a broad ecosystem of services in which a citizen of the United Kingdom can speak freely without excessive interference from people bringing complaints.
The only other point that I would note from an operator perspective is that every system that is put in place is abused. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has talked about the interests of the “little man” or individual who wishes to make a complaint of defamation. That is absolutely right. However, the experience of web service operators is that some people will try to use any system that you put in place for their own purposes, and I can immediately see the scope for that when I look at this amendment. If you can guarantee that a notice will be published on a website simply by filing a complaint, I can see huge scope for it to be used by those who wish to be aggressive towards people who post content on the internet that they do not like, irrespective of whether there is any kind of substantive defamation claim. Given that the individual filing the complaint faces no penalty in this regime, a complaint can be found groundless but there will be no comeback on the individual who filed it. It would effectively create an avenue for that person to have their content posted alongside that which they do not like. I can certainly imagine that there would be significant instances when it was used in that manner. For those reasons, Amendment 11 would not be helpful to fulfilling the intention of Clause 5.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My noble friend said that he could see the point of this and understood the need for some sort of constraint. What would he do, if this is not the right way? What would be the right way of achieving the general purpose?
Lord Allan of Hallam
The right way is to keep Clause 5 as it is currently drafted. The Government have done a good job in drafting the scope of this defence as an additional measure to those currently available under the e-commerce directive. It makes sense to have this additional defence. My concern is that Amendment 11 would be an additional burden and further restrict the defence only to websites that have the ability to post a notice in this way. I imagine that a significant number of websites which could avail themselves of the defence in Clause 5 would not be able to do so if there were a requirement to post a notice. I can also imagine instances when such a requirement would be abused. It makes sense to leave it to the website operator, once they have received a complaint, to deal with it under Clause 5 as it is. I also think that it would be sufficient to encourage website operators to post notices when things are contested and they believe that a notice would fit with their environment and be helpful. There are instances when you need to mandate something and instances when you want to encourage it as a model of good practice. In the context of notices, the mandated option is wrong and the good practice option is correct.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Having spent about three and a half years attempting to reform the law of defamation, and in the light of what happened on the first amendment today, my overriding objective is to get the Bill through. I want to make it clear that I shall not be moving any of the amendments in my name this evening. I say that now in case anyone else, in their sad lives, wishes to do so. Having thought about it, I take the view that the regime as it stands, with regulations, will be perfectly capable of accommodating some of these issues properly and that we are now being overcareful and overprescriptive. I know that it is very unusual for a member of the Bar to indicate that he is under a decree of self-imposed silence, but that is my position.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam said. He will forgive me if I say that, coupled with what he said in Committee, there seems to be a leitmotif in his objections to amendments that really the industry is too big to control. That has echoes of the banks being too big to fail. The truth is that they are enormous organisations and with that enormity comes enormous power and the ability to inflict enormous damage on occasion.
I like the purport of Amendment 11. It seems right that, while the operator is considering what to do in the longer term, a notice of complaint should be there so that anybody reading the original defamation will see the complaint alongside it. I also understand some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam. Perhaps in responding the Minister will tell us whether under Clause 5(5) it will be possible through regulations to introduce a regime for posting complaints and so on that would be practical in the variety of circumstances to which my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam alluded. That would seem to be the obvious way to go: to take the time to work out a provision that works for all the different types of platform, and at the same time plays fair both by the operator and the complainant.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, again I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I will turn first to government Amendment 17 in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally. I shall speak also to Amendment 11 in this group.
Amendment 17 provides for the defence under Clause 5 to be defeated if the claimant shows that the website operator has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned. We tabled this amendment in response to the concern raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury that situations might arise in which a website operator acts maliciously, for example by inciting the poster to make the posting or otherwise colluding with him. While we consider that these situations are unlikely to be common, on reflection we agreed that in circumstances where a website operator acts maliciously it is right that the defence should be defeated. I thank my noble friend for bringing this issue to the fore.
Amendment 11 was also tabled in Committee. It would require a website operator who wished to rely on the Clause 5 defence to publish a notice of complaint alongside the material complained of within seven days of receipt of the complaint. The amendment also provides that if the website operator fails to post a notice within the set period, they will forfeit this defence and will be able to rely solely on the standard defences available to a primary publisher.
The basis for this amendment is a recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Bill that website operators should attach notices to online material when complaints are received. The Government’s position on this proposal was first set out in our response to the Joint Committee’s report. We repeated our position during the passage of the Bill in this House and the other place. The issue is one of practicality. Ministry of Justice officials received representations from internet organisations following publication of the Joint Committee’s report, highlighting the practical and technical difficulties with the proposal relating to the posting of a notice of complaint alongside defamatory material.
I will go through some obvious concerns that were raised, which may underline the practical issues. First, the point was raised that complained-about content might be embedded in a number of different sites, making it unclear who should be responsible for attaching the notice, where it should be placed and how it could be transferred across to other sites on which the material might subsequently appear. Again, as I said in Committee, I fully appreciate that the argument presents itself as one that it is in the interests of internet organisations.
In Committee we heard various arguments on both sides. My noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam highlighted practical issues from his own experience in the field. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, talked about his daughter’s experience as a graphic designer for websites, and of the complexities of an operator attaching additional content without going back to the original programmer. I also acknowledge fully that my noble friend Lord Lucas expressed the view that it was far from impossible for website operators to attach such notices.
However, I will repeat on the Floor of the House what I said in Committee. The Government’s concerns around the practicality of this proposal have been clear from the publication of our response to the Joint Committee report almost a year ago. In that time nobody has presented to us any persuasive evidence to suggest that those concerns are not warranted.
On the issues raised by my noble friends Lord Allan and Lord Phillips about regulation, perhaps I may come back to them in writing to clarify the position. I have made a note of the suggestions that have been made.
I have listened, as ever, to all of the noble Baroness’s contributions and I am sure that she will say that our position has not changed since Committee stage, which I accept. However, we are where we are on this proposal. I repeat that no one has come to us to present a counterargument. Certainly if they have come forward, their arguments have not been of a persuasive nature. For those reasons, the Government cannot support Amendment 11 and I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and, obviously, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his support and the interesting suggestion about it being in regulations. I congratulate the Government on their consistency. If that is all they have to offer, they may wish to look further.
The amendment relates only to subsection (3). In a situation where it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement, the claimant has given the operator a notice of complaint and the operator failed to respond to that in accordance with regulations, we ask that a notice is posted—it could be just a little red spot—that says “challenged by”.
I am concerned that the Government have met with the internet operators and, with no one else coming forward—we did not know that the meetings were taking place and were not asked to produce extra information—that they have taken the internet operators’ view on this as the one which will guide their hands.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
In today’s International Herald Tribune there was a long editorial about the great superiority of the European approach to dealing with privacy on the internet compared with how the American Government were dealing with their internet operators. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Just talking to internet operators suggests that you are not agreeing with even the opinions of the New York Times.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am always happy to have the New York Times on my side. Clearly, however, the Government value internet operators and particularly value being consistent. On that basis, I fear that I must withdraw the amendment this evening.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“(6A) Regulations may make provision about the circumstances in which a notice which is not a notice of complaint is to be treated as a notice of complaint for the purposes of this section or any provision made under it.”
Lord Lucas
“( ) Regulations may make provision for a procedure whereby—
(a) a complainant may apply to the court for a declaration that his complaint meets the basic requirements of a libel claim; or(b) a website operator or the person who posted the statement complained of may apply to the court for a negative declaration that a notice of complaint fails to meet the basic requirements of a libel claim,provided in each case that the party making the application complies with the procedure laid down in any such regulations.”
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I was hoping to get some explanation of Amendment 15 as we have not debated it. I rather wonder why it was moved formally.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
Because we want to get home before 3 am.
Lord Lucas
Well, let me delay things a little—but not for long.
We have had a long debate and a great deal of discussion about this but it appears to me that the regulations as they are will not allow the Government to give website operators, such as myself and others, the comfort we need to be able to keep postings in place when we are challenged as to whether they should be and we think that they are fair comment. We need some way of discovering whether the law is on our side or against us. The amendment is intended to allow the Government to frame regulations that would give us that comfort and allow us to allow others freedom of speech. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his forbearance in the various attempts I have made to persuade him to adopt this procedure.
I raised the issue of the declaration procedure in Grand Committee. However, this amendment widens out the wording of the amendment that I proposed then. Proposed new paragraph (b) would allow either a website operator or the author of a statement to apply to query the contents of a notice of complaint.
I emphasise that this procedure will be voluntary and should not be available to decide whether or not a statement is true, or any other issue that needs a contested hearing. It is simply a quick process to decide whether the claimant has demonstrated a prima facie case. It would not necessarily lengthen the notice of complaint process as it should be issued at the same time as the notice of complaint is sent to the poster. It would run in tandem with the Clause 5 procedure.
There are concerns that this amendment might allow the website operator almost routinely to choke off the notice of complaint process by turning instantly to the declaration procedure. However, for website operators to use the procedure routinely would be to shoot themselves in the foot. The claimant could get a positive declaration, which would not only reinforce his case but give him an official document to send to other website operators showing that he met the basic requirements, which could be used in dealing with repeat postings of the statement on other websites.
As for concerns about the expense, I have suggested that the declaration procedure goes before the masters or a procedural judge. I am assured that despite the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in Grand Committee, who was worried that it would be very expensive, that a web-based procedure could be developed for as little as £25.
I ask the Minister to consider once again whether such a procedure could be included in the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, Amendment 16 would allow the regulations governing the Clause 5 process to provide for a procedure for a complainant, website operator or person who posted the statement complained of to seek a court declaration as to whether the complaint meets the basic requirements of a libel claim.
This amendment seems to envisage the creation of a system whereby, alongside the Clause 5 process, any party can seek a court declaration on a prima facie basis. It is difficult to see what incentive there would be for a complainant to do this. Such a declaration would not be determinative of the merits of the case or affect the availability of the Clause 5 defence, and so it would potentially just be an additional—and costly—step before registering a notice of complaint. Instead, the proposal appears primarily to be aimed at helping website operators to make informed decisions as to the strength of complaints so that they can be more confident in removing material or leaving it online depending on whether or not a declaration is granted.
We have serious practical concerns about this proposal. It has been suggested that the process could operate through consideration by a High Court master, on the papers, at very short notice and on payment of a nominal court fee. That seems unrealistic. We consider that it does not adequately take account of the time the process would take, given the significant additional burden on the courts, the extent of the evidence that could be needed to reach a decision and the consequent costs to the parties involved. There is also the possibility of rulings being appealed, which could add to the time and costs involved. Bearing in mind that the prima facie declaration would not be determinative of the merits of a case, it is difficult to see how that is warranted.
In any event, we do not consider that this additional process is needed. Clause 5 is intended to operate in such a way as to avoid website operators having to make decisions about the merits of defamatory complaints. The representations we received from many website operators during consultation on the draft Bill indicated that they did not have sufficient knowledge to make these judgments and that it was not appropriate for them to be doing so.
In response, we have sought to create a simple, quick, cheap and effective means for the complainant to request the removal of defamatory material and for the poster to engage with this request and stand by his posting if he wishes to do so. We think it is right to remove the website operator from the process as far as possible, so that if they follow the process as will be set out in regulations they will have a defence against a defamation action.
Of course, if for business reasons a website operator wishes to protect their users because doing so helps them financially, there is nothing in Clause 5 that will stop them from doing so. However, we do not think that an amendment to support them in doing so is appropriate.
I say again that the Government believe that the Clause 5 process, which, as I explained, focuses on creating a system under which website operators do not have to reach judgments on the validity of complaints, is a preferable approach which will be fair to all parties involved and will deliver additional certainty and protection for website operators. We believe that it is simpler and will not involve the cost and delay of the system envisaged under Amendment 16. With the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that. I say as an aside that I always considered that the business of this House was to consider a Bill properly, not to get home to bed, and that we should take the time that it takes. Perhaps my noble friend will give me at least a short explanation of Amendment 22 when we get there, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“(9A) The defence under this section is defeated if the claimant shows that the operator of the website has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
I note what my noble friend said. I remind him of the very thorough examination that we gave to Clause 5 in Committee, but I take his strictures; I will stay as long as he likes.
During discussion in Committee on amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, relating to the defence under Clause 6 for peer-reviewed material in scientific and academic journals, uncertainty arose as to whether the reference to journals in Clause 6 includes journals published in electronic form. As I indicated in my response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it does. However, to avoid any uncertainty on the point and to ensure that the position is clear, Amendment 18 confirms that that is the case.
I have had helpful discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord May, who unfortunately cannot be with us today, on the amendments that the noble Lord tabled in Committee. In the light of that discussion I would like to make clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the term, “scientific and academic journals” embraces journals in the very important fields of engineering and medicine and that any peer-reviewed material published by scientific and academic bodies in the form of a journal, whether electronic or otherwise, is covered by the clause.
We think it right that the defence under Clause 6 should be carefully controlled and not extended to discussion on scientific or academic issues more generally. However, we are confident that, in addition to the specific protection provided by the clause, other provisions in the Bill, such as the serious harm test in Clause 1 and the public interest defence in Clause 4, will provide more effective protection of the scientific and academic debate, as well as encouraging freedom of expression in other areas. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I support the amendment. I just want to explain that there are important organisations in, for example, engineering and medicine. I trained as an engineer and had discussion with the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. They have electronic journals, which are used for highly peer-reviewed discussion of important technical issues. Similarly, there are in medicine. The way that the Minister has explained the application of the law will be very useful for those organisations which currently have to spend significant time and money on legal clarification before they publish technical commentary on current issues. That will be useful for many professional bodies, including academic bodies. I warmly welcome the Minister’s remarks and the amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, Amendment 18 provides usual clarification and we support it. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hunt for engaging in this issue in Grand Committee and for the way in which he has been so useful to your Lordships’ House and to his fellow experts and professionals, particularly in the engineering and medical disciplines.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, Amendment 19 relates to an issue raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The Defamation Act 1996 gives a defence of qualified privilege to fair and accurate reports of proceedings at a general meeting of a UK public company, and to copies of and extracts from various documents circulated to members of such a company. Clause 7(7) extends this protection more widely to cover reports in relation to companies listed on recognised stock exchanges worldwide and to summaries of such material. This includes material,
“circulated to members of a listed company which relates to the appointment, resignation, retirement or dismissal of directors of the company”.
Amendment 19 would, in addition, extend qualified privilege to material relating to the appointment, resignation, retirement or dismissal of the company’s auditors. When my noble friend raised this issue in Grand Committee, it was suggested that the existing provisions of Clause 7(7) might already cover it. We considered that in circumstances where this information was contained in documents circulated to members of a company by or with the authority of the board of directors or by the auditors, it would be covered by paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act. However, circumstances where the information was published without the authority of the board of directors would not be covered so, on reflection, we consider it desirable to extend the provision to cover these additional situations. This would be in line with the more general government policy to increase the transparency of interactions between companies and their auditors. I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion in this respect and I beg to move this amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I cannot be briefer than that, my Lords. We also welcome the amendment. It is small and sensible, and it reflects the Government’s willingness to listen to the House. In case I do not have the time to say that on another occasion on this Bill, I would like to say that there has been a lot of listening. More should be expected of auditors and their records should be open to scrutiny, so anything which allows wider discussions of their shortcomings can only be a good thing.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“(a) is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher;(b) there is a prima facie case that the statement complained of is defamatory; and (c) is satisfied that such person did not know that the statement was defamatory until a claim to that effect was made and did not reasonably believe that there was a good defence to any action brought upon it.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, Amendment 20 would require a prima facie case to be made before a claim can be brought against a bookseller. As I had hoped would be the case for a similar amendment in Grand Committee, it allows the Minister to explain in more detail the difference between the 1996 law and the current Bill on the defence of innocent dissemination. I know that the Minister is familiar with my argument in relation to this amendment but if your Lordships will indulge me, despite the lateness of the hour, it is worth at least explaining again in outline what that argument is.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was passed, as was explained by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern,
“to provide a modern equivalent of the common law defence of innocent dissemination”.—[Official Report, 2/4/96; col. 214.]
There is no express provision in the Act itself that abolishes the common-law defence of innocent dissemination, and it is clear from paragraph 2.6 of the consultation on the draft Bill, which was published in July 1995, entitled Reforming Defamation Law and Procedure, that, in introducing the Bill into Parliament, the Government intended that the Act, as the then Lord Chancellor said, would supersede, replace and modernise the existing law. The legislation that was eventually passed does not expressly provide for the abolition of the common-law defence, and it is argued that it should not be treated as having done so impliedly.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I rise to point out a bit of a car crash in Amendment 20 and Clause 10 in the light of Amendment 17, in which the Government, to the approbation of the House, introduced the issue of malice. If the operator of a website was actuated by malice, it will deprive him of his defence. That is no longer consistent with the provisions in Clause 10(1), because in effect it says that you cannot sue,
“unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher”.
So far this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has discussed Clause 10 and his Amendment 20 exclusively in terms of booksellers, but it applies equally to website operators. It will completely undo the introduction of the issue of malice into Clause 5 if Clause 10 allows an operator to avoid being sued for having allowed something to be posted with malice on the part of the operator if, in the language of Clause 10(1), it is reasonably practicable to sue the author, editor or publisher. I apologise for not having picked this up earlier, but we need to do something about it. It also infects Amendment 20, where the same issue prevails.
I have a second issue. I am sorry to have to object to this amendment, but in proposed paragraph (c) in Amendment 20, there is a “not” in the first line that should not be there. As worded, it would mean that a court would not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint unless, among other things, it was satisfied that the bookseller,
“did not know that the statement was defamatory”,
et cetera. The point surely must be that the bookseller did know that the statement was defamatory. I do not quite know what we do at this time of night on Report, but if I am correct, and I have a horrible feeling that I am, it undermines both the amendment and the present state of Clause 10.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I agree with the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Browne. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has made a point about the confusion between the interpretation on the websites and in this amendment with regard to books. This is about whether the statement is known to be defamatory. I want to raise an unusual matter; I believe this House made a defamatory statement in the very committee that was set up to review the situation.
Noble Lords will know of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions. In pre-legislative scrutiny, it took evidence from a Mr Burby on super-injunctions. His first piece of evidence was entirely about super-injunctions, which anyone could give. His supplementary evidence was about himself. The courts had told him, after his acts of blackmail and harassment, that under the injunction he could not make any of these statements publicly. So he came along to the Joint Committee and gave the evidence at a meeting chaired by Mr Whittingdale. In his supplementary evidence, he repeated all the things that the court had told him he was under an injunction not to say anything about. He repeated evidence about the allegations and the whole case which the courts were considering.
The lawyers of the lady who was the subject of these charges objected to his evidence. I am most concerned that not only did he repeat them as evidence but that the Daily Telegraph, true to form, then printed them, arguing that they were covered by parliamentary privilege. Simply because he had given evidence to the Joint Committee, he claimed parliamentary privilege.
In the other place, normally if a case is under way it is considered by the Speaker to be sub judice and cannot be discussed, so there is no conflict between the court and Parliament. In this case, the lawyers of the lady concerned complained to the Joint Committee, which chose to go ahead and publish, again arguing parliamentary privilege. I was concerned about this and asked the Clerk of the Parliaments how this could happen. I asked him why it is not ruled that the committee publishing evidence on its website, citing all those things which the court has told the witness he cannot say, is able to say that the injunction does not matter because we are the ones who make the decision here. That evidence is still being published today. It is on a website now in the name of this House, and it repeats all the things that the court said could not be printed.
This raises a number of issues. When I approached David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments, he said, “Oh, well, it is very difficult, but you can discuss it when the report comes to this House”. Well, the report did not come to this House. While the other place had a chance to discuss it, we did not, simply because the Easter holidays came along, or whatever it was. I was told I could discuss it when we came back. The House of Commons quickly moved on to Second Reading, so I was denied the opportunity of raising this important issue here as the Clerk of Parliaments had suggested.
Now we have the Bill here. Because I am in the Council of Europe, I am unable to take on the obligations to go to the committee all the time. I think the House will understand that, but that means that the matter must be raised here.
This raises some pretty fundamental issues. In the other place, it is certainly the convention that if you discuss an issue that is under an injunction, it is considered sub judice. The Speaker will intervene and say that you cannot discuss it, although that has been breached a few times; a Member of Parliament from Leeds made the point about the footballer and the super-injunction.
The issue here is a discussion by the Joint Committee about super-injunctions. The allegations that Mr Burby repeated were not subject to a super-injunction, although he alleged that they were. The courts have since made clear that there was no super-injunction. It was simply an injunction, which basically means that it was not relevant to the Joint Committee’s inquiry but the committee chose to ignore that. Mr Whittingdale in his statement says again that it was a super-injunction. I am afraid that the courts have made clear that it was not, so it really is not right for us to publish evidence that continues to be available on a website—I even have a copy of it today—making all these claims which the courts have said should not be repeated.
I say to the Minister that clearly somebody needs to sort this out. It is a difficult problem, and something that is increasingly breached. MPs decide to get a bit of publicity, because that it what it is about, and name somebody before the Speaker can stop them. I do not know what the position is in the House of Lords, but it is clearly an issue.
Finally, I would like to see that evidence, which is being published in our name, removed. That act of publication is breaching the injunction that has been laid down, and Parliament does it with a certain amount of contempt. I hope that the Minister might look into this matter and find out what the circumstances are. Perhaps he could let me know if he is satisfied or whether it is under review. I bring it to the attention of this House on this occasion, and I am sorry to burden your Lordships with it so late in the night.
Lord McNally
Perhaps I may try to deal immediately with the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I am not quite clear which committee received this evidence.
Lord Prescott
It was the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions chaired by Mr Whittingdale.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord will know that we recently set up a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. To a certain extent, I am flying blind but I certainly think that his point should be drawn to the attention of that committee. I am a member of the Privileges Committee of this House and I will draw his remarks to that committee’s attention as well. It is a very difficult area. As he said, we have had one or two examples of honourable Members and noble Lords pushing the envelope as regards parliamentary privilege, which is one of the reasons why the Joint Committee was set up. I believe that this is the first example of a member of the public abusing it in that way. The noble Lord’s remarks certainly should be looked at by both committees.
As regards the eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and possible contradictions, perhaps I may consult the parliamentary draftsmen on whether he is right. We still have time before Third Reading to iron out any wrinkles that he or others have spotted.
On the central issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I will try again to see whether he is any more satisfied. As he explained, the amendment is at least in part an attempt to codify the defence of innocent dissemination. We explained in Committee, and previously in the other place, the Government’s concern about a provision such as this, which requires the court, as part of an assessment on jurisdiction, to assess at least to some extent the merits of the case before it. We think that such an approach has the potential to be unnecessarily confusing.
However, I will focus my response on the substantive issue at hand here—the defence of innocent dissemination. We have acknowledged the debate that exists over the terms of Section 1 of the 1996 Act and how this compares to the common law defence. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked me to be “more courageous” in articulating how the Government saw Section 1 and the common law interrelating. When this House was considering what became Section 1 of the 1996 Act in Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Lord Chancellor at the time, indicated that the Act would “supersede” and “replace and modernise” the existing law. There was debate at the time as to quite what the test for innocent dissemination was and whether Section 1 properly captured it. The Government of the day took the view that it did but the debate continues.
Under Section 1, a secondary publisher is at risk of liability once it is put on notice that a statement is defamatory. It is argued that, at common law, the secondary publisher retains the innocent dissemination defence provided it honestly and reasonably believes that a defence is available in respect of that publication. Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy describes the Section 1 defence as generally being more generous to secondary publishers. On this issue, however, it suggests that while the position is not without doubt, the better view is that the Section 1 defence is more easily lost than innocent dissemination at common law. Gatley on Libel and Slander takes the view that it is “possible” that the statutory defence is narrower than the common law in this respect.
The Government’s view is that it is right to say that Section 1 has, in effect, superseded the common law defence of innocent dissemination. As I have tried to illustrate, the position at common law prior to the 1996 Act was not as clear as certain lobby groups would like to suggest. We could have explored the option of extending the Section 1 defence but, as with Clause 5, the Government have taken the view that the better approach is to remove the secondary publisher from the process.
We believe that the approach that we have adopted in Clause 10 will provide effective additional protection for secondary publishers such as booksellers. It is consistent with the approach that we have taken elsewhere in the Bill in that the focus is on directing the claimant towards those who are actually responsible for the defamatory material. In the unlikely event that it is not reasonably practicable to sue the author, editor or publisher, Clause 10 allows a claimant to bring an action against a secondary publisher such as a bookseller. However, nothing in the clause would then prevent that bookseller from deploying any defences that may be available to him. We believe that this is a proportionate approach that is fair to all those concerned.
I will say in addition that in my discussions and evidence regarding the point that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made about the intimidation of booksellers, the sending of a letter on high-quality, posh paper represents a kind of bullying. I hope that this clause and what I have said will give booksellers the protection to resist that and that they can use the protections in the Bill against such intimidation. I have tried to be as candid and clear as I can to the noble Lord about our approach to this. Whether it is courageous enough, I do not know.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with the spirit of the amendment, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for engaging with its detail, and to my noble friend Lord Prescott for seeking the opportunity that it provided for him to exercise another issue. I hope he is satisfied that he has raised an important and serious issue. It is to be hoped that the broader consultation and debate on privilege that the Government are undertaking will deal with that among other things. We certainly should not have a situation where, by our own actions, we defeat the law that we pass.
On this occasion, I say with respect that the Minister has engaged more with the detail of the argument than he has done before. I think that he appreciates that. He and I have been partial in our quotation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, from when, as Lord Chancellor, he introduced the 1996 Defamation Bill to this House. There are other quotations from the noble and learned Lord that I could play into the debate, which might get us back to the situation that we were in not so long ago in our deliberations on Report—quotations from the same judge that could be used to support two different sides of the argument. However, I have no intention of trying to replicate that interesting Alice in Wonderland environment that lawyers can sometimes create.
The Minister has probably been more courageous on this occasion. As regards the Booksellers Association, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said—that this provision applies to other secondary publishers, although I might say in passing that I am not sure that his interpretation of Amendment 17 is correct. However, we will perhaps return to that. I hope that booksellers will be satisfied. I have enormous sympathy for this group of people, who are at the mercy of a collision between two others. They are—if I may say so with respect to website operators—less culpable or less engaged in that process than perhaps website operators could be. There are some website operators whose very business plan encourages them to go to the margins and sometimes beyond the limits of what is allowed without remarks being deemed defamatory. Booksellers are not in that situation. They are one of many groups of people whom we are trying to improve and clarify the law to support.
I shall go back to those whom I have been engaged with to see whether they are satisfied, but, at the very least, we should strive with this Bill to put them in the position that they were in with the defence of innocent dissemination. I think that they will be comforted by the fact that the Minister has made it clear that it was his aim with this—I might say, although it does not sound like it—very welcome provision to codify that defence among other things. They are generally very pleased with the provision but would like it to be perfect—but then would not we all? In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, in moving the amendment, I refer to the declaration of interests that I made when speaking to the first group of amendments that we considered today. It was a matter of great regret to me that the fallout from the Leveson inquiry and the need to make swift progress on a new regulatory system occupied me fully before and after Christmas and meant that I was unable to attend proceedings in Grand Committee. It was a particular regret that I was unable to provoke wider debate about Clause 12, about which I expressed concerns at Second Reading, calling it,
“inimical to any basic concept of editorial and press freedom”.—[Official Report, 9/10/12; col. 963.]
I contemplated moving to have the clause removed, but I fear that that ship has sailed. If the clause is to remain part of the Bill, an important amendment needs to be made to it to deal with a situation where defamation cases go up through the court system to appeal. The Bill as it is currently drafted holds out the prospect of a publication having to publish something which is later quashed either in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
I imagine that the intention behind the Bill is for this power, which I still believe is a draconian power, to apply only after the final disposal of a case where appeals have been exhausted or after the time limit for an appeal has expired. This modest amendment to Clause 12(1) would deal with this point. I would be grateful if the Minister had any comments to make or could consider the point before Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that I oppose the amendment for the simple reason that it is quite well established, certainly in my experience of the practice of the law, that if a particular element of a judgment which is under appeal is not to be effective, it is open to the party appealing to ask the court to suspend the application of that part pending the appeal. That is the way in which provisions of the law operate in many other areas of life, and I see no reason why this provision should be any different.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, has made it clear that he opposes the provision completely, but thinks that it should be stated explicitly that it can apply only on a final judgment, which means after the last appeal. However, I say with respect to him that publishers or those who hold the cards, as it were, should be in no better a position than anybody else who has a judgment against them pending appeal. I cannot for the life of me imagine that they would not be successful in suspending the application of that part, but it should be matter for the courts on an application for appeal rather than for this Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I start by thanking my noble friend for tabling the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his timely intervention. Amendment 21 would provide that a court may order a defendant to publish a summary of the court’s judgment only where it has given a final judgment for the claimant in an action for such a defamation. The aim of this amendment appears to be to prevent the court ordering the publication of a summary of its judgment while there remains the possibility of the defendant appealing the ruling. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has already said, I can assure my noble friend that this amendment is not necessary. As is the case in any other civil proceedings, a party seeking to appeal a decision may apply under Part 52.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules to have an order or decision of the lower court stayed. In considering whether to grant a stay, the court will be required to consider all the circumstances of the case, including whether it would create an injustice to enforce the terms of the judgment while an appeal is outstanding. We therefore see no basis for treating an order under Clause 12 any differently. I hope that with that reassurance and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the point, and for the assurances from my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
(b) any person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the defamatory statement to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the statement.(1A) In this section “author”, “editor” and “publisher” have the same meaning as in section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, Clause 13 currently enables the court to order the operator of a website to remove defamatory material in circumstances where a claimant successfully brings proceedings against the poster of defamatory material online. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the question specifically of whether this provision could be extended to cover situations where a claimant successfully brings an action against the publisher of offline material, but a secondary publisher refuses to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the defamatory statement. Clause 10 would prevent an action for defamation being brought against the secondary publisher if it was reasonably practicable to sue the primary publisher. While in the great majority of cases it is likely that secondary publishers would act responsibly and remove material when requested to do so, we consider it desirable to close any possible loophole. Amendment 22 is intended to capture any situation where the material in question is publicly disseminated by a secondary publisher. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, for the reasons that the Minister spelt out, I strongly welcome this amendment. I thank the Minister for listening so carefully to the argument put before him in Committee and responding in this way.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am just nitpicking again but we might as well get this right. I think the amendment should start by saying that in line 4 an “(a)” should be inserted after the word “order”. There is no “(a)” to balance the “(b)” introduced by Amendment 22. As I say, that is nitpicking but I am sure I am right. We better get it right for Third Reading.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Let me assure my noble friend that, whether it is an “(a)” or a “(b)”, I am sure the officials have taken note and will seek to correct that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“Disapplication of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
Sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 shall not apply in relation to civil actions for defamation or malicious falsehood.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, the effect of Amendment 23 would be to disapply the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act in relation to defamation claims. The roots of this debate go back some time.
The roots of this debate go back some time. The Minister will be very familiar with his contribution to the debate on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 27 March 2012, when he gave an assurance to the House on the issue of the disapplication of LASPO, as it has become known, and that in relation to defamation claims it would be dealt with in the context of the Defamation Bill. Repeatedly, our party has sought to persuade the Government that the appropriate way in which to live up the assurance given by the Minister was simply to disapply the provisions of LASPO to defamation claims in the Defamation Bill. However, there have been a number of developments. Since we last tried unsuccessfully in the Grand Committee to persuade the Minister to do that, there has been a commencement provision of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which has a saving provision in it in relation to publication and privacy proceedings, defined in the commencement order as including defamation. So far, so good. However, there is still the possibility that a further commencement order may be made at some time in the future to commence the provisions of Sections 44 and 46 of the said Act in relation to publication and privacy proceedings.
The amendment provides the Minister with the opportunity to finish speculation about that possibility for ever by, in this provision, disapplying the provisions of that Act to defamation proceedings. If he cannot do that, second best would be to have an assurance that there will be no commencement order in relation to publication and privacy proceedings and defamation at some time in future. What would reinforce the argument for that are the recommendations of the Leveson report, which specifically deal with that issue. However, since we last met in Grand Committee and since the commencement order was passed, we have had another development—the passing in this House some five or six hours ago of Amendment 1 to this Bill, which not only deals with the issue of costs for defamation but deals with early dispute resolution, introducing arbitration proceedings. That has changed the environment in which this amendment was proposed. It is almost certain now that, whatever else happens, the issue of costs in defamation actions will have to be returned to again in the context of this Bill, either to modify the amended Bill as it presently stands or to do something else. I am not suggesting anything at the moment, having successfully stayed out of that debate thus far and hoped to keep myself in that position. I am minded at this stage to treat this to some degree as a marker, recognising that this issue will have to be debated, considered and legislated on in some fashion or other before the Bill can be completed. In the mean time, as this amendment is the only vehicle that I have to make this point, I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I think that it was at an early stage of this Bill that I made it very clear that I was concerned with the matter of costs. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, raised that in the debate on Clause 1 today. Everybody has recognised that this has been one of the key issues that have brought our libel laws into disrepute, and editors and journalists as well as ordinary citizens have long warned about the chilling effect of the current libel regime.
Although I do not object at all to the prodding from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I hope he knows that in this respect he is pushing at an open door. He knows that the way that we have chosen to go was to ask the Civil Justice Council to look at how the Government can introduce a costs protection regime in defamation and privacy cases. The Master of the Rolls will report back to us with its suggestions by the end of March.
In the mean time, the Government have agreed that the provisions of the LASPO Act will not apply until a costs protection regime has been implemented. As the noble Lord indicated, the commencement order for this, which was laid on 18 January, includes a definition of “publication proceedings” and the cases to which the exemption will apply when Part 2 of the Act comes into force on 1 April. I should add that the Government’s definition goes wider than that proposed by Amendment 23.
Under our proposals, defamation and privacy cases will not feature as a permanent exemption from the LASPO Act, as this amendment seeks to apply. Instead, we will ensure that costs protection is in place so that anyone who needs to have security against adverse costs receives it. This will happen later in the year. This costs protection regime will apply to defendants as well as to claimants because defamation and privacy cases can affect academics, NGOs and ordinary people just as much as they can the super-rich and big businesses. The case for costs protection is even greater in these circumstances because an individual of modest means needs the assurance that if they have a good case that they need to pursue or defend, they will be able to do so without the risk of facing unaffordable costs.
The CJC will advise on the details by Easter. When the Government have properly considered the CJC’s proposals, the Civil Procedure Rules will be amended to introduce costs protection. As I say, we hope to be able to do that later in the year, but the current CFA and ATE arrangements will continue in place until then.
I once more reiterate to the House that I understand the concerns about access to justice in these cases. That is why we have taken the action I have outlined and it is why I am confident that we will be able to bring forward fully considered proposals which will ensure a proper and effective costs protection regime. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his response. I think he knows that my view is that the undertaking in relation to costs protection is part of the answer but that this is a bigger problem than just costs protection. It is my ambition that the Government will be prepared to consider the disapplication of the provisions of the LASPO Act in all respects to the other parts of the challenges of defamation costs. Those costs are at the root of the problem of access to justice, which concerns the ability of people who do not otherwise have the resource to find solicitors who are prepared to take these sorts of actions on conditional fee arrangements and other arrangements. That should be reflected in the whole structure of costs.
I understand the effect of Amendment 1 well enough to know that this issue is not dead. I believe that we will need to return to this matter in some detail to deal with the way that the Bill has now been amended. I hope that the Government will apply their mind to that as quickly as possible and that we will see some movement. I am therefore confident that this is not the last word. It may be the Government’s last word but it will not be the last word on these issues. I shall continue to try to persuade the Minister of what I believe he already agrees with, although I have no desire to speak for him.
In the light of the fact that there will be further and probably better opportunities to deal with this issue in a more holistic fashion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
“SCHEDULESpecialist Arbitration Service1 An Independent Regulatory Board must provide an Arbitration Service in relation to defamation and related civil legal claims drawing on independent legal experts on a cost-only basis to the subscribing member.
2 The arbitration rules must provide for a fair, quick and inexpensive process, which is inquisitorial and free for complainants to use (save for a power to make an adverse order for the costs of the arbitrator if proceedings are frivolous or vexatious).
3 The arbitrator shall have the powers set out in section 48(3) to (5) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
4 The arbitrator must be able to hold hearings where necessary or dispense with them where not necessary.
5 The process must include provision for frivolous or vexatious claims to be struck out at an early stage.”
“SCHEDULERecognition Commission1 This Schedule provides the method by which the Recognition Commission may be constituted for the purposes of this Act.
2 Appointments to membership of the Recognition Commission will be made by the Lord Chief Justice.
3 An individual may be appointed only if he or she has consented to act and is—
(a) a present or former Civil Service Commissioner;(b) a present or former holder of high judicial office (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005); or(c) a person who in the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice is suitable for appointment having regard to their reputation and experience and is independent of all political parties and all media organisations.4 The Recognition Commission must consider whether an Independent Regulatory Board body has—
(a) sufficient guarantees of independence, including suitable independent, fair and transparent procedures for appointments and funding,(b) suitable functions, powers, personnel and resources to ensure that it can fulfil its principal objects effectively,(c) an appropriate standards code, (d) an arbitration service able to deal with defamation and related civil claims, effective processes for upholding standards,(e) an efficient procedure for handling complaints, and(f) is open to all news publishers.5 The Recognition Commission must review a recognised regulator at least once during the period of two years beginning with the date of certification, and at intervals of not more than three years after that.
6 If having reviewed a body the Recognition Commission is no longer satisfied that it complies with paragraph 4, the Recognition Commission must consult the body and give directions designed to ensure that the body complies with paragraph 4 within a reasonable time.
7 If the body fails to comply with directions given under paragraph 6 the Recognition Commission must revoke the body’s certification.
8 The Recognition Commission shall not be involved in the regulation of any subscriber to an Independent Regulatory Board.”